Illinois’ Republican U.S. Senator Mark Kirk has gone and done it again. He has once again revealed his traitorous willingness to embrace all things homosexual. This time it’s Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) about which Kirk made this feckless statement:
I strongly oppose what Governor Pence did. We should not enshrine bigotry under the cover of religion. It’s not just bad practice – it’s un-American.
Yes, there’s nothing quite so un-American as that pesky First Amendment of which Indiana’s RFRA offers some measure of reinforcement against the tyranny of religious bigotry and big government intrusion. Kirk believes that reinforcing the First Amendment to protect the free exercise of religion from anti-religious bigotry constitutes bigotry.
Though Indiana’s RFRA law offers a measure of protection to all religious minorities, the issue has been turned into an anti-homosexual issue by the anti-orthodox Christian bigotry of homosexuals, and there’s nothing Kirk is quite as fond of as embracing all things homosexual at every political turn.
Indiana’s RFRA has no language about homosexuality and does not include the devious political, legal, and rhetorical (and ontological) term “sexual orientation.” So why the fake hysteria from homosexual activists and the ignorant statements from the quisling Kirk?
The reason is simple. The only group currently engaged in attacking the free exercise of religion systematically through fallacious arguments and tyrannical legislative and judicial actions are homosexuals. We’re not seeing weekly news reports of Sikhs, Muslims, Jehovahs Witnesses, or peyote-smoking Indians being denied their right to freely exercise their religion.
No, what we’re seeing are homosexuals engaged in galling acts of discrimination based on religion perpetrated against orthodox Christians. These Christians have not refused to serve homosexuals. They have refused to provide goods and services for a particular type of activity that offends the God they serve.
The fear of homosexuals is not that they will be refused service at lunch counters or employment at Apple. Their fear is that any vestige of disapproval of homosexual activity—including their faux-“marriages”—will remain visible on the cultural landscape. If their dream of turning America into a sexual wasteland may be thwarted by orthodox Christians exercising their religious liberty through their business decisions, then they’re going to dismantle the Free Exercise Clause by hook and by ethical crookedness.
Here are other actions taken by quisling Kirk in the service of advancing his pet “progressive” cause:
- Kirk was one of only 11 Republican senators to vote last week for an amendment to grant married same-sex couples full access to Social Security and veterans benefits.
- Kirk recently signed an amicus brief, filed in the DeBoer v. Snyder case currently before the U.S. Supreme Court, in support of homosexual couples’ “right” to marry.
- Kirk was the lead Republican sponsor of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), which passed the Senate in 2013.
- Kirk was a co-sponsor of the thought crimes bill hate crimes bill, known euphemistically as the Matthew Shepard Act, which passed in 2010 (you remember Matthew Shepard, the young man tortured and left to die in Laramie Wyoming, and who became a mythologized martyr by homosexuals who will exploit any deaths of homosexuals for their pernicious purposes. For a more credible account of Shepard’s tragic life and death written by a homosexual man, click here)
- Kirk co-sponsored the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) in 2007.
- Kirk voted NO on Constitutionally defining marriage as one man/one woman in 2006.
- Kirk is rated 78 percent by the radical Human Rights Campaign (HRC), the $40+ million annual homosexual lobby based in Washington D.C.
- Kirk abruptly canceled a reservation for a meeting room on Capitol Hill for the conservative Rockford-based Howard Center for Family, Religion and Society, issuing a statement accusing the conservative organization of advancing “a hateful agenda.”
On occasion Kirk’s attention turns to other issues not strictly homosexual but that share in common his desire to neuter the Free Exercise Clause. Following the Hobby Lobby U.S. Supreme Court victory, Kirk was one of only three Republicans to vote in favor of the “Not My Bosses’ Business Act,” which “would have clarified that no federal law allows companies to refuse follow Obamacare’s contraception mandate—even if the owners have strong religious convictions against abortifacients” (Illinois Review).
IFI warned Illinois voters that Mark Kirk was a traitor to conservatism and truth and that he would do damage to the only party willing to stand up for marriage, life, and religious liberty. His decisions harm America and pollute the party. If conservatives had facilitated a win by a Democrat against Kirk, the GOP would be fervently preparing to field a challenger. Once, however, a Republican is in office—even if it’s a quisling like Kirk—the GOP will do virtually nothing to unseat him. Too many in the GOP believe the lie that a bad Republican in office is always better than a Democrat. Princeton University law professor and eloquent defender of life and marriage, Robert George, begs to differ.
He offered these comments in regard to a California congressional race last November between a homosexual Republican candidate and a Democrat:
If I were in the district, I could not in conscience vote for the Republican. His election would do greater harm to the causes of life, marriage, and religious liberty than would the election of his Democratic opponent, as bad as that guy himself is on these issues. The question is whether to abstain or to cast a tactical vote in favor of the Democrat. In circumstances like these, I believe that tactical voting is morally permissible, and it would improve the likelihood of the least bad outcome. Still, I don’t think it is morally required. Abstaining is morally permissible too.
The partisans of abortion and marriage redefinition have a lock on the Democratic Party now. Effective dissent of any type is not possible. Having gained that lock on one party, they are now turning their resources and attention to weakening the pro-life and pro-marriage reality witness of the Republican Party. That’s what the California congressional race in question here is all about. I can think of no more urgent priority than preventing that from happening. Maintaining and solidifying the pro-life and pro-marriage reality stance of the Republican Party is critical. That’s why tactical voting, including voting for bad Democrats over bad Republicans, is IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES (e.g., where the election of a Democrat does not jeopardize Republican control of a legislative house), morally legitimate and perhaps even advisable. We must not let the pro-abortion and pro-marriage redefinition movements strengthen their positions in the Republican Party. We must make the Republican Party as solid for life and marriage as the Democrats now are for the contrary positions.
Kirk must go.