Did Charlie Kirk say that LBTQ people should be treated as they were in the 1950s and 1960s?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Was this fact-check helpful?
1. Summary of the results
Based on the analyses provided, Charlie Kirk did make statements suggesting LGBTQ people should be treated as they were in the 1950s and 1960s. Multiple sources confirm that Kirk specifically said transgender people should have been "took care of" the way they were in the 1950s and 60s [1] [2] [3]. The exact quote appears to be: "Someone should've just took care of it the way we used to take care of things in the 1950s and 60s" [2].
The historical context of this statement is particularly significant. During the 1950s and 1960s, treatment of LGBTQ individuals included lobotomies, shock therapy, and involuntary institutionalization [1]. Some sources interpret Kirk's reference to how things were "took care of" in that era as a nod to lynching [2], suggesting extremely violent implications.
Beyond this specific statement about 1950s-60s treatment, Kirk held numerous other anti-LGBTQ positions. He opposed same-sex marriage and cited Leviticus 20:13, which endorses the execution of homosexuals, as "God's perfect law when it comes to sexual matters" [4]. Kirk also took polarizing stances against gender care for transgender people [5] and encouraged students and parents to report professors suspected of embracing "gender ideology" [6].
2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints
The analyses reveal several important contextual elements missing from the original question. First, Kirk's anti-LGBTQ rhetoric was part of a broader pattern of controversial statements targeting multiple groups. He made statements that "denigrated Black people, immigrants, women, Muslims, and LGBTQ+ people" [7], suggesting his comments about LGBTQ individuals were part of a wider ideological framework rather than isolated remarks.
The religious dimension of Kirk's positions provides additional context. His memorial service "celebrated his Christianity and promised a new enthusiasm among young Americans for traditional values with an evangelical fervour" [8], indicating his anti-LGBTQ stance was deeply rooted in his interpretation of Christian doctrine. This religious framing may explain why he referenced biblical passages like Leviticus 20:13 [4].
Kirk's influence extended beyond mere rhetoric. He used his platform to "discuss matters of race in America" and promoted "right-wing populist and nationalist thinking" [9] [7]. His stances on "immigration, transgender rights, abortion, diversity programmes, and climate change often provoked fierce exchanges and loud criticism" [10], demonstrating that his LGBTQ-related comments were part of a comprehensive conservative political agenda.
Black pastors criticized Kirk's statements, calling them "hate-filled" and "rooted in white supremacy" [7], providing important perspective on how religious communities themselves viewed his rhetoric, despite his claims to Christian authority.
3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement
The original question appears relatively neutral in its phrasing, asking specifically whether Kirk made statements about treating LGBTQ people as they were in the 1950s and 1960s. However, there are subtle issues with precision and scope.
The question uses the broader term "LGBTQ people" while the specific quotes from Kirk appear to focus more narrowly on transgender individuals [1] [2] [3]. While Kirk certainly held anti-LGBTQ positions generally, the particular statement about 1950s-60s treatment seems specifically directed at transgender people rather than the entire LGBTQ community.
Additionally, the question doesn't capture the full scope of Kirk's anti-LGBTQ rhetoric. By focusing only on the 1950s-60s comment, it potentially understates the breadth of his positions, which included advocating for biblical laws endorsing execution of homosexuals [4] and systematic reporting of educators supporting LGBTQ rights [6].
The framing also lacks the political and religious context that shaped Kirk's statements. His comments weren't made in isolation but were part of a broader "right-wing populist and nationalist" ideology [10] with deep evangelical Christian roots [8]. This context is crucial for understanding both the motivation behind his statements and their intended audience.
Finally, the question doesn't acknowledge the interpretive nature of some of Kirk's more coded language, such as the reference to lynching implied in his 1950s-60s comments [2], which requires historical knowledge to fully understand the threatening implications.