Mike Rogers Outs Mark Kirk… or Does He?

Jun 1, 2010 · 45407 views

Premium Content

You need to be a Feast of Fun Plus+ member to access this.
Join now or Log in – it's easy!

Are a couple college same-sex hook-ups enough evidence to call a man in his 50s gay? Mike Rogers seems to think so, but what do you think?

    Comments

  1. Kirk actually outed himself to Mr. Rogers-

    It was at that party that I met Mark Kirk. I was introduced to him by the person I came with and at the time did not realize he was a member of the House. As my friend walked away, Kirk asked me if the man who introduced us was “single or attached.” When I said that he had a partner Kirk replied disappointingly, “oh, well.” At the end of that interaction I walked away and didn’t think much of it at the time.

    Sounds pretty gay to me.

  2. Marc Felion says:

    Can we get him kicked out of the Navy under DADT which he endorses?

  3. Marc Felion says:

    They linked to your article on the HuffPo! Nice work Phil!

  4. Law Student says:

    I’m a conservative with lots of gay friends. I believe the government should not have the authority to define families and any so-called conservative against gay marriage is a hypocrite. It’s really sad Mark Kirk’s sexuality is an issue. He has a whole lot more integrity than Mafia Giannoulias.

    Under DADT, he would be fired as a decorated military commander if he came out. However, rumors will not cause him to lose his job. His vote against DADT confuses me, but I believe the context of the military is different than non-military. Kirk has been supportive of gay rights in most other respects, and while it was a bad vote, I’m still going to vote for the lesser of two evils.

    While Giannoulias appears better for the gay community on the surface, Giannoulias and his family have supported some of the sleaziest Chicagoans. I met some of the mobsters he’s loaned money to. Knowing these awful people made me want to go to law school. Trust me when I say these people were extremely racist and homophobic.

    A vote for Giannoulias is a vote for corruption and patronage. I wish this world was the type of place that would allow Kirk to be open without destroying his career, but keep in mind, he has been very supportive of YOUR rights in general. Would you hate Anderson Cooper if he ran for office and refused to answer? Think about it…with his Military career, Kirk couldn’t really come out even if he wanted to. Giannoulias has no real experience and is playing the gay community to hide the fact that his family was the bank for the mob. There is a difference between Larry Craig vilification of homosexuality and a single vote against removing a bad, but wholly ingrained, military policy. The Supreme Court held that privacy is a federal right and protects homosexuals from the worst discriminatory laws(texas anti-sodomy laws)…can’t we all just respect Mark Kirk’s privacy?

    • Michael ismoe says:

      We can respect Kirk’s privacy whe Kirk respects the privacy of every memebr of the military. Can you even see how dumb your argument is?

      • Edward Davis says:

        I don’t support the DADT repeal amendment either. I’m gay and an ex soldier.

        We talk about “oh, baby steps” with these studies that are going on. They are pointless, senseless and have no guarantee on them that DADT will in fact be repealed.

        I know, I know, the HRC talking heads and everyone else are telling us that it’s all good and everything will work. Yay, warm fuzzy.

        DADT was NOT repealed! An amendment was added to a bill to possibly repeal it. Who would vote for that? I wouldn’t. I want equality NOW.

        We don’t need an amendment to a bill that is designed to give us hope for a brighter tomorrow. We NEED a brighter TODAY!

  5. Todd says:

    Gay Republicans are really scrambling now to change the goalposts. So now a man who sucks the penises of other men, pumps their anuses, and french kisses them is just ‘experimenting’. Give me a break. Next thing you know they’re going to claim Larry Craig was just stretching his neck in the toilet when another man’s penis accidently fell in and was massaged by his tongue.

  6. Jesus says:

    …”I’m still going to vote for the lesser of two evils. ”

    So am I. That’s why I have to vote for Giannoulias. I am not defending the guy, just saying that a Dem has got to be better than a Republican on Gay issues. Republicans are against Marriage Equality. And I especially can’t vote for someone who voted against the repeal of DADT-plain and simple.

  7. TungstenCoil says:

    Sorry Jesus, I beg to differ:

    The Dems have just as poor a record as the Republicans on gay issues. The big difference is that they say they’re supportive, and then rarely put their votes where there mouths are.

    DADT and DOMA were both passed and supported by Democrats – don’t forget that. I’ve long asserted (much to the annoyance of some on this site) that GLBTQ blanket endorsement of the Democrats leads to two things:

    1. The Dems know they just have to play a little lip service to us – we’ll vote for them. They don’t actually have to do anything (with votes) that might disenfranchise any other groups that might not like pro-GLBTQ issues.

    2. The Reps have to offset that vote. How? By supporting the extreme religious right, by paying lip service to anti-gay rhetoric. Again – check their voting records. You’ll find a similar mix as the Democrats on the issues.

    As long as we continue to blindly support the Dems (to the point of deriding any conservative gay folk), there’s going to be very little change. The change we have seen is mostly in areas that non-GLBTQ constituents have shown wide support.

  8. ameriqueer says:

    Thanks everyone for weighing in!

  9. Knowledge says:

    Mark Kirk has been my Congressman since 2001. He has represented my district and he hasn’t accomplished a lot since he’s been at the job, so voting for the lesser of the two evils will be a walk in the park for most of Kirk’s constituents, many of whom are Democrat. He doesn’t even have the full backing of the IL GOP.

    His homosexuality has been suspect for years now. The rumors have persisted, and rumors don’t just persist when there’s no basis or reason for them to do so. Kirk being accused of homosexuality is nothing new for Republicans or Democrats in Illinois amd the fact that he voted against DADT and prior to that tried to pander to the likes of Sarah Palin for an endorsement… are just a few of the reasons I take issue with the man.

    There is no denying that he voted AGAINST gays in voting against the repeal of DADT. Gay people who agree with his decision are deluding themselves if they think we can’t see right through all that self-loathing. Kirk needs to be extremely forthright in the coming months or this Senate race will be entirely his to lose.

  10. I’m in a new space where it seems no matter who I vote for, I’m voting for at least something I’m against. And it’s true, Bill did put into place DOMA and DADT BOTH! DOMA because it looked like Hawaii was going to pass Gay Marriage (and consequently, never did) and DOMA as a solution to the ban on Gays in the military. Or at least he thought. Thought he’d make the republicans happy and still honor his promises to gay Americans.. yea, right.

    What I think is the real problem IS the “lip service” issue. It’s not only that the Democrats are giving us lip service, they are also giving us patchwork crap. Bill thought DADT would help KEEP gay men and women from being kicked out of the military and in turn it got the exact opposite results. This is the crap I want to stop.

    I want real progress, not what they THINK will appease us to shut us up for a while. You know?

    Who do I vote for, for real progress and not broken promises? That’s what I want to know. I WANT equal rights NOW. Who? Who is gonna make that happen?

    Ok ok, I will go eat some popcorn and calm my angry ass down. meow, grrr kitty, meow.

    And at this point, it’s not important to me if an elected official is out or not, but what is important is how the jerk votes! AHHHHH cookies, meow.

    • ameriqueer says:

      Melissa, GREAT question. Here’s my answer, and its controversial:

      I think we should put everything we have behind Progressive openly gay candidates and vote-tested Progressive incumbents. Only. Period.

      Look at the curious case of Amy Klobuchar from Minnesota. She was supposed to be a big champion for us in the Senate, right? Every gay group lined up behind her in 2006. She was one of the 6 US Candidates that HRC pushed so hard that that awkward last name suddenly somehow became a household name. But has she introduced a single pro-gay bill? Has she made any big pro-gay statements of note? In two years, Al Franken has been more outspoken for LGBT rights on the Senate Labor committee during the ENDA hearing than she has in double that time.

      We can’t put our money and effort behind straight candidates unless we’ve seen their votes AT the level they are RUNNING for. We need FIERCE advocates, not acquaintances up in the US legislature, and Amy is no fierce advocate.

      “But Phil,” you say, “I am not a one issue voter! I don’t just vote on gay issues!” Well, I would say think of the Progressive gays that you know in your life, or that you know in elected officials. Is the only work they do on behalf of LGBT people and rights? Are they shitty on the environment? Are they anti-choice? Are they anti-health care? Are they pro-war?

      Chances are a Progressive gay candidate is ALSO going to be really good on other Progressive issues. After all, the gay rights movement is a mess. If you’re going to be an organizer, and a community leader, you likely didn’t cut your teeth on gay organizing–there isn’t much going on there. You most likely worked for an anti-poverty campaign, or another progressive lawmaker, an animal rights group, or an environmental organization. Any way you slice it, your gay progressives are going to be as good as your straight progressives, PLUS!

      Every gay progressive that we’ve elected to office here in Illinois has also gone on to sponsor poverty relief efforts, budget balancing efforts, support for green industry, subsidies for public transit and public health, and more. They are solid progressives. But we have the added bonus of having a gentleman and a lady in the legislature who take any and every opportunity they can to push for a better life for LGBT people. They desperately need more out lawmakers to join them. We need openly gay progressive lawmakers at every level of every government, and the more the better.

      So, long story short, if you want to see legislative bodies that fight harder for your rights, you have to fill it with fighters from your side! Do whatever you can to help get re-elected those straight lawmakers that have gone out on a limb for LGBT rights and have introduced and argued for controversial pro-LGBT legislation. And don’t forget to also do whatever you can to help get elected those openly gay Progressive candidates that need no litmus tests on LGBT equality.

  11. Julien says:

    Tungstencoil said: “The Dems have just as poor a record as the Republicans on gay issues. The big difference is that they say they’re supportive, and then rarely put their votes where there mouths are.”

    I’m sorry, this is just absurd. You want to talk about real results? Non-discrimination laws, hate crimes legislation, domestic partner benefits (even if limited), civil unions at the state level, marriage laws… The list is actually quite long, and always pushed for by Democratic politicians.

Leave a Reply

Login or Register

 

Facebook Conversations