Will Lightfoot make deferential gestures to Mr. Speaker to get along?

Just a thought about what the relations will be like in coming years between Mayor-elect Lori Lightfoot and the almighty and powerful Speaker of the Illinois House – Michael Madigan.

MADIGAN: Makes conciliatory remarks

It’s probably going to be up to Lightfoot on whether she desires an antagonistic relationship with “Mr. Speaker” himself!

IF SHE IS willing to show gestures indicating that he’s the guy of prominence within Illinois state government, it would be likely that Madigan would give support to the city’s needs and desires.

Of course, one possible key is that many of the people who were inclined to vote for Lightfoot and view her mayoral election as a moment of great historic significance likely are the same people who wish that Madigan somehow could be voted out of office.

I don’t doubt that at least a few of Lightfoot’s followers eagerly would want her to be hostile and do whatever she can to undermine his political influence.

If that happens, we’re going to see a political relationship that will sour quickly – and will make us think of the “good ol’ days” (heavy sarcasm intended) when people like Bruce Rauner and Rod Blagojevich were in positions of authority.

THIS ISSUE IS coming to the forefront because Lightfoot – although she won’t actually be mayor until mid-May, is making her first trip to the Statehouse Scene in Springfield.

LIGHTFOOT: Will she retort in kind?

She’s expected to be there until Thursday, although Madigan felt the need to issue a statement Tuesday welcoming her (sort of) to the capital city.

“I’m proud to welcome Mayor-elect Lightfoot to a Capitol where women, people of color and members of the LGBTQ community (Illinois House Majority leader Greg Harris is openly gay) are serving in critical leadership roles within the Illinois House Democratic caucus,” Madigan said.

I don’t doubt he’s being sincere, in that he wants all of those groups of people to not view him with hostility. As to whether or not he really believes in Lightfoot as mayor, that remains to be seen. But as long as he doesn’t view her as “the enemy,” perhaps she won’t view him that way either.

IT SHOULD BE noted that Madigan publicly always acknowledges the significance of Chicago’s interests in defining his job. I remember back to the days of Richard M. Daley as mayor when Madigan would always downplay talk of his own political power by saying that the mayor was the number one Democratic political official.

PRITZKER: Says he'll get along fine with Lightfoot

In theory, he’s giving Lightfoot the same treatment – respecting her new job title. Will Lightfoot return the gesture?

I couldn’t help but notice comments she made recently to WTTW-TV where she talked of “not wanting to be part of the (Democratic) party apparatus,” and also hinted that perhaps Madigan has held his dual role as Illinois Democratic chairman (since 1998) for too long.

“I respect the speaker, but I believe in term limits,” Lightfoot said – a line that likely will appease the North lakefront crowd that was the base of her voter support this month but had to have Madigan and his loyalists seething deep inside.

SO WE’LL HAVE to see just what kind of relationship Lightfoot is able to create with the state government officials. For what it’s worth, Lightfoot had dinner last week with Gov. J.B. Pritzker at his Gold Coast neighborhood residence, and he says he thinks he’ll get along just great with the new mayor.

Political amateur Lightfoot gets introduction to Statehouse Scene

But just as we’re still waiting to see how well Pritzker and Madigan manage to co-exist, it will be equally intriguing to see how the Lightfoot/Madigan ties play out.

As Madigan said on Tuesday, “I believe Illinois is strongest when Chicago succeeds and when all are heard.” Which certainly is true enough. But it seems we’ll have to see for ourselves just how sincere he is, and how much Lightfoot is willing to put aside her own ego for the betterment of the public good.

And we’ll have to see what kind of reaction she has the first time someone puts a “horseshoe” before her, that so-called sandwich concoction many Springpatchers try to portray as a culinary delight!

  -30-

Some in Catholic church want to attach “exorcism” label to homosexuality

An exorcism, of sorts, took place just last week in the Avondale neighborhood.

A 'Page One' controversy

There, officials with the Resurrection parish held a ceremony where they burned a decades-old banner; as part of their desire to express their opposition to homosexual behavior of any sorts.

THE BANNER THAT was burned is one that belongs to the church. It’s their own property, which means that the letter of the law says they can do what they want with it.

The banner is one that used to be prominently displayed in the church – it incorporates a Christian cross with a colorful rainbow. It most likely was intended to be a peaceful image. As in, “Love of Christ” and all that kind of talk.

But in today’s mentality, the ideologues determined to put a hostile spin on just about everything see a similarity between their banner (which had been in storage in recent years) and the multi-colored rainbow-motif flags that gay rights activists often unfurl on behalf of their own cause.

Which led church officials to hold the ritual of exorcism to chase the demonic influence away from their church building.

SERIOUSLY!

Church officials said they viewed their peaceful banner as having evolved into something by which pro-gay propaganda was trying to express itself within their allegedly hallowed halls.

To me, I can’t help but see the activity at Resurrection Church as bordering on grotesque. People with far too much free time on their hands trying to come up with yet more ways to taunt those who aren’t like themselves.

CUPICH: Being challenged by his priests

I’d be willing to dismiss it as too petty to be taken seriously, except that it seems these church officials are eager to look to their past to find ways of justifying their backward thoughts.

ALL THE MORE reason why I find the idea of “Make America Great Again” to be inherently false. I suspect these parishioners think they’re merely making their church ‘great again’ by seeking out absurdly-outdated ideology.

Then again, these people probably are the same ones going about wearing their red caps in hopes of intimidating others around them. It’s embarrassing that too many church officials have the same mentality of the schoolyard bully of old.

What scares me is that this rhetoric, which officially is being denounced by Chicago Archdiocese Cardinal Blasé Cupich, is too similar to the acts back in 2013, when the Bishop of the Springfield, Ill., Catholic diocese decided to express his opposition to then-Gov. Pat Quinn approving the law that made gay marriage legitimate in Illinois by holding an exorcism on behalf of the whole state.

Are we literally going to have church officials holding their ritual to chase the Satanic spirits they see around every corner? Which to the masses merely brings up tacky memories (Ragen’s head twisting completely around?) of that 1973 horror film, “The Exorcist.”

I SUSPECT THAT most people don’t understand a thing about what exorcism really was. Just as many people probably have the whole of their religious knowledge coming from scenes of the 1956 film “The Ten Commandments.”

Extent to which most comprehend exorcisms

Is actor Charlton Heston really their vision of a holy man?

My comprehension of exorcism is that it was often used in olden times as a way of dealing with ailments we now comprehend as evidence of mental illness. It’s not a process anybody turns to these days, unless they’re desperately determined to live in the past.

Although I suspect many of those who approved of the banner burning that took place last week are amongst those who would be grossly offended if the banner had been the Stars and Stripes, and who have holy-like visions in this Age of Trump when they think of our nation’s current commander-in-chief.

  -30-

Taking pride in not going to parades?

I didn’t go to the Pride Parade held Sunday. I’m also likely to ignore the slew of parades that will take place in a couple of weeks related to the upcoming Independence Day holiday.

The parade route I chose to ignore

None of this is intended as a political statement of any sorts. It’s actually that I just don’t get any enjoyment from the idea of a parade – regardless of what the event or cause is that’s being celebrated.

SOME PEOPLE LIKE the spectacle. They take a certain sense of glee from the largesse put on display to celebrate whatever cause happens to be the reason for a parade.

Personally, I find it to be a lot of noise and racket and standing around doing nothing while other people go marching by.

And quite frankly, if you’ve seen one parade, you’ve seen them all. There’s no reason to relive the experience.

So I didn’t feel compelled to head up to Boystown – that sub-neighborhood that combines with the Wrigleyville set (gay people wishing to live openly combined with Chicago Cubbies fans) to make the Lake View neighborhood one of Chicago’s most unique places to be.

NOR AM I eager to see what many may view as the anti-Pride parade – an Independence Day holiday filled with pomp and circumstance and lots of images of fireworks and explosions and much right-wing rhetoric.

Even though personally, I find much of that rhetoric to be a skewed view of what our nation is supposed to be about. In fact, a part of me thinks that the public spectacle that was the Pride Parade is about as “American” as we can get in the 21^st Century.

Even though with all its kitschy value of watching Chicago’s gay community come out into the open will bother some. That very “openness” and willingness to express oneself publicly is most definitely what we as a people are supposed to be about.

Although I’m sure the type of people who comprised the 46 percent of the electorate that voted for Donald Trump to be president are amongst those who were most offended by Sunday and can’t wait until July 4 so they can present their own bombastic view of what they think we, the people, are truly all about.

Is "believing" about fireworks explosions?

NOW I KNOW there are people who claim the Pride Parade is something that everybody ought to experience firsthand – if only for the kitsch that can provide many a laugh for the public.

It certainly isn’t any worse than the garishness of red, white and blue that we’ll be subjected to in nine more days – all in the name of “patriotism” and “America.” Although will be espousing that old hard-hat line of logic – “Love it, or leave it!”

Or, “Shut up, and Do what you’re told!”

Does that make Independence Day the anti-Pride parade for some types of people in our society – the ones who wish we were still back in the 19^th Century? Which is ironic, since many of these people are the same ones who criticize certain elements of the Islamic religious faith for refusing to accept the realities of modern-day life.

ARE THEY JUST jealous that our society isn’t still behind the times?

For those who are now ranting and raging about what I’m full of for bad-mouthing Independence Day, keep in mind it’s the garishness that I find mind-numbing.

I have always thought the upcoming Independence Day ought to be the most solemn of occasions -- one in which we respect the ideals of our national existence. Instead, we’re usually more interested in seeing who can light off the most obnoxious explosions into the sky – to the point where I know my father’s dog, Rocco, will wind up barking up a storm come the night of July 4 as he’ll be freaked out by all the, “bombs bursting in (the) air.”

So I’m not into the parade scene, which seems to me to be a whole lot of loitering by the masses. Except nobody felt compelled to call the cops to complain – unless the fireworks being set off by neighborhood kids get real obnoxious next week!

  -30-

The running mates debate; will Clinton or Trump benefit more from event

Tuesday will be the night that Indiana’s governor takes on Virginia’s senator in a head-to-head competition to try to get other people elected to political office.

For Mike Pence and Tim Kaine, whom most people outside of their home states had probably never paid any attention to prior to this summer, are the running mates.

THEY’RE THE VICE presidential picks chosen by the presidential nominees to be the ones who will be called upon to be the “Commander in Chief” of our country in the event that our newly-elected president dies, or is otherwise incapacitated.

And unlike the presidential candidates who will have two more debate appearances scheduled between themselves, we only give the vice-presidential hopefuls one debate.

The event at Longwood University (a Virginia-based school, I can already hear the Trump-type rants about the bias against his running mate, who is a Hoosier) will give us our lasting political impression of both men.

Heck, for most of us, it will be the first we’ve ever really thought of either official. Which means a gaffe by either man likely will live on forevermore. Just like how most of us only think of James Stockdale (paired up with ’92 candidate H. Ross Perot) as the guy screaming confusedly, “Who am I? Why am I here?

THIS TIME AROUND, the would-be third party candidates weren’t strong enough in the polls to warrant being included in the debates. So we won’t see a Libertarian or a Green on Tuesday.

It’s going to be the Kaine vs. Pence show.

Both of them are going to try to make it appear as though Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are completely rational public officials, while their opponent is a complete loon!

For those who wish GOP ticket were reversed

Of course, both men have some baggage that will make them susceptible to attack. If anything, that may be the issue where Pence is already exposed to heat.

BECAUSE HE’S THE Indiana governor who signed into law that measure meant to protect religious freedoms, but was really nothing more than a law providing cover for people to use religion as an excuse to harass people with whom they disagree.

By now, Pence had better be used to dealing with questions about this issue. I’m sure in his mind, he’s going to continue to stand up to criticisms just as he has been for the past year. So maybe he has the advantage in that he ought to be prepared.

Although Pence’s stance does hurt him among those gay rights activists who were willing to stand up for Trump publicly. It will be curious to see how much the mess of Indiana politics from 2015 winds up dominating Tuesday night’s debate session.

Of course, it’s not like Kaine doesn’t have his critics. He has made his own stance on Capitol Hill when it comes to the Hyde Amendment – which is the law used to justify cutting off any sort of federal funding that in any way would benefit a woman’s ability to abort a pregnancy.

CLINTON DOESN’T THINK much of that measure, but her pick of Kaine as a running mate is part of what makes him a moderating force for those who think she’s too liberal. Of course, others think she’s too conservative – and cite Kaine’s choice as a running mate as evidence of her own political leanings.

It will be interesting to see more liberal interests try to take off on Kaine to try to hurt Hillary; particularly those who may still have hang-ups about the fact that Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont didn’t get the Democratic presidential nomination.

The debate location

Then again, it may be the more conservative interests who are in agreement with Kaine who may bring the issue up – just to stir up discontent that they hope winds up backing Trump’s chances of Election Day victory.

Because in the end, voters will wind up casting their ballot based on their presidential preference. Their next debate appearance is Sunday at Washington University in St. Louis.

  -30-

Hoosier governor for VP – could Pence become Trump’s political savior?

It would be intriguing if Indiana Gov. Mike Pence truly were willing to give up his current post for the chance to be one seat away from the presidency in a potential Donald Trump administration.

PENCE: Will Trump 'train' take him for better ride?

For the Roll Call newspaper in Washington, D.C., reported Thursday that Trump will pick Pence as his running mate, although Trump later said he would postpone his announcement out of a sense of respect for those killed in a Bastille Day attack on Thursday in Nice, France.

NOT NEW JERSEY Gov. Chris Christie. Not one-time House Speaker Newt Gingrich of Georgia. Not even his daughter, Ivanka – whose name Trump has tossed into the rumor mill most likely to confound those people determined to influence his pick.

I have to admit the idea of Pence as the running mate makes some sort of sense – in a purely political logic kind of way. Even though I have to admit to seeing the humor in political columnist Ann Coulter saying the only reason Trump would say Pence now is so that when he really does name his choice, everybody will think to themselves “Thank God it’s not Mike Pence.”

But keep in mind there are those Republican types who are in with the GOP for social conservative reasons and they don’t find satisfaction in all of Trump’s anti-Mexican or anti-Arab talk or any of the other cheap rhetoric he has used to try to stir up dissent.

Because Trump is a wealthy Manhattanite who doesn’t show the same fear of, and bigotry toward, gay people that they do.

SOME GAY ACTIVIST types actually say Trump is a reasonable individual to do business with. He certainly hasn’t demonized them the way he has others.

So, in the sense that a vice presidential choice is meant to balance out a ticket, that is what Pence’s presence would do. It is why Pence spent the day Wednesday meeting with Pence while Democratic presidential challenger Hillary Clinton was in Springfield, Ill., claiming the mantel of Abraham Lincoln morality for herself.

 

GINGRICH: No political comeback for Newt?

For let’s not forget that Pence was the governor who signed off on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act – the measure that equated hostility toward gay people as being one’s Constitutional right to express and treated efforts to fight back against such bigotry as the real act of racism.

People could claim their religion as justification for their bigotry – which I always personally thought was a repulsive interpretation of religious belief.

BUT IT WAS written into Indiana law, and for a time last year it was Open Season on Hoosiers. The state was the ultimate butt of jokes – to the point where even Mississippi and Alabama had right to look down upon them.

As things stand, if Pence ran for re-election as governor, his support of that measure and willingness to sign it into law would have been a major issue to be used against him.

He would have faced countless questions about gay rights and the mood of the nation might well have turned against him, and the state that hasn’t had a Democrat as its governor for more than a decade could receive one now!

But if he goes on board with Trump, he will be appealing to that segment of the electorate who will view him as heroic. He could well be the guy who helps solidify Trump voter support amongst conservative ideologues – particularly those who think the whole “gay” issue is of crucial importance.

AS IN MEDDLING in someone else’s personal business ought to be a priority of government. But whatever! I’m sure some voters now hesitant about Trump will be swayed by Pence’s presence on the ballot.

Will Hillary make Mike Pence a moot point? 

It may be that Pence has a better chance of having a political future if he signs on the Trump camp and becomes the factor that boosts it to a victory over Hillary Clinton.

And if it turns out that the REAL majority of our society winds up deciding that the return of the Clintons to the White House is nowhere near as repulsive as the thought of the Trump brand being applied to the Oval Office, then what else did Pence really have to lose?

Other than campaigning unsuccessfully for re-election in places like South Bend, Terre Haute and Gary – the latter of which likely would have been extremely hostile toward him.

  -30-

EDITOR'S NOTE: Mike Pence also has the political record that has tried to single out Chicago. Which probably ensures that the Trump camp has written off any chance of taking Illinois' Electoral College votes -- no matter what kind of cheap talk Trump himself spews.

EXTRA: Could White Sox get bogged down in N. Carolina political squabble?

How long could it be before the Chicago White Sox find themselves caught up in a political squabble concerning North Carolina’s passage of state laws perceived as openly hostile toward the gay community?

Future Bulls star and White Sox prospect was a Tar Heel

Several government officials across the country have imposed travel bans restricting their ability to do business with North Carolina companies, while Mayor Rahm Emanuel has publicly said he’d like to urge a Carolina-based business to relocate to Chicago – IF they wish to escape the restrictions of the state’s effort to outlaw legal protections for gay people.

WHAT DOES ANY of this have to do with the White Sox?

Just that the Sout’ Side ball club has so much of its minor league operations based in the Carolinas. Their top-level affiliate is the Charlotte Knights, while they also deliberately located two lower-level affiliates in Winston-Salem and Kannapolis.

The idea being that a Chicago team official having to do business with the minor league teams can catch a simple slight from O’Hare International Airport to Charlotte, then rent a car for a short drive to one of the other cities if need be.

Have the White Sox been dragged into a potential political brawl because of the cities they use to try to develop young ballplayers into major leaguers?

COMMON SENSE OUGHT to say “No.” Then again, common sense rarely is used in such situations. It would be too easy to drag the team into the situation to try to score political points.

Sox' AAA, ...

After all, common sense ought to have kept North Carolina from taking on this issue to begin with.

But the idea that some places were passing local laws specifying that gay people had the same legal protections and rights as everybody else strikes some individuals as too radical a concept to tolerate.

Just like those people who want to fight against local laws concerning gun ownership and try to pass laws mandating that everybody own a firearm!

... high A, and ...

WHAT MAKES THIS truly pathetic is the fact that North Carolina officials wound up including provisions regarding restrooms in public schools (presumably, private schools already are segregating). As in transgender people would be told their thoughts about who they are is wrong, and they have to urinate and defecate where they’re told.

... low A affiliates.

No matter how squeamish and uncomfortable it might make them. Honestly, for all the talk about perverts hanging around bathrooms, I’d think the bigger threat is to some clown who thinks he’s acting in Jesus’ name in sticking some “guy’s” head in a toilet bowl because he doesn’t act “manly enough.”

Particularly if it winds up happening in one of the ballparks. Which would truly be a disgraceful incident that would wind up drawing negative attention to the Chicago team indirectly.

Now I don’t know what the White Sox would, or could, do if this situation were to wind up causing problems. I’d like to think that people attending ballgames do so to escape nonsense like this.

Alabama could become point of common sense for White Sox

BUT ALL TOO often, the ideologues of our society insist on bringing their nonsense to places where is truly doesn’t belong.

Although perhaps it would be nice if at least one White Sox affiliate were to be somewhere in the Midwest within range of Chicago (like the Chicago Cubs who have minor league affiliates in Des Moines, Iowa, and South Bend, Ind. – both of which, ironically enough, were once White Sox affiliates).

I don’t know that such a move is in the works. Then again, perhaps we’ll have to see if incidents arise once the Knights’ Opening Day is held April 14.

It would be nice if calmer and cooler heads could prevail.

  -30-

How clueless can some people be?

Dan Piraro's 'Bizarro' strips occasionally hit too close to home

Admittedly, I have a bias – I spent my time in college studying history (that is, when I wasn’t writing copy for assorted newspapers) and got my B.A. degree studying the foreign policy of the United States.

But it always manages to amaze me when the historical cluelessness of the masses is exposed.

WE LITERALLY ARE in danger of being sentenced to relive our mistakes because we didn’t study our history. Or so said the Italian philosopher George Santayana.

Take WGN-TV, which earlier this week wrote up some copy for a news anchor to read about the start of the Jewish holiday of Yom Kippur.

Rather typical coverage that would fill a few seconds of airtime. The presentation was supposed to be enhanced by an on-screen graphic beside the news anchor’s head depicting the Star of David – the universal symbol of the Jewish religious faith.

Except that someone, in picking through assorted stars of David to find one to use on-air, managed to screw up by picking out an illustration of a yellow piece of felt cut into the shape of the Jewish star, with the German word “Jude” on it.

IN SHORT, THE badge that the Nazi-era German government used to require Jewish people to wear so as to make them stand out in the general public – and therefore more open to harassment from what that government considered to be the “real” people.

What WGN-TV intended

Not exactly the symbol that Jewish people want to be reminded of on one of the holiest of holidays in all of Judaism, although the resulting WGN apology was certainly an act of atonement.

Now I don’t think that WGN-TV is employing anyone with neo-Nazi sympathies or who is interested in pushing the idea of an Aryan master race. No one there is pledging allegiance to Adolf Hitler (or not even propagandist Josef Goebbels).

It’s someone who was vacuous enough to think that anything connected to a six-point star somehow is symbolic of Judaism. By that line of logic, many law enforcement officers are Jewish.

What WGN-TV gave us

ADMITTEDLY, THIS IS a symbol of Jewish harassment. But once again, not the concept that was meant to be pushed. All because someone probably took as few history courses as possible while being educated, and probably thought even those were too many.



Of course, this kind of vacuous thought isn’t a one-time incident.

I still recall a moment from a couple of decades ago when the Northwest Herald newspaper in suburban Crystal Lake ran a story about an exhibit at the Smithsonian Institute in Washington, D.C., about the use of the atomic bomb to bring an end to the Second World War.

The first of those bombs was dropped on Hiroshima in Japan by an Army Air Corps bomber called the Enola Gay – named as a tribute to the pilot’s mother.

BUT SOME COPY editor had no clue what Enola Gay was, and the resulting headline referred to the “Enola Homosexual.” Probably based on some higher-up’s editorial decision that gay people aren’t gay, they’re homosexual. Or a whole bunch other pejorative slurs too crass to put in the newspaper.

The reality that somebody forgot

Aside from the fact that it was intended to not put a positive spin on gay people, it bothers me that someone was so unaware of what brought that world war to an end. A little more attention to our past would have allowed for better comprehension.

The sad part of all this is that I fully comprehend that such gaffes are going to occur again. Our attitude toward the past – many think something happening in 2001 is ancient – can be downright depressing.

We’re in for a lot of misery as a result, all because too many people think we, ourselves (that is what history is about) are too boring to study in depth.

  -30-

Evolution flows; but are we there yet?

I recall a conversation I once had with a veteran reporter-type back when I was an Illinois Statehouse reporter back in the mid-1990s with regards to the way political people handled themselves whenever issues related to sexual orientation came up.

This conversation took place back at a time when Republicans had complete control of state government (both chambers of the Legislature and the governor’s office) and were willing to use it to bring up bills that were considered offensive to gay rights activists.

HECK, IT WAS an era when GOP officials felt compelled to use their influence to make sure that people understood that marriage between homosexual couples could NEVER be considered legitimate. Even though no one ever thought that Illinois law permitted it beforehand.

But my elder colleague – who has since gone on to mentor many new generations of reporters – said he noticed the difference from his early days at the Illinois Statehouse (back when the governor was named “Ogilvie”) whenever such issues came up.

Back then, he said, the opposition to anything considered sympathetic to gay people was vocal. He recalled how legislators felt compelled to speak out in as graphic of terms as they could.

Talk of how gay people “consumed human waste” and did all other sorts of perverted acts came out. Like it was a political battle to see who could be the most disgusting with their rhetoric.

BY THE TIME I was a reporter-type covering the daily activity of a Legislature, the tone had shifted.

DURKIN: A rare "yes" GOP vote?

There was still opposition. I’m sure there were some of the General Assembly members who really thought there was some act of perversion taking place.

But it always seemed that the only political people who felt compelled to speak were the ones who were determined to put themselves on the record as being in favor of issues of concern for gay people.

Which would make writing up stories about those legislative actions odd. Because you’d have stories filled up with quotations from political people who supported an issue that the majority opposed.

IT WOULD BECOME difficult to find people willing to speak out against the issue with anything other than the most dangerous action they could take – their vote.

DeLUCA: A rare Chicago-area "no."

Their majority of people willing to vote “no” so as to assuage those individuals in our society who are determined to think of anyone who isn’t exactly like themselves as being less than human.

Those people still remain. They’re more outspoken than ever. But it would seem the political evolution continues.

For I couldn’t help but notice an Associated Press dispatch on Tuesday from when the Illinois House of Representatives voted in favor of a bill that would outlaw programs that claim to be a medical way of converting people away from homosexuality.

AS THOUGH sexual orientation and identity were some sort of disease that could be eradicated from people if they would just go out and get cured. California, New Jersey and the District of Columbia already have such laws in place.

The bill actually got seven Republican legislators to vote “yes,” including House Minority Leader James Durkin of Western Springs. Also, there were six Democrats, including one local legislator (Anthony DeLuca of Chicago Heights) who voted “no.” So it’s not purely urban versus rural people on this issue.

But no one felt compelled to say anything publicly. Legislators, who are more than capable of bloviating beyond belief, just kept their mouths shut and voted. Do even the legislators who vehemently hate the idea of doing anything to support gay people realize that their rhetoric is pure nonsense?

Fewer political people feeling the need to say something stupid? A harmful notion to a reporter-type person in need of material to create intriguing copy. But perhaps a positive for our society as a whole!

  -30-

There’s always a crackpot with cash

Perhaps I’m just cheap, although I’d like to think it is because I have a little too much sense. Or maybe cents?

But I don’t comprehend the notion of feeling the compulsion to send off some cash as a donation to back up every one of my ideological idiosyncrasies.

SO I CAN’T help but shake my head in disgust with the people who feel the need to make donations to uphold their hang-ups with regards to gay marriage.

What started this latest round of donations was the fact that a neighborhood pizza joint in a rural Indiana town got public attention when it became known that the owner said he thinks he has the right to refuse to provide catering services to a gay wedding – if they were to try to hire him.

Honestly, I think the best response to that concept is the gay activist who quipped that no self-respecting gay person would serve pizza at a wedding reception. And I don’t feel compelled to identify the restaurant; why give them free publicity?

But the hostile reaction – initially reported by South Bend television station WBND – that came forth caused the restaurant’s owner to close up shop indefinitely, with the telephone now ringing endlessly rather than anyone picking it up to check if you want sausage or pepperoni, or just vegetables, on your pizza pie.

THE FACT THAT the owners, who also said they wouldn’t deny service to a gay couple if they actually came into the restaurant, are likely to suffer some financial loss by being so public with their hang-ups is what is now motivating some people to feel the need to show their support for a business that wants to dump on gay people.

There’s a page on GoFundMe.com where people can give some money to help the company, and as of late afternoon Friday there was $798,687 that had been given to the owners. It’s probably significantly more by the time you read this!

That’s quite a financial haul – certainly better than they would have taken in had they just remained open and sold pizzas.

Could this vocal outburst against gay people wind up being a profitable move?

THAT THOUGHT HAD a Berwyn-based fast food joint upset, and they went ahead and created their own GoFundMe.com page.

The Pioneer Press newspapers reported that Big Guys Sausage Stand is asking for donations under the heading, “Non-bigoted restaurant wants cash.”

Not that the restaurant wants the money – they say if anyone feels compelled to make a donation, they will donate it all to a charitable cause yet to be determined.

But owner Brendan O’Connor told the suburban newspaper group how he felt compelled to take the stand, because he was amazed that so many people would feel the need to take a public stand in favor of Indiana’s new (and already revised because it was so offensive) Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

PERSONALLY, IT DOESN’T surprise me that some people feel strongly in favor of measures that treat gay people like they are less than desirable in society. Some people will go out of their way to say stupid things – and that is their right in our society.

The United States of America gives people the right to be wrong. And it gives the rest of us the right to point out those errors – even though the “wrong” people often think that pointing out the triteness of their remarks is somehow an intrusion of their “free speech” rights.

Nonsense! Nobody gets the right to the “last word” on an issue – not even me. Since I’m sure at least one crackpot out there would feel the need to vociferously respond to this very commentary.

It’ just that when it comes to speaking with my wallet, I prefer to let my actual purchases (or refusal to buy from somewhere) speak louder than handing over my money to someone else.

  -30-

Hoosiers eating crow?!? The race to backtrack from “religious freedom”

I must admit to being surprised at how quickly Indiana government officials are backtracking themselves concerning the alleged “religious freedom” law enacted last week.

Indiana Gov. Dan Pence said Tuesday he expects the Republican-dominated Indiana General Assembly (the negative image of what we have in Illinois) to pass some measure by week’s end that will clarify the intent of the new law so as to make sure that people can’t wind up being discriminated against based on sexual preference.

WHICH IS THE fear of many of those who are now lambasting the Land of Hoosiers for having felt the need to lead the nation in passing such a law to begin with.

It was interesting to hear Peter Breen of the Thomas More Society speak earlier this week on WTTW-TV’s “Chicago Tonight” program about how the law doesn’t really make Indiana much different from Illinois in terms of the way people’s rights are protected.

Although the difference appears to be that Illinois has laws including sexual preference as a category of person whose rights are protected. Indiana has never felt the need to offer such protections within their state law. Which is a big difference, no matter how much some try to downplay it!

That is why some wonder if the law is meant to let people who have hang-ups with regards to gay people (particularly on the marriage issue) claim that their religious beliefs are somehow being violated.

AS THOUGH THOSE beliefs somehow permit people to act on their prejudices toward those they don’t like.

It actually reminds me of a “Sunday school” moment when I was a kid of about 8 when we were told that being a “good person” had nothing to do with whether one went to “Heaven” after death – it was about how strong one’s religious faith is.

Perhaps some people think being the last hold out against gay marriage is what will assure them a place in the hereafter; while presuming that everybody else is Hell-bound.

As though God is the ultimate bully who backs those who bully everybody else not like them. I’d like to think that if there really is a hereafter, certain people are in for the shock of their existence when they find out how wrong they truly have been in life!

BECAUSE THE WAY that Indiana’s political actions of last week made any sense was as a political statement; letting it be known they did not approve of having “gay marriage” forced upon them by a federal judge – as opposed to Illinois where the Legislature and governor enacted changes in the relevant laws.

Which themselves were only a couple of decades old and were part of an effort by a then-Republican-dominated Illinois government to make its own statement against gay marriage.

Now, Indiana officials have to back away from their hard-headed statement. Perhaps it was all the public condemnation they were receiving that caused the change of heart.

Not just that the band Wilco cancelled an Indianapolis concert, or that the NCAA was talking about never again holding the men’s basketball tourney in the Indiana capital city (the Final Four will be held there this weekend, and it wouldn't be practical to relocate the event at this late date).

NOT EVEN THE fact that several states (including New York) rushed to enact legislation saying they were prohibiting non-essential travel by their officials to Indiana so long as the new law remained in place. Not that it would have cost much. Because how many people make non-essential trips to Indiana at all!

Or even the fact that Mayor Rahm Emanuel is now hitting back against all those vapid “Illinoyed” ads that Indiana has concocted trying to claim that businesses should jump for the chance of a Hoosier mailing address so as to get lower tax rates.

The lower taxes might just be evidence that the state government doesn’t do as much as Illinois does, and that the public embarrassment of having the Indiana address might not be worth the cost savings.

And we can all think of State Line Road as being just another municipal boundary like Howard Street to the north – rather than the barrier beyond which oddball things happen when one ventures too far to the east!

  -30-

EDITOR’S NOTE: It may be nothing more than fantasy, but there are times I wonder if those northwestern Indiana counties ought to just shift themselves over to Illinois. While some Hoosiers would probably wet their pants with glee at the thought of being rid of Gary, we in Illinois would gain additional Congressional representation (and Electoral College votes) at the expense of Indiana. We’d see how quickly Indiana would quit wanting to live in such isolation from the rest of the Great Lakes states.

Lawsuits won't defeat bigots

What should we think of a gay couple who is upset that the child they went to great lengths to conceive has turned out to not be white enough to fit into their lives?


It ought to be evidence that WASPs should quit thinking that the whole rest of the world is somehow ganging up on their desired way of life. We're all so different that we ought to quit thinking in terms of people being "us" and "them."


THIS THOUGHT HAS been running through my head ever since I read a Chicago Tribune account of a lawsuit filed against a Downers Grove-based sperm bank by a lesbian couple who contracted with them to enable one of the ladies to become pregnant so they could raise a child.


Midwest Sperm Bank complied with its end of the contract, although it seems that someone misread a "3" for an "8," resulting in the couple not getting the exact sperm donor they thought they were ordering.


They wound up receiving sperm provided by an African-American man. The resulting baby is clearly biracial.


The couple contends they have no racial hang-ups. But they say the predominantly white Ohio community they live in (one with a 98 percent white population where the nearest big city is Canton -- home of the Football Hall of Fame) is not a racially tolerant one.


THEY CLAIM THE sperm bank's screw up has resulted in conditions where the child will face hostility and intolerance.


I don't doubt the women are correct about what will happen. For while biracial people and gay couples and just about everybody else who doesn't fit into a 'straight white' lifestyle can now be more open in their existence than in the past, there are those who are willing to keep the old prejudices alive -- and who think that it's everybody else who's screwed up for not back their hostility.


But I can't exactly be all that sympathetic about the lawsuit filed in Cook County Circuit Court, particularly since there isn't any place in this nation that's entire exempt from the bigotry of old.


For the record, the sperm bank says it was a matter of a hand-written label being misread. The Chicago Tribune reports that they have refunded the money the couple paid for the sperm -- which is generous in that it realizes the desired effect was not provided.


BUT I'M NOT convinced anyone needs to be more sympathetic than that.


I wonder how realistic it is to expect much more. I wonder how much hostility the couple itself experiences living in that community. Since I doubt there is a place that doesn't mind gay couples, but has hang-ups about biracial people.


Then again, there are those among the nitwits of our society who are willing to overlook certain differences if the underlying nature of a "white" community is maintained.


Of course, it should be noted that the mother has her problems in reaching out to African-Americans for support. She says in her lawsuit that she is "not overtly welcome" when she goes to nearby black neighborhoods to find people who can cut her daughter's hair.


THE WOMAN IN her lawsuit says she has been advised to move to a community with a more diverse ethnic and racial population so that her child will not stand out so much.


Of course, she'd probably be wanting to do that just to avoid hostility due to her life partner.


Although the reality is that there isn't any place where one won't run into numbskulls who are going to have their hang-ups about people who aren't exactly like themselves.


The real lesson that couple ought to be teaching their daughter is to realize her own self-worth, and to know that all the people harassing her are really pointing out their own shortcomings in life.


  -30-