When I mentioned to Rutherford that I expected to receive tough criticism for publishing an interview reflecting positively on him and then not asking “The Question,” the senator asked me if I would like to know the answer to “The Question.”
“Sure,” I said. “I’m curious . . . ”
A post-interview commentary by IR Editor Fran Eaton
(See Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3 of the 3-part interview with State Senator Dan Rutherford)
As State Senator Dan Rutherford and I finished our interview on the 41st floor of downtown Chicago’s Prudential Building in early December, I told him I expected a lot of heat from my conservative allies for not asking him "The Question.”
“The Question” I was referring to is one rooted in rumors that have gone back years. Senator Rutherford is not married and has never been. Many wonder why and many feel compelled to offer answers difficult to confirm or deny.
But “The Question” has become an issue for many as to whether or not to support Rutherford in his bid for Secretary of State. I felt compelled to ask "The Question" during our interview.
Rutherford has been accused of promoting the radical homosexual agenda because he has consistently voted to support adding the term “sexual orientation” to the Human Rights Act. Such an addition to Massachusetts’ law prepared the way for same-sex marriage.
Rutherford has refused to sign a petition calling for amending the state constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman. But the senator points out that he opposes gay marriage and recognizing gay marriages from other states. He also voted in support of the Defense of Marriage Act in the mid-90s.
Earlier this year, a prominent pro-family activist sent Rutherford an email message, asking him if the reason he voted to support the Human Rights Act was because the senator, in fact, was himself a homosexual. When Rutherford did not respond via email to the query, the family group distributed far and wide the implication of Rutherford's silence.
The evidence, albeit circumstantial, continues to be used to feed the rumor mill. And although Rutherford’s legislative career voting record has been overwhelmingly conservative, "The Question" needed to be asked and answered for evangelical Christians, Catholics and social conservatives. He admitted he will need their Republican base support and more in order to defeat Jesse White, who Rutherford calls the "Goliath" of the Illinois Democratic Party.
When I mentioned to Rutherford that I expected to receive tough criticism for publishing an interview reflecting positively on him and then not asking “The Question,” the senator asked me if I would like to know the answer to “The Question.”
“Sure,” I said. “I’m curious . . . ”
“Well,” he said, “The answer to ‘The Question’ is ‘No . . . ‘” and he completed the sentence without batting an eye.
I asked no follow-up question. I let it go. In one sentence he had already offered more personal and private information about his sex life than I had ever asked any other political candidate. It isn’t my business (or anyone else’s) to know gory details about a person’s sexual history. I asked "The Question," and he respectfully answered.
Only Dan Rutherford knows whether he told me the truth and nothing but the truth, but to his credit, he did not evade answering.
What now, I immediately began thinking. What could this turn of events mean to those who have been focusing on Rutherford’s perceived sexual orientation rather than his work for the Republican Party, his conservative voting record, and his personal convictions on the issues of life and the Bill of Rights?
I asked the senator if I could share with others his response, and with his press person as my witness, the senator said I could.
Politics is politics and religion is religion. But at times like this, the two meet and dramatically affect each other. When moral issues are the topic, it's impossible to keep the two separate.
In this case, it struck me as a social conservative that it would behoove all who claim to want biblical principles to prevail in our state to stop our self-righteous finger pointing and begin talking and listening to those who frustrate us most. It doesn't mean we will always agree.
At the risk of sounding a little corny at this time of year, this experience emphasized to me the need for those of us who claim to follow God to demonstrate to others the same humility so purely shown when the Creator gave to the world his own Son in the package of a tiny baby. That baby eventually became the Savior.
Each year the Christmas season brings at least one memorable surprise. This year, mine was neatly tucked away in the answer to a question.
***********
IR Focus: Republican candidate for Secretary of State Dan Rutherford Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3.
