Did Charlie Kirk actually say gays should die, or was it taken out of context?

1. What Kirk actually said — the documented comments

Multiple mainstream outlets recorded that Kirk referenced Leviticus 20:13 on his podcast and described that passage as “God’s perfect law when it comes to sexual matters,” a formulation that links a biblical death-sentence passage directly to his view of modern sexual norms and therefore signals endorsement of a scriptural penalty for homosexual acts rather than a mere academic citation .

2. Social media reactions — “advocated stoning” claims and apologies

After Kirk’s assassination, some high-profile social posts escalated the language to explicit claims that he “advocated stoning gays”; Stephen King, for example, tweeted that Kirk had advocated stoning gay people and later apologized, saying he had misread or misinterpreted the remarks — an apology that itself underscores how ambiguous people found Kirk’s invocation of Leviticus and how easy it was for social media to slide from scriptural citation to an attribution of contemporary advocacy for violence .

3. Fact-checkers and news outlets — mixed findings on endorsement versus quotation

FactCheck.org and other verification outlets examined viral graphics and posts and found that while many specific viral attributions (like the exact word “destructive” or a direct “put to death” endorsement) lacked a clear sourcing trail, the core fact that Kirk repeatedly framed biblical passages endorsing capital punishment for homosexual acts in positive terms is supported by recordings and reporting — meaning that some of the sharper viral paraphrases extended beyond what is provable while the underlying praise of a death-penalty verse is documented .

4. Context matters — legal, theological and rhetorical frames

Kirk’s invocation of Leviticus sits at the intersection of theology, rhetoric and political signaling: citing an Old Testament law in a political podcast can be read as theological argument, rhetorical provocation, or as a normative policy stance; outlets such as The Independent, The Advocate and Reuters reported the quote as evidence of Kirk’s long pattern of anti-LGBTQ rhetoric — reporting that places his Leviticus comment in a broader record of hostile language toward queer and trans people .

5. Interpretations and implications — why the line between “said” and “meant” is contested

Those who defend the stronger social-media wording stress that praising a verse that prescribes death for homosexual acts is morally equivalent to endorsing that punishment — critics and many LGBTQ advocates treated the comment as a callous incitement that fuels real-world threats . Defenders who pushed back on the “advocated stoning” phrasing — including some who later deleted or walked back posts — argued that Kirk was citing scripture rather than issuing an immediate policy prescription, which matters legally and rhetorically even if it does not erase the moral force of his words .

6. Bottom line — accurate verdict based on available reporting

On the narrow question posed: it is not accurate to say the reporting proves Kirk uttered the literal, contemporary command “ston[e] gays” as a policy prescription in plain language; but it is equally inaccurate to treat the episode as an innocuous academic citation — Kirk affirmatively praised a biblical death-penalty verse and framed it as authoritative, a statement that many listeners and reporters reasonably interpret as endorsing violence against LGBTQ people in principle, and which sparked the now-widespread characterizations and outrage .