Republican Sen. Mark Kirk Endorses Same-Sex Marriage

Republican Sen. Mark Kirk of Illinois just released a statement endorsing same-sex marriage, making him only the second Republican senator (after Rob Portman) to do so. 

"When I climbed the Capitol steps in January, I promised myself that I would return to the Senate with an open mind and greater respect for others," Kirk's statement begings. "Same-sex couples should have the right to civil marriage. Our time on this earth is limited, I know that better than most. Life comes down to who you love and who loves you back--government has no place in the middle." 

Re "Our time on this earth is limited, I know that better than most": Kirk suffered a stroke in Jan. 2012. 

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Dr. Awkward||

    This is the guy who gave Rand Paul an apple and some hot tea during Hour 11 million of "Mr. Rand goes to DC and begs not to get droned."

  • Bobarian||

    " I know that better than most. "

    Isn't that how all politicians think; about all things?

  • Lost_In_Translation||

    The little Dutch boy is going to run out of fingers to plug this dyke...i anticipate an upcoming schism between the socons and the moderates. Popcorn anyone?

  • ||

    Who would want to stick their fingers in a dyke?

    /Tony Montana

  • T||

    Some carpet muncher?

  • SusanM||

    It's not the bigotry I mind as much as the lack of creativity.

    Here are some helpful hints for some at least creative put-downs

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_LGBT_slurs

  • Ptah-Hotep||

    When you see a parade, jump in front of it. That way people think you are leading.

  • JW||

    A parade of one?

  • Mensan||

    What are the odds that any Dems will come out against 2nd Amendment infringement?

  • BakedPenguin||

    I don't think they're astronomical, however if any do, I suspect they will come from places like WV, PA, TN, NC, etc. etc.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Much better than than a GOPer admitting Creationism is a fairy tale.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    Anti 2A - Creationism

    One of these can affect my life substantially via legislation. The other cannot. It's obvious that you can't tell the difference. So fuck off and have your little epiphanies at the kids table.

    In other words, when a creationist can threaten to scale back my constitutionally recognized, and SCOTUS affirmed, right to protect myself get back to me.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    No one is going to take away your guns, dickhead.

    A federal background check is all that may happen (20-1 odds against though).

    I oppose it but it would be better than a Creationist in office.

  • ||

    Fuck you are retarded.

  • tarran||

    Why are you wasting time arguing with the Internet equivalent of the homeless guy screaming at a wall while scratching his odiferous urine-soaked crotch?

    I mean, seriously people!

  • Ptah-Hotep||

    No one is going to take away your guns, dickhead.

    No, they are just going to make it difficult as hell to get them. And make sure you pay to do so.

    http://reason.com/blog/2013/04.....er-for-you

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Palin's Buttwipe,

    No one is going to take away your guns, dickhead.


    Sure, Buttwipe. Sure.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    The other cannot.

    Go back to the run up to the Iraq war and watch all those Republican politicians telling us how they beileve God was calling them to free the middle east, and then tell me again how that can't affect my life substationally?

  • Virginian||

    Except that's not what he said. He drew a very narrow comparison.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    The problem is that the same unskeptical approach to faith that leads to belief in creationism also leads to the belief that your imaginary friend wants you to do things that aren't a good idea.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    Which is o worse than believing in a benevolent government which also leads people to do things that aren't a good idea.

  • CampingInYourPark||

    Like the Dems are all about battling creationism.

  • phandaal||

    It's only the GOP, didn't you know? Democrats NEVER use Christianity to garner favor with the electorate.

    Or if they do, it's because they're tapping in to the true spirit of religion.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    Democrats NEVER use Christianity to garner favor with the electorate.

    Nope. Democrats would NEVER stoop to using Christianity in their appeal for legislation.

    As Sen. Diane Feinstein opened her press conference on gun control, she invited Dean of the National Cathedral Rev. Canon Gary Hall to offer a prayer.

    Hall spoke briefly before the prayer, calling for Washington legislators to stop fearing the gun lobby and fulfill their “moral duty” to restrict guns.

    “Everyone in this city seems to live in terror of the gun lobby,” Hall said. “But I believe that the gun lobby is no match for the cross lobby.”

    Fuck off shreek.

  • Ted S.||

    I don't think "phandaal" is shriek. Sounds like you need to get your sarcasm detector calibrated.

  • phandaal||

    I'm gonna assume he was directing his comments further up. I'm none of the trolls here, unless I say something that sounds stupid, in which case one of them has hacked my account.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    This.

  • ||

    MT senators won't vote for gun control. Immediate political suicide.

    For all the yelling and screaming about guns over the last few months, the controllers don't even have all the Dems on board.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Manchin, Reid, Tester, Begich, Baucus, Warner, Johnson all have NRA 'A' ratings.

  • Drake||

    Had

  • Cdr Lytton||

    MT senators won't vote for gun control. Immediate political suicide.

    If only. It may be political suicide, but it won't be until the next election. Colorado killed any hope I had of such reasoning being a barrier to gun control.

  • ||

    Because CO is now full of Californians.

    Not so here (yet).

  • ||

    Hey Riggs

    What was that bullshit on the Michael Garibaldi show yesterday?

    Rand Paul is a social conservative because he's pro-life?

    Can you please explain to me what the official libertarian position on abortion is?

  • Mensan||

    There isn't one.

  • ||

    My point exactly. Being pro-life does not make one a socon.

  • SIV||

    Yes it does

  • ||

    So does being pro-choice make one a Cosmotarian?

  • Brandybuck||

    No it doesn't. So there! Pfft!

  • mad libertarian guy||

    I would argue there isn't one.

    But being a social conservative doesn't keep one from being a libertarian.

  • ||

    Um...yes it does. Almost by definition.

  • ||

    It depends on if you're a STATIST socon I would think.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    This.

  • ||

    Didn't someone argue last week that we need better terms for this? There's a big difference between thinking social issue X is wrong, but it's a personal moral choice that should be left up to those involved and social issue X is wrong and must be stopped by force of law. I would argue that both of those are socons, but they're going to have a very different policy perspective.

  • ||

    Maybe we could capitalize, ie: SOCONS = statist version; and socons = non-statist version?

  • LTC(ret) John||

    Jess is right - I have some very soconish personal beliefs...but they are just that personal. If I tried to force any of that on other people, I would hope to have them flip me the bird and say "fuck off, slaver" right in my face.

  • Virginian||

    I mean, the issue is that in this statist age, the latter is so overwhelmingly in the majority that it's kind of silly to worry about it.

    Like, yes, there are communists who seek to persuade people through peaceful activism and non-state non-coervice advocacy. But the vast majority of them are violent thugs who want to use the State to impose communism on everyone else.

  • ||

    Finding and encouraging social conservatives who believe personal responsibility is the answer instead of state interference, and having them chip away at the edges of the more statist socon movement would be a good thing. Statist socons associate libertarianism with libertinism, which can make it a tough sell.

  • Ptah-Hotep||

    Virginian,

    You really shouldn't lump people into the same group unless they specifically call for it. The socons and the communists that don't want to use force are much different than the people that do. You do neither justice collectivizing them.

  • Virginian||

    Eh, I call 'em like I see 'em. Sorry, the number of people who are diehard social conservatives but who have no desire to get the government to enforce their morality is an incredibly small percentage. Is it just in some cosmic sense that they don't have their own special word. Maybe. But this whole discussion reminds me of arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

  • ||

    Statist, socon. Stop with the synonyms.

    What is the socon position on the following:

    drugs, booze, gambling, prostitution, fuck pick a victimless crime...

    A socon is the antithesis of libertarianism.

  • ||

    What would you call someone who thinks its not in people's best interest to engage in those activities, but thinks the government should do fuckall about it?

  • ||

    Libertarians.

  • Ptah-Hotep||

    drugs, booze, gambling, prostitution, fuck pick a victimless crime...

    A socon is the antithesis of libertarianism.

    Not really. I don't think any are "wholesome" activities, but I don't think they should be illegal. Hopefully you can see the difference between how someone wants to live their own lives, and what they want the government to enforce.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    Their position only matters insofar as how they are willing to deal with these issues.

    One can believe all of those things are wrong and bad, yet simultaneously hold that using government to stop those things is equally wrong.

    That is libertarianism. I don't have to agree that consenting to fuck Warty is a good thing in order to also agree that people ought to be able to make that choice for themselves without using government force to prohibit it.

  • ||

    Couldn't agree more. What you personally think is right or wrong for you is of no concern of mine. If you think it isn't up to the government to force the issue you are a libertarian.

    Socons, as a political entity, DO believe in government force.

  • mnarayan||

    Having socially conservative beliefs is perfectly consistent with libertarianism provided that you don't think the government should enforce them. Of course, when someone is described as being "socially conservative", it seems they always want the government to enforce their beliefs.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    And this.

    Nor should we forget that Rand Paul, just a few days after his epic filibuster, proposed a fetal rights bill which would essentially outlaw all abortions.

    Rand Paul won't be passing (m)any Libertarian Purity Test™ anytime soon, but to argue that his libertarianism wouldn't be extremely helpful for the cause of liberty is disingenuous. He's as libertarian as we have in DC, and he's slowly garnering some influence.

  • CampingInYourPark||

    I think RP probably would even call himself a So-con.

  • SugarFree||

    Being against legal abortion is a social'y conservative position, is it not?

  • ||

    Yes it is. It is also an acceptable libertarian position.

  • SIV||

    As is opposing sex education in schools

  • SugarFree||

    But it does show up in a certain--shall we say--spectrum of libertarians, and they often overlap with the ones that love drone strikes and complain about food trucks and hate gay marriage and demand that we all vote for Romney.

    Socially conservative sounds kind, if you ask me.

  • ||

    You forgot about the tractor pulls.

  • SugarFree||

    I said I was going to take you, so I'm going to take you. Geez, get off my back, woman.

  • ||

    tractor pulls

    Can I get an invite to this?

  • mad libertarian guy||

    You mean TRAKTOR PULLZ!

    Fucking MNG.

  • SugarFree||

    He had a PhD in LABOR STUDIES, that most rigorousness of intellectual disciplines, dammit! He demands your respect!

  • ||

    Are we going to go to Walmart before, or afterward? And what does one wear to such an event???

  • SugarFree||

    Overalls and a shit-smeared asshole are the proper attire according to their FAQ.

  • ||

    a shit-smeared asshole

    Uhh...do you mean you? Or mine? Neither is really attire...

    But I think I can manage tarran's version, at least with the help of a pair of scissors.

  • SugarFree||

    Uhh...do you mean you? Or mine? Neither is really attire...

    I'm just reading the FAQ, baby girl.

  • tarran||

    It depends. If you have belly fat, the too tight tanktop is de rigour, I believe.

    If you are skinny as a rail, then ...

    Actually, just get a tank top that's too tight, flip flops and ragged jean shorts. Big sunglasses and chewing gum will complete the ensemble.

  • Mensan||

    Here in Florida, flip flops are appropriate footwear for any occasion; trakter pullz, muddin', job interviews, funerals, etc.

  • ||

    Overalls and something plaid.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    Before, to get beer, a styrofoam cooler, and a real tree hat if you don't already have one, AND afterwards to maybe pick up a gun and some ammo (if we can find any on the shelves).

    Overalls with a pit stained t-shirt, of course. And your newly acquired real tree cap.

  • ||

    mlg, your failure to type "Realtree" as one word almost meant that I couldn't Google wtf this was.

  • ||

    Only a cosmotarian wouldn't know it's Realtree.

  • ||

    Only a cosmotarian wouldn't know what to wear to a tractor pull.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    Shame on me.

    And it's weird because I own so much of the shit that I should be able to spell it correctly.

    When I first started hunting, I was very weary about wearing camo in public unless I was either on the way to, or from hunting. Now I don't give a fuck. In fact, I purposefully wear my camo to some occasions so as to use it as a social marker.

    Like my kid's school when I have meetings with his progressive nitwit of a teacher. Now, I won't wear full-out "I'm going hunting right now" camo, but my camo boots with my UA hoodie and my TSC Realtree cap will suffice. And it works. Plus, I kind of like to make her squirm a little bit with her knowing full well that that little angel of a boy (and he is a good, respectful boy who minds his manners) is surrounded by fucking guns at home. I'm sure to tell her how much he enjoys shooting his bow and his rifle.

  • ||

    Okay, here is my take on the whole libertarian gig. Setting aside the anarchists for the moment, there are two types of libertarians.

    1. Those with libertarian philosophies.

    and

    2. Those who hold libertarian beliefs.

    Those who fall into category 1, take an issue and start at the NAP and argue their way forward to determine their position on an issue. These I would call the "pure" libertarians.

    Those in cat 2 may hold a preponderance of libertarian beliefs, but do not rely on the above method of arriving at them. For instance, a utilitarian my believe in the benefits of a free market and while that is consistent with libertarianism, it wasn't arrived at through libertarian philosophy.

    DISCLAIMER: Nothing said above should be construed as me thinking those within cat 2 aren't appreciated. While I'd prefer a congress full of cat 1s I'd much rather have a congress full of Johns than Tonys.

  • $park¥||

    While I'd prefer a congress full of cat 1s I'd much rather have a congress full of Johns than Tonys.

    Thanks for painting the picture of a horrifying future where that could possibly happen. *shudder*

  • Rasilio||

    " I'd much rather have a congress full of Johns than Tonys."

    Go ask any DC Prostitute and you'll find out that you already have a congress full of Johns

  • ||

    I'm pro-life and don't agree with "those people" on any of the other issues. In fact I don't really agree with socons in the personal or political sense argued above on other issues.

  • ||

    Perhaps, but what if you also believe gays should be able to get married and drugs should be legal? Are you a socon? Or do you just have one issue where you are socially conservative? I have never once considered myself socially conservative but because I think ending innocent human life by force is murder does that make me socially conservative? Does it matter where the conviction comes from? I don't even believe in god.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Libertarians can go either way on abortion. It's all about where the "human" line is drawn in the mind of the libertarian in question. If it's before birth, then at least some abortions are objectionable on standard libertarian grounds.

  • ||

    I thought the line was whether or not it was a "person" with "rights". I don't think there can really be an argument that a fetus is a human. I mean it's not like it's going to spontaneously turn into Warty or something.

  • Pro Libertate||

    That's what I meant, of course.

  • CampingInYourPark||

    "I don't think there can really be an argument that a fetus is a human."

    I think that's exactly what the argument is about.

  • Pro Libertate||

    No, I get his point. Scientifically, a fetus is, of course, Homo sapiens sapiens. But the issue is when that human obtains the rights of legal personhood.

  • ||

    Yes.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    A philosophical question can never be answered with any kind of scientific accuracy. It will always remain thus with abortion, and no one is technically correct.

    My position is that abortion is morally reprehensible. It's disgusting. But my moral predilections shouldn't have the force of government behind them, and using my own preferences as a means to force women in to back alleys using hangars (because women will not stop seeking abortions were they to be deemed illegal, and all prohibition will accomplish is to distort the market for abortions pushing what is currently a safe procedure performed in medical facilities underground) is equally monstrous.

  • ||

    Agreed.

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    Baby Killer!!!!

  • Bobarian||

    When does Warty turn into a human being?

  • Pro Libertate||

    We're talking science here, not magic.

  • $park¥||

    HAHA! Good one.

  • ||

    Exactly.

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    When does Warty turn into a human being?

    We're not sure. But we are projecting that after he devours around 2,000 humans, he may start to display human phenotype.

  • JW||

    Libertarians can go either way on abortion.

    We're abortion-curious?

  • LTC(ret) John||

    + .5

  • ||

    All right thinking libertarians are obviously pro-choice.

    /sarc

  • Bill Dalasio||

    There isn't one (as the other folks said). Libertarianism doesn't dictate a notion of when one considers life as a person, per se, to begin. However, that judgement will define where a libertarian will view the issue of abortion vis-a-vis the non-aggression principle.

  • Mike Riggs||

    I don't think Paul is a social conservative solely because he opposes abortion. I think he's a social conservative because he opposes same-sex marriage, repealing drug prohibition, *and* abortion. I should've mentioned those other issues last night, but I was mostly talking about the context of the last few weeks.

    Re: "The official libertarian position on abortion." There isn't one, unless you count the Libertarian Party platform, which says, "Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.")

    I'm totally fine with other libertarians arguing that prohibiting abortion is a perfectly libertarian thing to do (we've run several Napolitano columns to that effect), and I hope they can make peace with me arguing the opposite.

  • SusanM||

    If you talk about the sanctity of human life regarding abortion on one speech and then the talk about the sanctity of bombing the shit out of bronze-age peasants with robots in the next then you may well be a Socon.

  • $park¥||

    But, but ... those peasants said mean things.

  • johnl||

    Having a socially conservative outlook on life is different from advocating government favoritism for a socially conservative outlook on life.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    Actually, Kirk's argument seems more a justification to get the government out of the marriage business than a reason to create a federal role in support of same-sex marriage.

  • phandaal||

    He says "Same-sex couples should have the right to civil marriage."

    But yeah, his point about getting gov't out of the business is much more interesting.

  • phandaal||

    Nevermind, it looks like we're saying the same thing.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    Well, for clarification, I was saying his argument doesn't support his conclusion.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    It does if you're a realist willing to be incremental about achieving your desired ends.

    I agree that government should get the fuck out of the marriage business. But it isn't going to happen anytime soon.

    Should we not support mj decriminalization efforts because they don't equate to outright legalization, even though the latter is clearly the solution in libertopia?

  • Bill Dalasio||

    Except that's not my argument. If I give an argument about why alcohol prohibition would be disastrous to make the case for mj decriminalization, I've not made a case to support my conclusion. Saying the government shouldn't be in the marriage business (what Kirk effectively says) doesn't make a case that the federal government should mandate the rules around state marriage licenses.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    Agreed.

    Certainly not on a federal level they shouldn't get involved.

  • grrizzly||

    What is the practical way of getting the government out of marriage? Are you talking about changing all the laws in the US that treat people differently when they're married? Tax laws, immigration laws, criminal laws, etc.? All of them? Haven't you heard about 1000+ federal benefits that same-sex marriage supporters often mention? Is there anything in the getting-the-government-out-of-the-marriage argument beyond making doctrinaire libertarians feel good about themselves?

  • Virginian||

    Uh, I don't know about you, but I am always in favor of removing power from the State.

  • grrizzly||

    How? Are you seriously going to redefine marriage for all the married couples in the US?

  • Virginian||

    Dude, they won't do anything I want them to do....I'm a libertarian, don't bring practicality into this.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    So "We get a tax break" is an acceptable portion of the definition of marriage?

    Yes, for fuck's sake, change the goddamn definition is it means the government will no longer be able to encourage the behavior of pilfering my goddamn bank account simply by getting its okay in the form of a marriage certificate.

  • ||

    So "We get a tax break" is an acceptable portion of the definition of marriage?

    Well no, my taxes went up when I got married.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    Not mine.

    But then I'm in a single-income marriage with 2 chilluns (one of whom refuses to take a fucking nap today which will make my afternoon fucking miserable).

  • Brett L||

  • Bill Dalasio||

    A state could simply indicate that it considers all marriages civil contracts. It would be up to the feds to sort through how they wanted to deal with "all the laws in the US that treat people differently when they're married".

  • Old Johnnie Goggabie||

  • entropy||

    Honestly he was one of my favorite senators until he recovered. The he started doing stuff and talking just like before the stroke and it all went back down the pisser.

  • OldMexican||

    Re "Our time on this earth is limited, I know that better than most": Kirk suffered a stroke in Jan. 2012.


    "And he hasn't been himself ever since..."

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement