CROSS: Will he move up to treasurer? |
Heck,
the Washington Post last week cited the elections in Illinois as evidence that
people have become comfortable with the issue and that the hard-ball
politicking is over.
WHAT
WITH THE fact that state representatives Ed Sullivan, R-Mundelein, and Ron Sandack,
R-Downers Grove, won their bids for re-nomination, even though they had
seriously-funded opposition.
Then
there was the fact that state Rep. Tom Cross of Oswego was successful in his
bid to get the Republican nomination for state treasurer.
What
Cross, Sandack and Sullivan all had in common was that they were the few
Republicans who were willing to vote “aye” when the issue of gay marriage
becoming legal came up for debate and a vote in the Illinois House of
Representatives.
There
were those who were convinced that the conservative voting bases in their
legislative districts (all in the outer suburbs of the Chicago area, although Cross
comes from an area where it is debatable whether he’s a suburban or rural legislator)
would be so repulsed that they would easily lose.
THEIR
VOTE IN favor of gay marriage being legitimate would haunt them. They would pay
for it. Except that they didn’t.
Admittedly,
Sandack had what was the closest campaign vote total of any in Illinois on
Tuesday. But he won. Sullivan and Cross achieved victory by greater margins.
I
have no doubt there are individuals who live (and vote) in those particular rural
districts who are repulsed that they couldn’t defeat ANY of the three. Although
I’m also inclined to believe that the real truth of the matter is that people
are ready to move on.
SULLIVAN: Vote not an issue |
They’re
not interested in re-fighting this political battle over and over.
NOT
HERE IN Illinois, or probably anywhere else in the nation.
Yet
the same mentality of political people who are going to try to repeal federal
healthcare reform initiatives so long as they live (because they don’t like
just who it is who will get credit for its successes) also exist on this issue.
Take
the situation in Michigan, where there are now more than 300 gay couples who
got themselves a marriage license in recent days, only to be told on Saturday
they can’t use it right away.
SANDACK: Oh, so close! |
For
those who rushed right away to get married, they now have to know that they may
have wasted their time and don’t have any more legal legitimacy than they had
all along.
IT
WAS ON Friday that a federal judge in Detroit issued an order saying that Michigan’s
law (passed in 2004 with 59 percent support of voters) that specified gay
marriage was illegal IS in-and-of itself unconstitutional.
But
Saturday afternoon, a federal Court of Appeals judge in Cincinnati put a stay
on that order – on that will remain in effect at least through Wednesday. It
was the state Attorney General’s office who asked for the stay.
Legal
officials said they granted it so that the people who want to keep marriage for
gay couples strictly verboten can have time to put together, “a more reasoned
consideration” of the issue.
Except
that so much of the reasoning on this issue is based on emotion and the need of
some people to have the law uphold their own personal hang-ups. Adding four
days, or making the wait indefinite, isn’t going to change anything about the
debate.
SCHUETTE: Carrying on the fight |
NOW
I SORT of comprehend the difference between Illinois and Michigan. Our state
had the Legislature and Gov. Pat Quinn impose the change in policy (and yes,
back in the mid-1990s days of a Republican-dominated state government, Illinois
passed its own law that specified gay marriage was NOT appropriate).
Whereas
in Michigan, it was a court forcing the change in state policy. It would be
nice if the legislative geeks who convene in Lansing, Mich., could reach a
similar consensus. Perhaps they will, someday.
But
I also suspect there are some places that are prepared to take a perverse level
of pride in being able to say they were the last place to accept the concept of
marriage for all. Or that they only did it under duress from a court.
Which
means that court rulings similar to what came out of Michigan on Friday are
going to be needed for this issue to truly become over and done with.
-30-
No comments:
Post a Comment