Over the past 16 years, Republican State Rep. Rosemary Mulligan has shown that she isn't afraid of going against the grain.
In 1992, Mulligan first made waves when she defeated Penny Pullen, an ultraconservative, anti-gay Republican incumbent of the 65th District, which covers the Northwest suburbs such as Des Plaines and Park Ridge. Back then, Mulligan challenged her own party, and has been advocating for change within her party ever since.
Mulligan, an LGBT ally and supporter of a woman's right to choose, doesn't fit the Republican stereotype. She was one of the first Republican sponsors of former Rep. Larry McKeon's amendment to the Illinois Human Rights Act to include sexual orientation and gender identity. She also helped double the state's AIDS budget back in 1995.
In November, Mulligan faces a Democratic challenger and another strong LGBT ally, Aurora Austriaco. Mulligan spoke with Windy City Times about the importance of moderate Republicans, the Republican National Convention and much more.
Windy City Times: How did you first get involved in politics? What prompted you to get involved, and what keeps you going?
Rosemary Mulligan: Originally, I worked for a law firm in Glenview before I ran for office. When I was there, I became involved in the Illinois Federation of Business and Professional Women ( BPW/IL ) , which is like a large women's group. It's not that large, but more moderate than NOW ( National Organization for Women ) . It's made up of bipartisan people. At the time went on, when I was there, I was the state legislation chair for a couple of years and then a platform representative. I did some work with them. I did a lot of work on women's issues, and lobbied and organized. Well, then the gal who was the president of NOW in the Park Ridge/Des Plaines area called a state office, looking for someone to speak at a pro-choice rally. When she called, it turned out she lived a block over from where I lived, so I went over to the rally—it was around October of '89—and although I had been working on the issues for years, I was stunned to find out that the park was crammed with anti-choice people. The police had kind of expected it, but I don't know if I had. So, after the rally, some of my friends from BPW who had come to the rally, and some of the other people who had come said that I should run against Penny Pullen, who was then the state legislator.
WCT: She was very right-wing.
RM: Very, very anti-choice. I said, 'For two cents, I would do that,' and a couple of friends pulled out two cents, took me out for coffee afterwards, and said, 'We'll help you,' and they did. Then, I ran, thinking this would be interesting, and I could go back and kind of use it with the women's groups on how you run for office and everything. About a week into it, I thought, 'I don't want to just run, I want to win!' Personal PAC was just forming, opening an office and hiring Terry Cosgrove. They heard I was running and approached me to interview me as a candidate to back. She had never really had a Republican challenger. I married into a Republican family, had been a Republican election judge. I had the Republican credentials. I was identified in BPW as a Republican spokeswoman. I was a Republican pro-choice person when I spoke at their national convention, or whatever. I guess everyone was excited that a Republican pro-choice candidate was running. So, that's kind of how I got into it.
WCT: What impact do you believe you replacing Pullen in the Illinois House had on not just reproductive rights, but other issues important to our readers, like lesbian and gay issues, as well as HIV/AIDS funding?
RM: I think it was really important. When I ran in '90, first of all, a lot of people didn't think you could beat incumbent leadership within your own party, but then never said that I couldn't. [ Laughs ] We won, but then lost in the recount, and it got a lot of publicity. Then, in 1992, it was supposedly the Year of the Woman. A lot of new people came into the General Assembly because it was a redistricting year. … I think it was time for a change, and people were stunned that I would beat her. In 1990, the issues really started coming up. When I first ran, it was a lot of issues—she wasn't good on education and other issues—but choice was the one that was highlighted. But a little while into it, gay rights came up. It turned out she was really a very homophobic legislator. So, those issues came up, and of course, over the next two or three years, a lot of people, and she said that gay and lesbian people don't impact our community and don't live here. That isn't true. There are a lot of gay people who live in the suburbs, and there are a lot of parents that live here.
I had some supporters that I had not realized were supporting me, not just on choice, but because they had gay children. I think, in the beginning, people supported me because I was against her. [ Laughs ] Then people get to know you and are comfortable where you stand on issues, so they support you even more, and have more determination that you win. So, I think that happened. I think there are a lot of people who came to my campaign because of issues I didn't realize in the beginning were here, but turned out to be. Here she was, saying that she'd be surprised if gay people lived in our community. Well, I had a woman on my campaign for a while. All of a sudden, when we were doing a recount the first time around, I made some sort of statement. I think I was asked to speak at a group that is no longer there—it was probably the predecessor to Equality Illinois—a power gay group. Pullen made some comment about why I was speaking there. We were in the car, and this woman said, 'I knew I liked you, but now I like you even more. I just want you to know my daughter is a lesbian.' I was really surprised that she said it was one of the reasons she really liked me. She had never said that before, and we had been working together for the last six or seven months. … She's been a really good friend and someone I have gone to. She's one of the people I use as a sounding board. I can get even more perspective than I get from asking just the gay community. She's done a lot of work. She's worked with GLSEN [ Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network ] and other places, so she gives me additional ideas all the time.
WCT: You've been working on issues such as reproductive rights for years. What prompted you to arrive at your support of reproductive rights, and what age did you start getting involved in this issue?
RM: Not until my late 30s, early 40s. Until then, I was focused on raising a family and we had had some family tragedies. I was pretty involved in family and didn't really pay attention. But then, through BPW, when I started working on issues with them locally, statewide and then nationally, was when I pretty much formulated my opinions on where I would be on choice. I was also raised a Catholic, so it's an interesting position for me to be on.
It was a couple of things. For one, the gay issue and the choice issues, things like that, well, my mother contracted polio at the age of 18 months and was disabled. I think in our household, we were very non-discriminatory for that age group. I'm 67, so for her and my dad, at the age level they were, it was very openly not discriminatory. She had a lot of friends who were probably a lot more disabled than she was. They were pretty adamant about what you say, what you call people, things like that. I don't think it was a conscious effort on their parts. I think it was just there.
WCT: I think if you are usually focused on not being discriminatory about one thing, it usually flows into other aspects of your life.
RM: Right. It was our family, and our position of the family. I think the other issue was when I was in high school; there were girls that got pregnant, and were sent off, or didn't show up again. You heard different stories. I was living in an era where abortion was illegal, so it was a whole different ballgame. Then, I got married and got involved in a whole bunch of things with my family, so it didn't formulate until I got settled down. … It had always been my position, but I never really articulated it or formulated it in my brain and thought about it.
WCT: I think a lot of people in the gay and lesbian community think all Republicans are anti-gay, but there are more moderate Republicans like yourself out there. Why do you feel it's important that the gay and lesbian community also pays attention to moderate Republicans out there, like yourself?
RM: Well, I think in order to get legislation passed, you need a whole lot of people to feel comfortable with it. I also think that you need, if you are going to change, the whole group of people. The one thing it showed when I was elected as a suburban legislator beating a right-wing person was I wouldn't have beat her if there hadn't been a whole lot of people who supported me on the issues. Obviously, there are Republicans, Democrats and independents in my district who agree on those opinions, and those are the people who you want to be with you—just like my friend.
I would say that she is an independent, her husband is really a hardcore Republican and they have four children—three daughters and one son they adopted. Their one daughter is a lesbian. They are Catholic. They've always loved their daughter, and when she came out they supported her. I think it's a bad perception. Just like anti-choice is a bad perception. Like when Ronald Reagan came in—he courted the evangelicals to beat Carter. What he did was he brought that philosophy into the Republican Party, and I don't think that's a good philosophy. I think we are more the ones who don't want government interference, and I think it's a mistake to assume—just like it's a mistake to assume all gays have the same personality or professions—that everyone is the same within a group. With me, I think it says to a lot of people on the Republican side of the aisle that you can be for these issues if you truly believe in them, and still get elected.
WCT: In your experience, does it make it a lot easier to connect with those on the other side of the aisle and try to get more bipartisan support on issues important to people in your district and the state?
RM: I think for some people, it does. For choice and gay rights, some of it is regional. There are a lot of Democrats in the General Assembly that don't support those issues. It's just that automatically, people think in an election that if you are Republican, you are anti-choice and anti-gay, and if you are Democrat, you are pro-choice and pro-gay, and that's just not true. … If you have enough people who are forceful that this shouldn't be an election issue, and this should be an issue about what's fair, then you have more pressure on the leaders not to do things that are uncalled for, as far as politics goes. I think the issues—gay rights, abortions, guns—those are issues they throw out there in campaigns to take you off the mark that, hey, you aren't balancing the budget or something, and make it a hot button issue. I think, even now, more so than ever, you have openly gay legislators. I think that makes a difference, too. It makes a difference for the people who are around you to talk to somebody. When I got there, it was pretty well known where I was on positions. When [ former Rep. ] Larry McKeon came, he knew I was a friend, and that I was open to approach in committee or that I was a non-judgmental person who you can be friends with.
WCT: And now there is Rep. Greg Harris …
RM: Who is a lot of fun! I have a lot of fun with him. … I remember we were talking about his [ civil-union ] bill. When I worked for a law firm, I did mostly municipal law, but for a while, I did marital settlements. So, I came up to him, asking, 'So, when you have this … civil union, what happens if people want to dissolve it? ' So he went through all his stuff and said, 'I didn't think about that!'
WCT: The Republican National Convention just wrapped up. What were your thoughts on the platform they adopted, which supports the Federal Marriage Amendment and 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell.' Also, what do you think of Sarah Palin ( the vice-presidential pick? )
RM: Well, I haven't come to any real conclusion about her. I don't want to just go on rumor. I think she's pretty feisty, and they chose Biden to be an attack dog for Obama. I think that's what she's going to end up being. I think McCain picked her because the right was pushing. I'm uncomfortable with the platform. I think they are cutting themselves off from a lot of voters. I don't think you have to articulate those kinds of issues. I think you should leave people free to decide on their own, and let the candidate articulate, and then you can decide whether you want to be fore or against someone on particular issues, as opposed to a platform that kind links moderates, like me, to something we don't espouse in our own districts, so it makes things very difficult. That is pretty sad.
I know a couple of people who voted for gay rights after Bush's last election who had never voted for them before, because they were upset with the fact that they had pushed the gay issue, as far as marriage, and they thought it was not appropriate for the party. There were Republicans who had not openly voted for gay rights before, who did. So, it was very interesting.
WCT: It ended up just pushing some people in a different direction?
RM: Yes, it was something that made people very angry—that it wasn't an appropriate thing to do. I don't like to comment on people's personal beliefs. I think part of mine doesn't come from personal religious beliefs, but an underlying feeling about what's discriminatory, and what's right and what's wrong. I would prefer the Republican Party not to sound so discriminatory. I think they feel its moral, but I don't think that's moral. I don't think being someone who discriminates is moral. I think that's a really big problem, and it makes me very uncomfortable. I would be more comfortable with a more pro-business, pro-less government and not as many individual issues.
WCT: How seriously are you taking the November election? You have a Democratic challenger [ in Austriaco ] . What do you think you bring to the table that your opponent doesn't, and what would your defeat mean for the issues you care about and your district?
RM: I'm taking it very seriously. First of all, she's raising a lot of money. At one point, she was raising more than I had, which made me very nervous. But, she's just one more Democrat in Illinois. You may not be happy with the Republicans nationally, but I think you would be even less happy with the Democrats in Illinois, considering they have total party control, and they've totally decimated the state.
I'm an independent person, and I've done a lot of things for my district and in the General Assembly, I represent a voice I think you need in the opposite party. I'm also one of the top budget people in the General Assembly. I've been the Human Services Appropriations person for the last 14 out of 16 years, and I've been very valuable. I have a really good position in my caucus and my leaders listen to me on those issues. I've helped with dollars and funding on everything from AIDS to nursing homes and drugs—different things that are important to people, and I have a very good grasp of that. I do a lot of negotiating on that part of the budget. Also, I've been very good for the district. I got money for flooding. I've helped them on the issues that are important. I think I represent people fairly, and I think I've done a good job all these years.
I'm not quite sure where [ Austriaco's ] coming from, except she would like to be elected, and Madigan would like a simple majority. … I don't think she'll be an independent person—whereas, I was elected challenging my own leadership. She's going to try to get elected with the leaders backing here, which means she's beholden to them, where I'm pretty much my own person. And I'm a floor leader, and I've excepted in my own party as someone who thinks out of the box and who helps other people on my side of the aisle think that way, too.
WCT: Is there anything else you'd like to add about yourself that you'd like our readers to know about you?
RM: Well, in 1995, before you had Larry McKeon, Greg Harris, Sara Feigenholtz or any of the people down there, I was the chair for the Human Services Appropriations that year, because it was a total Republican majority. When the money was coming out of Congress for AIDS, I was able to practically double the AIDS budget in Illinois, working with both some of the drug companies who were interested in providing drugs, and looking at programs that would allow people to purchase drugs who were in a higher income bracket, thereby keeping them off of Medicaid.
I think it was very helpful to people. At the time, it was a little different than it is now. Now, it's more important because the drugs are more valuable and keep people alive for much longer. But it set a precedent, I think, for really strong support for the gay community and the drug program through Medicaid. When you think about it, it was a total Republican majority and Republican governor, and I was able to root for that and accomplish it. For the gay community, I think that's a really big point. On other things, just in general, I've done a lot of things for women. I've made sure that all women who arrive at emergency rooms who have been raped are told about emergency contraceptives. It took me two years to pass that bill, and it was one of the first in the country, and its used as a model in other states.
I've done a variety of things, but I think those things I've done for the gay community are important. I've voted pretty much 100 percent pro-choice, and I've backed the gay community on things. I was one of the first Republican sponsors of Larry's bill [ the amendment to the Illinois Human Rights Act to include sexual orientation and gender identity ] . I think those are all important. It lets other people on my side of the aisle feel more comfortable with it.
