 |
| KIRK: Taking a stance |
Let’s
not forget that a lot of the conservative types who live in our state held
their noses at the thought of casting a ballot for the Congressman from the
North Shore to serve in the Senate because he wasn’t really one of them.
AS
IN A hard-liner who was more than willing to use his authority to impose his
alleged morals on everybody else.
These
people voted for Kirk because they were absolutely convinced that picking his
opponent (former state Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias) would merely add to the
strength of the Democratic caucus in the U.S. Senate.
Perhaps
these ideologues thought they could put pressure on a Republican in the Senate
from Illinois to “go along” and do things their way.
Not
that I sympathize with these people who feel betrayed. If anything, I gain a
bit of respect for Kirk for not letting himself get bullied by his caucus
leadership when it comes to this particular issue.
BECAUSE, BY AND large, it is the
Republican faction in Congress that will fight this issue to the death –
although I am aware that some Democrats also will chime in for various reasons.
I don’t doubt that those black
preachers and Catholic priests who are taking up this cause and trying to sway
politicians from supporting marriage for all people will have some effect. (It wouldn’t
be the first time that something abhorrent was done in the name of God and
religious dogma).
All of which is to say that I don’t
doubt that Kirk will feel some backlash in coming weeks and months (and
probably, to some degree, for the rest of his political life) – all because he
felt compelled to use his website to post a two-paragraph statement saying
that, “same-sex couples should have the right to civil marriage.”
Kirk, of course, is the member of
the Senate who missed the bulk of 2012 after suffering a stroke. He cited that
experience as part of his reason for deciding to go against the bulk of his GOP
Senate colleagues. Kirk and Ron Portman of Ohio are the only two who have
publicly spoken out in favor of the gay marriage issue.
“I PROMISED MYSELF that I would
return to the Senate with an open mind and greater respect for others,” Kirk
said, adding later, “Our time on this Earth is limited, I know that better than
most.”
A nice sentiment, albeit one that
will be ignored by the ideologically-inclined.
Personally, I already have
stumbled across several nasty (and many anonymous) comments about Kirk on the Internet.
Losing their votes in future elections is the least of it.
One crackpot has gone so far as
to publicly proclaim that Kirk will “rot in Hell” for becoming a “liberal.” I’d
like to think THAT person is the one who will really rot.
ALTHOUGH THE MISERY they’re
putting themselves through over this issue by persisting with attitudes that
reek of the Dark Ages is sufficient punishment for now!
Personally, I suspect this is an
issue whose time has come (although it can be argued that waiting for “the
right time” allows some awful things to happen up to that point). Although I’d
rather see it get done at the state level than the federal.
Because if it occurs
state-by-state, eventually those backwards places of our nation will be so
isolated that they will be shamed into doing the right thing. If it gets
imposed from up high in Washington, you just know that some crackpots are going
to take that as some sort of justification that their backward thought is
proper and worthy of an ongoing fight!
Just like the cowardly types who
are now going to be dinging Kirk for having a sense of compassion.
-30-
No comments:
Post a Comment