Top story; new mayor, or old gov?

It’s coming up on that time of year when newsgathering organizations are going to feel compelled to give us the “Top stories” of 2011.

EMANUEL: Does Rahm rule?



A “year in review” story, if done properly, can offer up a punchily-written take that tries to put a complete calendar year in perspective. If done hastily or dull-ly, it is nothing more than a waste of space surrounding all the girdle ads.

YET I CAN’T help but notice a bit of spin being placed on these lists as they come up this year.

For I watched the “Chicago Tonight” program that aired last Friday, and saw a panel of reporter- and broadcast-types make it clear that the BIG STORY for ’11 was the departure of the Daley family from City Hall – resulting in the arrival of Rahm Emanuel from the White House to be our mayor for the next four years.

He has used his influence in subtle ways to impact public policy from both Washington and Springfield – as well as in brash ways to affect people locally.

Yet the Associated Press came out with its own take on the Top Ten stories for the year, and made it clear that Rahm Emanuel at City Hall is ONLY Number Two.

FOR THE TOP story in Illinois (the “near-unanimous choice” according to that wire service) was the whole second trial of Rod Blagojevich – the former governor who now faces the prospect of going to prison some time in March to serve a 14-year sentence (which could translate to 11 years, 10 ½ months if Milorod behaves himself while enduring incarceration).

Now in the interest of personal disclosure, I should remind you that I am a former United Press International reporter – having worked both at the Statehouse in Springfield and in Chicago for the wire service. Which means I have no personal qualms about writing something that says the Associated Press is full of it.

BLAGOJEVICH: Who's to blame?



And I also realize that “year in review” stories are basically space-filler for the week when there is real little news.

Yet the idea of elevating Blagojevich to the top slot is just absurd. I really suspect that the kind of people who compiled this list are probably the same ones who think that Reps. Bill Mitchell and Adam Brown have a clue with their ridiculous resolution to break the rest of Illinois away from Cook County.

MAYBE THEY THINK that making Blagojevich the BIG story somehow brings a sense of shame to Chicago politics.

It doesn’t – in part because Chicago political people have no sense of shame. It doesn’t factor into the equation.

Although whenever I hear the people from rural Illinois talk about Blagojevich and a legacy, it astounds me how they have forgotten how much of a role they themselves played in his becoming governor.

Remember that Blagojevich was the guy who won the 2002 primary BECAUSE of the fact that he got downstate Illinois voter support. The other candidates were too Chicago-centric to those voters, so they picked Milorod in overwhelming numbers.

IF THE WILL of Chicago, the city proper, had prevailed in that 2002 Democratic primary, we in Illinois would have experienced the concept of a “Gov. Roland Burris,” whose campaign was dominant enough in the African-American wards that he won the overall city vote.

If it had been the people of Chicago and its suburbs prevailing, we would have got a “Gov. Paul Vallas,” who truly was the one who appealed to the suburbs that comprise about 45 percent of the state’s overall population. It is likely that the only “Bridgeport” in his life would be the Sout’ Side neighborhood – not the Connecticut city whose school system he recently was hired by state officials to operate.

“Rod R. Blagojevich” is NOT some entity imposed by Chicago on the rest of the state. Which is what I think that surveys such as this AP thing try to reinforce.

Perhaps I’d take the idea of the federal government’s legal proceedings against Blagojevich more seriously if it could be argued that what is really being done is a crackdown on government corruption. Yet I couldn’t help but notice that the AP listings didn’t even include the trial of political operative William Cellini in their Top 10.

ANYBODY WHO KNOWS anything realizes that the Cellini trial – in the long-term – is more important than anything done to Blagojevich, who during his government service distinguished himself as a loud-mouth more than anything else.

Not that I’m necessarily arguing for Emanuel to get top billing – he can be just as much a blowhard as Blagojevich was.

Because I actually think the “Top story” for the year is the Illinois General Assembly – which gave us civil unions and the abolition of the death penalty. Those are two issues where a part of me believed our legislators would never have the nerve to do what was proper.

But they did, and they made major changes in the way Illinois will operate for the foreseeable future – while also ensuring that we advance further into the 21st Century, rather than lag backwards into the 19th.

And the silly resolutions that some downstate legislators concoct in response can serve a legitimate purpose -- they giver us all comic relief.

  -30-

Will the court intervene in Catholic desire to keep handling foster children?

Are we going to be in a long-running political fight between Illinois state government and the Catholic Church’s structure across the state?

It will be interesting to see what a Sangamon County judge (that’s the Springfield area, for those whose knowledge of the state ends at 119^th Street) does on Tuesday, because a blatantly-partisan act by that court could set the stage for a political war between the governor and the Cardinal.

EVEN THOUGH TECHNICALLY, the Chicago Archdiocese isn’t involved in this latest action. I’m sure there are Catholic officials in Chicago who are more than eager to see their religious brethren across Illinois to prevail.

At stake is the fact that the Catholic church is upset that the state government earlier this year went ahead and approved the law that permits gay couples to engage in civil unions – which provide many of the legal benefits that traditionally-married couples already get.

The church has said it does not plan to recognize such couples as having any special legal union, which would mean that it would refuse to consider them if they were interested in becoming adoptive, or foster, parents.

That led to the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services late last week to inform Catholic Charities that it will no longer permit the Catholic-affiliated to have anything to do with children,.

THE NEARLY 2,000 kids now being cared for by programs affiliated with Catholic dioceses across the state will be transferred to other organizations – most of which will be secular in nature.

Catholic officials have responded to civil unions by filing a lawsuit in Sangamon County Circuit Court that seeks to force the state to keep using Catholic-affiliated adoption programs to help place children in homes.

A hearing is scheduled for Tuesday. There’s no guarantee as to what will happen at that time. But officials sympathetic to the church side of this legal fight are hoping that some sort of injunction is issued by a judge to force the status quo to be maintained until the larger legal issue is resolved.

Then again, perhaps the court will do nothing of substance, and state officials will get a second legal victory this week (following the unanimous Illinois Supreme Court decision Monday that kept video poker legal to fund a massive construction program for the state).

NOT THAT THE Catholic Church has any chance of striking down the civil unions law that took effect last month, and has resulted in some 1,600 gay couples being issued licenses by counties across the state for civil unions during the law's first full month in effect.

This is about people trying to use organized religion to reject portions of our society that they don’t want to agree with. They want to be able to behave as though Illinois doesn’t recognize anything legitimate about a gay couple because it offends their sensibilities.

For those people who claim that their religious beliefs are somehow being compromised, I’d say that’s nonsense. This is about nothing more than partisan politics and ideology.

The fact that the proponents of this Catholic challenge are filing their court case in Springfield confirms that – in my mind.

FOR THIS LEGAL action was filed on behalf of the Catholic dioceses of Joliet (which covers the suburbs in Will and DuPage counties down south to Kankakee), Peoria and Belleville, along with the Illinois capital city.

The court (and political) systems in those first three cities have Democrat ideological leanings. While I realize that courts don’t knee-jerk (in most cases) rule in cases based on what the local political people desire, the fact is that it does have an influence.

Those courts might very well have tossed out the legal action to ensure that the state political powers-that-be in Springfield remain sympathetic.

But Springfield remains locally a solidly Republican establishment, including its court system. If any of those dioceses has a chance of getting the court to issue a quickie ruling in its favor while the greater legal issues are pending, it is Sangamon County.

I SUPPOSE THE Joliet Diocese could have taken the lead, but chosen to file the lawsuit in DuPage County court (located in Wheaton) – which still leans Republican, although not as intensely as it used to. But I could just as easily see the counter-measure to transfer the case to Joliet and Will County court.

Personally, I detest the idea that partisan politics and religion get co-mingled so closely. What comes next? Catholic-affiliated hospitals refusing treatment to those who don’t fit some church bureaucrat’s vision of an “ideal” person?

Which is why I wouldn’t mind it in the least if the church got out of the adoption business, if it has such a hang-up in complying with Illinois law.

It wouldn’t be the biggest stretch. The reason this isn’t a Chicago case is that the Archdiocese (which covers Cook and Lake counties) gave up on dealing with foster children and adoptions back in 2007 for reasons that had nothing to do with gay people or civil unions.

THE DIOCESE BASED in Rockford also got out of the child business earlier this year – with an Ottawa-based agency taking over such programs for northern Illinois.

Perhaps that is the lead the other dioceses should take. That is, if they can’t see their way to accept the fact that civil unions are here to stay in Illinois (until the day comes that Illinois follows the lead of New York and gives in to gay marriage proper).

  -30-

We’re evolving, but not quite there yet

I can remember having a conversation about a decade ago with a fellow reporter-type person, albeit one who is about 20 years older than myself.

EMANUEL: Making the most of Pride parade

The topic of discussion was the political perception of issues that in any way involved gay people. He had noticed the change during his time as a reporter, and a part of me wondered if he was passing along this tidbit to me so I could better comprehend the evolution of the issue in future years.

FOR AS HE recalled it, his early years as a reporter in the early 1970s were a time when politicians would eagerly vote against anything that hinted at sympathy to gay people.

Political debate on such bills would be filled with raunchy rhetoric about sodomy and people who “consumed human waste.”

But by the time he told me this story in the late 1990s, such bills would come up for consideration and would be filled with debate from people who expressed concern about human rights issues. The opposition, by and large, was just as disgusted as their counterparts of two decades earlier were.

But they kept their mouths shut, because they knew any attempt to speak out would not only be perceived as homophobia – it WOULD be homophobia. One wrong word on their part, and they’d ensure the fact that their eventual obituaries would contain the word “bigot” in the lede.

AND NOW, WE’RE at a stage where such bills can actually get majority support.

It was earlier this month in Illinois that we got the concept of civil unions, making it possible for gay couples to participate in something with legal standing that recognizes their life partnership and entitles them to the same legal rights as a more traditional (as in heterosexual) married couple.

New York managed to one-up us. Their state Legislature went so far last week as to approve a bill that lets gay couples get married, just like any other couple.

Maybe they won’t be able to walk into a Catholic church and have a priest officiate at the ceremony. But they’ll be able to show up at City Hall like any other couple, and I’m not convinced that many gay couples are all that interested in the traditional church wedding.

IT’S JUST A matter of time before this happens everywhere, although I’m sure there are going to be some states that are going to persist in holding out against this issue – making themselves look ridiculous in the process.

Which state will become the “gay marriage” equivalent of the Boston Red Sox, the last major league ballclub willing to have a black ballplayer on the roster – only 12 years after the Brooklyn Dodgers became the first?

Of course, there are those who are determined to be miserable at the thought of people being treated equally regardless of orientation (and anybody who’s thinking of sending me e-mail messages about how these political acts will lead to the denigration of our society by allowing people to marry their cocker spaniels, I’d respond that you’re completely missing the point).

Then again, you’re probably the grand-son of one of those crackpots of the past who was obsessed with human waste.

YOU MAY WELL be one of the people who thinks the New York Post did something admirable on Saturday. While other New York newspapers were playing up the story big and treating it as an act of history, the Post (which likes to think it has the most dramatic newspaper front page graphics in the business) buried the story with a single line at the bottom of the page – totally obscured by their lede story.

Get out the magnifying glass



The cop who stopped a woman from committing suicide.

Cute, but not exactly earth-shattering – especially since the front-page art was largely a photograph of a brick building that could have existed anywhere.

But such news judgment did play in into the way the ideologues of the world would like to think. Some people are just determined to live in the year 1952. Ignore the issue, and maybe it will go away.

BUT IT DIDN’T. Just like the annual Pride Parade in Chicago (which has been taking place for 42 years now, literally since the days of politicians who talked incessantly of “human waste”) didn’t go away on Sunday, just because someone tried slashing the tires of several of the floats that participated in the event.

I have to admire the parade organizers who managed to arrange for quickie repairs Sunday morning. The Chicago Tribune reported that they managed to have the overwhelming majority of the floats up and ready to ride in the parade by its scheduled noon time.

The parade float order may have been switched a bit – meaning that somebody was probably denied a chance to be at the head of the parade and had to ride in the middle somewhere.

But I’d argue that such a shift would be a good thing. Because this parade had at its head Mayor Rahm Emanuel, who behaved like a typical politician at such an event.

EXCESSIVE HAND-SHAKING AND waving, and even a couple of baby-kissings sighted.

Letting oneself get too close to a politician. Now that is a potentially dangerous condition. When was the last time a gay person hit you up for a campaign contribution?

  -30-

Millennium Park the place for spectacles; too bad some will offend way too easily

Early June is going to be the place to be at Millennium Park. The downtown splash of green is meant to be a showplace for the city.

Picture-postcard protests?

Yet I can’t help but note that two groups of people plan to gather there the first week of June to use the park as the setting for their protest statements on various issues.

WHICH MEANS THE park is going to be the setting for events that will get a bit of news coverage, get Chicago some national attention and encourage some nitwits who are determined to not only live their lives in the 19^th Century, but also to force the rest of us to live there with them.

We’re going to get a more garish version of those “Take Back the Night” marches where women show they can be seen in public and shouldn’t have to be afraid. Only this event will be in broad daylight – although its spirit will be similar.

I’m referring to the events that are cropping up across the nation under the name “SlutWalk.” Chicago will get its version of this event on June 4 (a Saturday). Women will dress in ways that might be considered trashy, as a way of symbolically showing it shouldn’t matter – and that the focus when it comes to sex crimes should be on the man (or whoever perpetrates the act), not the recipient.

The name was inspired by a Toronto cop who said that women would be less likely to be attacked if they’d stop “dressing like sluts.” That has inspired a collection of protest marches, the most recent of which took place on Saturday in Boston.

A PART OF me is tempted to venture out to Michigan Avenue and Randolph Street (the northeast corner of the route that the women plan to walk on that date) just to see how garish the Chicago version of the event gets.

Because I couldn’t help but notice the Boston version of the event brought out a male contingency calling themselves the “Pimpwalk” – and even a few nitwits who felt the need to comment on the Internet that these protesters “need a man.”

Although I suspect that anybody who tries to talk such trash in Chicago is going to find themselves on the wrong end of a mob scene. I wouldn’t want to tangle with that many angered women.

But it is bound to be quite a sight if they really get hundreds of women to go for a walk along Randolph Street, Michigan Avenue (walking alongside Millennium and Grant parks), Jackson and Clark streets. I only wish it didn’t take such a sight to try to put it into certain peoples’ heads where the focus ought to be when it comes to sex crimes.

QUINN: Will witness what he has wrought



ANOTHER VISUAL REMINDER that we’re now in the 21^st Century will come at Millennium Park just a couple of days earlier.

The “civil unions” measure that Gov. Pat Quinn signed into law earlier this year (at a ceremony held at the Chicago Cultural Center located across the street from the park) will take effect June 1.

That will be the first day that gay couples can seek a license from their county clerk to seek the union that implies similar legal benefits that straight couples get upon marriage.

So Thursday, June 2, will be the first day that couples could exchange vows in the ceremony not-quite-like marriage.



ACTIVIST GROUPS ON gay issues have said they plan to have some sort of mass ceremony where about 30 couples will make good on their civil union. Quinn has said he plans to be present at Millennium Park on that date, to see the end result of the measure approved by the Legislature and signed into law by himself.

Which has me wondering how many nitwits will feel the need to come out to the park and try to create an intimidating presence.

Not that I expect any violence to break out at the park. I expect a gathering of protest-types who will want to make their disapproval known publicly – even though such behavior really does little more than make themselves look ridiculous.

Because the trend is clear on this issue. States are going to move into this area of giving legal recognition to the unions of gay couples. The idea that these couples must be treated as illegitimate or some form of freak of nature is over – even though some people are a little slow in recognizing that fact.

THEN AGAIN, IT may well be some of these same people who are equally disgusted at the thought of women walking around in their underwear or other scanty articles of clothing.

Which means we will have a “miserable” week coming up for a certain segment of our society who can’t get with the program of our society. The rest of us will go about our lives minding our business – instead of trying to mind others’ like they seem anxious to do.

  -30-

On way to Gov. Quinn, I respect Meeks’ civil union opposition. Even if he’s wrong

Unless Gov. Pat Quinn does a complete 180-degree flip, Illinois is on the verge of becoming the sixth state in this nation that allows gay couples the legal concept of a “civil union” officially recognized by the state.



MEEKS: Waiting for his epiphany

For just one day after the Illinois House of Representatives gave its approval to the concept, which would give a legal recognition to gay couple pairings and many of the same legal perks that a traditional married couple gets by saying “I do,” the state Senate also voted for the measure.

QUINN HAS ALREADY said he will sign it into law. So it is just a matter of time before the measure becomes law in Illinois – and all those people who last month voted for William Brady for governor will gnash their teeth in disgust.

Now some have made much out of the fact that the bulk of the support for this measure came from Democratic legislators; in the state Senate, only one Republican (state Sen./Treasurer-elect Dan Rutherford, R-Chenoa) backed the bill.

But the aspect that catches my attention is the vote of Rev./state Sen./mayoral hopeful James Meeks, D-Chicago. He voted “no,” which isn’t a shock to anyone who has paid attention to his legislative record – which reflects the beliefs of a conservative preacher who deep down thinks all those “homos” are “going to Hell” for their behavior.

It had been noted that Meeks was trying to use his political clout to get the Illinois House to kill the bill so that he’d never have to vote for it in the Senate. But that didn’t happen, which had some people speculating that he might very well vote “yes” for political reasons.

HE WON’T WANT to get the gay rights activists all worked up against his mayoral aspirations, according to that speculation.

But it all turned out to be a moot point. Meeks wound up having to cast a vote after all. And he stayed a “no.”

Just prior to the debate on Wednesday, Meeks said he wouldn’t change his stance because he figured there was nothing to gain. He figured people would dump all over his mayoral aspirations for casting a vote for political reasons, and would assume he wasn’t being sincere.

For all the times I have seen political people cast horrid votes to provide themselves with political cover (such as then-Sen. Barack Obama voting in favor of federal funding for construction of barricades along the U.S./Mexico border), it was nice to see someone stick by their beliefs and be willing to take a hit.

NOT THAT I admire Meeks’ vote itself. It is horrid. The only thing that keeps me from being totally appalled is the fact that I know he will pay for this come Election Day. If not on Feb. 22, then on April 5.

For Meeks has probably clinched the votes of every single member of his South Side-based church congregation, which numbers in the thousands. I’m sure those people will talk to their friends and get them to cast a ballot for Meeks.

But I think it ensures that Meeks gets the support of absolutely nobody else in his bid for mayor of Chicago. Which means his campaign is about to fall into the trap of people like Tim Evans and Danny Davis – who lost mayoral bids because no one outside of the African-American voter bloc took them seriously.

Considering that this mayoral election has several African-American candidates seeking to split the city’s black vote, he won’t even be that dominant. Could Carol Moseley-Braun’s campaign wind up being the big winner out of Meeks’ gaffe?

SO NOW WE’RE number six – right up there following Vermont, California, Connecticut, New Jersey and New Hampshire, along with the province of Quebec and the Federal District of Mexico (a.k.a., Mexico City).

Those few people who spoke out against civil unions during the two days of legislative debate (most lawmakers kept quiet and merely voted “no”) were correct when they said this was a significant change for the state – not that it is a bad change.

It is an acceptance of people by our state’s segment of society that is overdue. Considering that I still remember being on hand at the Statehouse back in 1996 when the then-GOP-dominated Legislature persisted with passing a bill that clarified that gay marriage is illegal in Illinois (a law that remains on our books), I’d say the actions of the past two days show a lack of mean-spiritedness on our Legislature’s part.

McCARTER: Can't Ill. multi-task?

Perhaps the day comes when we will see that particular redundant law repealed.

SO WHEN PEOPLE like state Sen. Kyle McCarter, R-Lebanon, tries to claim that our state is being absurd by considering this issue at a time when there are budgetary problems to be dealt with, I can’t help but think he’s going to wind up looking like a short-sighted dink some five decades from now when people look back on this.

Even Meeks, I’m sure, will experience an epiphany someday and wish he could take this particular vote back.

  -30-

CAM-PAINS: Playing to the “fanatics”

It is that time of the campaign season when serious candidates make the rounds of various newspapers, not so much because they care about “making nice” with the reporter-types and their editors but because they are interested in endorsements.

Candidate Bill Brady

That means submitting to a session with various editors and reporters to answer questions about where one stands on issues.

IT ALSO USUALLY means the newspaper in question will write up an account of the meeting, so as to make itself feel all important that it got an “exclusive” interview with the candidate in question. Just like those newspapers that go so far as to commission their own polls, it’s all about self-promotion.

But it also gives the candidates a chance to play to their base – hoping that the voters who are ideologically inclined to back them will read those accounts and realize the “wisdom” of their choice.

At least that was the impression I got after reading accounts of the meeting that Gov. Pat Quinn had with the Daily Herald newspaper of suburban Arlington Heights, while Republican challenger William Brady had his get-together with the Chicago Sun-Times.

According to the Herald, Quinn is offering up a Christmas present, of sorts. He told those people interested in having the legal benefits of marriage extended to gay couples that the Illinois Legislature will act upon something this fall – making it possible for him to sign something into law by December.

BUT THE SUN-TIMES tells us that Brady specifically opposed that concept, and also had to let himself get lured into a debate over the differences between evolution and creationism.

Specifically, Brady told the Chicago newspaper that he thinks public school districts should be allowed for themselves to determine whether or not creationism should be taught in their curriculums.



Gov. Pat Quinn

I’m sure Brady, the state senator from Bloomington, knows full well how that will tick off the locals. But I’m also sure he knows he’s not getting their votes anyway.

So what he is counting on is the fact that word will spread of what the Sun-Times wrote, and that accounts will be published in newspapers elsewhere and will turn up on the Internet.

WHICH MEANS THE people who are inclined to want more religious influence within our schools will learn about it, and will be pleased. Heck, some of them might even perceive it as Brady telling those twisted Chicagoans right to their face what he’s going to do.

Even though if one reads exactly what Brady said, he’s not going to do anything. He says he would let school officials decide – even though this is one issue where there probably should be some consistency from school district to school district (which is why the Illinois State Board of Education would be involved).

This is about appealing to the base – the conservatives and rural people of Illinois who are more inclined to take such creationist talk seriously. Even if the individuals aren’t as hung up on religion as others are, the fact that Brady comes off as being supportive makes him seem more like  one of them.

Which is why I’m not about to get bent out of shape about this particular issue. I’d be more concerned about a gubernatorial candidate who – at a time when unemployment is high and people are fearing for their jobs – wants to talk about lowering the minimum wage and who thinks that “right to work” status for Illinois is something to be seriously considered.

BOTH OF THOSE are stances that Brady has taken during this campaign season, which implies to me that he blames the employees for problems facing business, rather than the businesses creating their own problems.

But those are other issues. On the social ones, Brady wants to keep that rural base that is perceiving this particular election cycle as a chance to knock down the heavy Chicago influence that has developed in the past decade over Illinois state government.

While Quinn is trying to appeal to those who realize where the bulk of the people of this state actually live – the urban portions, which have significant numbers of people who are inclined to take the whole gay marriage issue seriously.

Even if they’re not gay themselves, chances are they know someone who is and they’re not as inclined to view the whole concept in such a hostile manner.

BRADY, WHO ACTUALLY comes from one of the few central Illinois cities that has policies that make it clear gay people are not a species to be dreaded, is appealing to those voters who want to view marriage as something “traditional” and gay people as something opposite of tradition.

While Quinn, in speaking with the Herald, tried to take the opposite stance. He wants to be the candidate who gets the support of gay people and those who are not hostile toward gay people – which in today’s larger society is a growing segment.

Which means I’m not prepared to expect Quinn to keep his promise that civil unions – the concept that is considered a compromise to marriage for gay people – will be in place in Illinois by December.

We ought to hold him to his word, except that his promise specifically means he doesn’t have to act upon it until after the Nov. 2 elections. If he wins, Quinn has plenty of time to take some sort of positive action.

AND IF HE loses, I would think the last thing anybody would want is Quinn signing anything into law – even though he’d remain governor until early January and would have one more go-around with the Illinois Legislature this autumn.

Quinn may call himself a “strong advocate on civil unions,” but the reason he’s opening his mouth is that he wants your vote, just as Brady talking about creationism at this point is a blatant appeal for the votes of people who say “Hell, No!” to Quinn’s vote appeal.

Which reduces all of this to just more blather that we, the people, have to endure during the campaign season. Where’s the Tylenol? I’ve got a headache.

  -30-

Too conservative for “urban” Illinois? That’s what Dems want to think of Brady

With two-thirds of Illinois residents living in the Chicago metro area and another 8 percent coming from the St. Louis Metro East area, we literally get nearly three-quarters of the state’s population being people who think of themselves as “urban” residents.

Democratic campaigns for political office come the November general elections are desperately counting on that fact to stave off the fact that Republican voters (according to various polls) seem more excited about being able to cast ballots this year than do Dems.

THAT WAS WHAT popped into my head when I read recent reports coming from the GOP’s likely gubernatorial nominee Bill Brady (nothing will be official until next month). The Chicago Sun-Times devoted a few inches of space Thursday to letting us know some of Brady’s thoughts for the future.

They highlighted gay marriage, knowing that such a headline would capture attention. Brady, it seems, wants the Illinois Constitution amended so as to make marriage between non-hetero couples illegal, and he also wants to do away with the concept of “civil unions.”

This story is going to be repeated many times in coming months in places where the populace is more accepting of gay couples, as a way of trying to make Brady come off as too isolated in his home region (although his hometown of Bloomington is one of the few communities to have local ordinances offering civil rights protections for gay people) to understand the concerns of all of Illinois.

Now when trying to discuss this issue intelligently, it is important to realize that intelligence really is not a factor here.

STATEMENTS LIKE THESE are more about causing a visceral reaction amongst certain voters. In this case, Brady wants the more rural portions of the state to think of him as the candidate who will stick up for their way of thinking. I don’t think he expects to sway anyone’s thoughts about who they will vote for.

He’s trying to give people that nominally should be in his camp all the more reason to get enthused about turning out to vote on Election Day (or sooner, if they use an early voting center come October).

For the law in Illinois has always been clear that marriage is legal between hetero-sexual couples. In fact, back in the mid-1990s era when the Republican Party had a domination over state government, they passed laws making the issue all the more clear that non-heterosexual marriage is NOT acceptable in Illinois.

In theory, writing it into the state’s constitution would make it harder for a future Legislature to make any kind of change in this issue – even if the sentiment of the future continues to change and the people who become vehemently opposed to gay couples having the same legal rights of marriage as other couples become more and more outside the mainstream of our 21st Century society.

THINK I’M EXAGGERATING?

There are many Southern states that wrote segregationist principles into their state constitutions, which made the effort to get with the program in the late 20th Century with regards to civil rights and African-American people all the more complicated – and sometimes still confuses things whenever antiquated ordinances are discovered to still remain on the books.

I’d hate to think Brady wants to get Illinois bogged down in some future legal mess. I honestly believe he’s just trying to sew up a part of the conservative voter base that Republicans rely upon.

But that also will hurt him with regards to the rest of the state, which has turned solidly Democrat in the past two decades because those suburban areas that used to see the Republican Party as their defense mechanism against Democratic Chicago now identify themselves more with the city than they do the rural portions of the state that the GOP seems more concerned with these days.

THERE ARE MANY people who view this issue like I do – as a matter of butting out of someone else’s private business (which is what many conservative Republicans claim they stand for, at times).

So is this story going to be one we’re going to hear many allusions to in coming months?

Particularly since it also calls for state Constitution restrictions on the Legislature passing tax increases (I think each instance should be considered separately, rather than have harsh restrictions on all) and term limits for state legislators (I think such limits are short-sighted because some people have much to offer in public service, while others don’t even deserve one term).

Those too are issues that could bolster his image among certain voters, while hurt with the bulk of the state.

BUT BEFORE IT comes off like this commentary is a complete trashing of Brady, he did have one worth-while point to make – he would like to see the Illinois State Board of Elections put in charge of redrawing political boundaries for the state Legislature and Illinois’ congressional delegation, believing that the bi-partisan board would do a more fair job than the self-interests of the General Assembly.

I’m not sure how it would work but it is an idea worth considering, since the people on the elections board usually are more knowledgable about the realities of elections and the state as a whole than the legislators – most of whom can’t comprehend anything that happens beyond their own home neighborhood.

-30-

When will Illinois address gay marriage? The issue isn’t going to be ignored

One moment I remember in particular from the stint I did covering the “Statehouse in Springpatch” during the 1990s was when the issue of gay marriage came up in Illinois.

Illinois law had always said that valid marriage took place between opposite gender couples (a.k.a., a man and a woman). But back in the days of the Illinois Senate being under the control of James “Pate” Philip, and his Republican allies, they saw the climate of the country on this issue – and decided to make a statement.

HENCE, OUR STATE Legislature that already did not recognize the idea of a valid marriage between a gay couple felt the need to pass a change in state law. The portions of the law related to marriage were put through a rewrite to ensure that no one would misinterpret them.

Illinois law, which used to say valid marriage was only between men and women, now says that it specifically is NOT a valid option for same-sex couples.

I still remember the day then-Gov. Jim Edgar signed the change into law. He picked a day that was so busy with “newsworthy” governmental activity that virtually no one did much with this change.

It got lost in the shuffle, so to speak.

BUT I HAVE always wondered how long it would be before the actions of the mid-1990s would come back to haunt Illinois in terms of making us look ridiculous, or somehow out of touch with the society around us.

I’m starting to think that day is approaching in the near future.

Heck, even Iowa has seen the need to allow for some sort of legal bond to exist between gay couples. And in Vermont on Tuesday, the Legislature felt so strong about the issue that they objected to the governor’s attempt to kill it off with his veto.

They overrode it, which means it will take effect despite the objections of Gov. Jim Douglas.

SO AS OF now, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Iowa and Vermont are the states that permit their gay couples to enjoy the same legal protections that traditional married couples have as a result of their agreeing to say “I do” to the question of, “Do you promise to love, honor and cherish …. ?”

Most of those states had the courts impose the measures. And as we all saw when California’s courts tried to impose the concept, the religious right got enough people worked up into a frenzy to pass referenda that struck the idea down.

I have no doubt there is opposition to the concept of allowing gay people to have any aspect of their lives be acceptable, and those are the people who will probably make this issue a “cause” they will fight for to their deaths.

Heck, Douglas in Vermont responded to his veto being overridden by trying to say that legislators ought to be more concerned with taking actions to help unemployed people, rather than gays. Trying to stir up resentment among people who are suffering is little more than a cheap trick.

BUT I WONDER how long it will be until the day comes that we relive this issue in Illinois?

I have always thought this particular issue was one that is the business of the couples themselves – and probably not one that the rest of society ought to get involved in. If that means I support the concept of marriage, or some sort of legal union, being allowed for non-heterosexual couples, then so be it. I think such laws are an intrusion into other people’s business.

For those people who truly get worked up over a religious wedding service and a church-sanctioned marriage, I don’t see how this affects them. It’s not like anyone is forcing any particular religion to start suddenly performing marriage ceremonies for gay couples.

It’s going to turn into a case where gay couples will be flooding the City Halls of our country to have civil marriage ceremonies performed.

AS FOR THOSE people who want to argue that permitting gay marriage is a step toward permitting a man to marry his pet pitbull, that kind of talk strikes me as being as ridiculous as those people who used to try scare-tactic talk to argue that the Equal Rights Amendment would lead to all of us using same-sex bathrooms.

What I’m not sure about is who will be the person who will take this issue on. Because this is something that a lot of our political people (even if they’re sympathetic to the general concept) would prefer not to have to think about.

It is an issue they would just as soon ignore, even though it is one of those things that will not go away just because the politicos try to pretend it doesn’t exist.

Right now, I don’t see any Illinois political person who has the nerve to bring this issue up for discussion. State Rep. Greg Harris, D-Chicago, in recent years has tried bringing up bills, only to have them die off in legislative committees due to a lack of support.

IN FACT, THE people who are more likely to talk openly about this issue are the ones who want to ensure that no change takes place in Illinois. Groups are trying to push for an amendment to the Illinois Constitution to ensure that gay people know their relationships can never be legally legitimized.

Amending the state Constitution is a difficult thing to do, so it is likely that the issue will remain in flux for some time in Illinois. But I’m wondering if we’re destined to be among the last states to act on this issue (I never would have thought Iowa would be the first Midwestern state to act).

But I do see the day when I will be able to reminisce about the day in the 1990s when the Legislature felt the need to outlaw what was already illegal, and tell about how it was one of Illinois government’s more shameful moments.

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTES: The opponents of gay marriage are not about to give up their fight anytime (http://www.sj-r.com/archive/x1772950620/Gay-marriage-foes-to-try-again-in-Illinois) soon.

Vermont and Iowa (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/08/us/08vermont.html?em) are now trendsetters on this issue, while places such as California and Illinois lag on the sidelines.

Gay ‘civil unions’ backers bring ‘senior citizen’ tactic to Illinois General Assembly

At a time when California officials are going to boldly address the issue of whether marriage ought to be legal for gay people, politicos in Illinois may try to sneak the issue in through the back door.

Specifically, supporters of a bill pending before the Illinois House of Representatives this spring to create the concept of civil unions (which gives some of the legal rights to couples that a church-sanctioned marriage already provides) are now touting the notion that it’s not just gay people who could benefit – senior citizens who are widowed and have potential for a new relationship at the end of their lives would also gain.

IN THE IMAGINATIONS of the activists who want this issue to pass, a unique pairing will develop – gay rights activists and the small army of retirees who can be organized by the American Association of Retired Persons and other interest groups that look out for older people.

They will supposedly create a force that will pressure the Illinois Legislature into actually voting for something resembling civil unions. After all, who’s going to say “no” to that sweet grandma-like woman?

In reality, when it comes to the prospect of gay marriage entering a debate, there are a lot of people who will screech and scream – perhaps even a few of those sweet-looking grandma-types.

At stake is what happens to elderly people who are widowed, then get into another relationship in their final years of life. Some of them go so far as to get married, but many do not – in large part because their Social Security benefits would take too big a hit if they were legally joined as one.

SO THEY MERELY live together, although supporters of this new strategy note they suffer when one of the people passes on or incurs a threatening illness. Because of the lack of a legal marriage, the other person in the couple has no legal say in what happens.

A civil union, these people say, is the perfect alternative to marriage in that it would invest each person with a legal say in the other’s future. Hence, civil unions are not just something for gay people anymore.

Who’s to say whether that line of reasoning will be considered acceptable? It has been tried in other states, but did not appear to sway many people.

AARP officials in Florida last autumn tried arguing against measures to outlaw gay marriages. They cited civil unions as acceptable, provided that provisions were written into the law to allow heterosexual senior citizens to take advantage of the measure as well.

WHAT HAPPENED WAS that conservatives wound up blasting the attempt to include senior citizens as, “a pathetic, desperate strategy.”

Already, various Internet sites that attract social conservative elements of our society are denouncing the possible use of the tactic in Illinois, making it clear they will not tolerate anything that would (in any way) benefit gay people – which makes this an issue more of trying to keep gay people down than it is of protecting anyone’s legal rights.

The one that caught my attention was an anonymous half-wit who felt the need to tell the world (through the Springfield State Journal-Register newspaper’s reader’s comments section) that without heterosexual marriage, our very essence would be, “out in some farmer’s bean field plowed under with the rest of the sewage.”

So what’s going to happen here in Illinois?

IT’S A GOOD thing that the bill’s sponsor, state Rep. Greg Harris (who represents Chicago’s Ravenswood and Lincoln Square neighborhoods) is non-committal about when this issue will come up for a vote.

He thinks he could get enough support in the Chicago Democrat-controlled Illinois House if the measure actually got to a vote. But with all the other potential issues for legislators to dump on each other with, the last thing that House Speaker Michael Madigan, D-Chicago, is going to want is something that stirs up the social conservatives.

He’s already geared up for battle with Gov. Rod Blagojevich on a myriad of personal slights. He doesn’t need another enemy. That is what makes this issue (and strategy) a likely bet to come up in 2009 – if at all.

Perhaps the 2008 elections will help bring on a change in the mindset of our public officials to allow them to view the issue of gay marriage more rationally.

I KNOW. QUIT laughing.

Reality makes that scenario even less likely than the seniors/gay activists working together as an effective coalition to pressure the Illinois Legislature to take action on civil unions.

Which means the interests of gay people in Illinois who want their relationships to have legal status ought to be looking to Sacramento, Calif., rather than Springfield, Ill., for any sort of movement.

IT WAS ON Thursday that the state’s high court struck down the two laws that made marriage a legal option only for heterosexual couples. The court, in its majority opinion, ruled that marriage, “properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all Californians, whether gay or heterosexual.”

That could result in gay couples from around the country converging on California to get married, then return to their home states to pressure their local political people to recognize the result of their union.

Social conservative activists already are working with their California sympathizers, trying to push for an amendment to the state constitution that would ban any gay-marriage options. That, if they can get it on the ballot and get a majority of voter support, would overrule Thursday’s high court ruling.

IN SHORT, GAY marriage is now an issue that Californians are going to be confronted with – although I won’t be the least bit surprised if it creeps its way into the presidential campaign and the entirety of the United States of America has to put up with the ridiculous rhetoric.

I can already envision Republican John McCain trying to gain the support of people pushing for the constitutional amendment and conservatives trying to tar Democrat Barack Obama as the candidate with the crazy black preacher, the hippie terrorist friend AND who supports gay marriage.

It’s one more thing they can try to pile on him. I would consider it a victory for Illinois (and society as a whole) if voters rejected such ridiculous reasoning and didn’t take the issue of gay marriage into account at all come Nov. 4.

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTES: Wearing their “Seniors for Civil Unions” t-shirts, a group of elderly people led by state politicos (http://www.sj-r.com/news/x194397179/Sponsor-Civil-union-bill-would-help-seniors) want to show that civil unions is not just a gay rights issue.

The desire for civil unions is growing (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-ap-il-xgr-civilunions-o,0,2952794.story) amongst gay people in this state.

The Statehouse Scene in Tallahassee, Fla., already went through this attempt to link senior citizens (http://blogs.tampabay.com/buzz/2007/12/aarp-marriage-a.html) and gay rights activists.

California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is NOT among the Republican politicos wanting to overturn (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/16/us/15cnd-marriage.html?hp=&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1210878799-Jj/xwntb5wCqzwzdXIgcMA) the California Supreme Court’s action that legitimizes marriages of gay couples beginning in mid-June.