Maybe we can fight over pies?

I can envision already the fight that’s going to occur next spring. There’s bound to be someone who gets all worked up over the state’s financial problems being ignored because our state legislators are quarrelling over the merits of pumpkin pie.

 

The dessert that’s supposed to be a part of every Thanksgiving Day meal (to the point where I wonder if anyone really eats it any other time of the year?) is going to be the focus of a bill now pending in the Illinois House of Representatives.

 

STATE REP. KEITH Sommer, R-Morton, says the bulk of canned pumpkin used to make many pies in this nation is produced in central Illinois. Hence, he wants the designation of the pumpkin pie as the Official State Pie of Illinois.

 

He told the Associated Press that it will promote the business interest of the Nestle plant in his legislative district, and is universal enough that the whole state ought to take pride in this fact!

 

Personally, I always thought some people took such designations too seriously. I don’t see that it makes much difference on any level that popcorn is the Official State Snack of Illinois.

 

Although discussing the merits of popcorn or pumpkins is bound to be easier than trying to figure out the intricacies of how the state needs to fund the pension programs in a way that won’t drive Illinois both bankrupt and financially destitute.

 

FOR WHAT IT’S worth, only one other state has an Official State Pie – Florida, which takes claim to giving us key lime pie.

 

But Maine has as its Official State Dessert blueberry pie, provided it is made with wild Maine blueberries – which happen to be the Official State Fruit. While Massachusetts has the Boston Cream pie as its Official State Dessert, while Vermont has apple pie and both Texas and Oklahoma claim pecan pie.

 

Is that the focus of the next interstate brawl?

 

For the record, Utah’s Official State Snack is Jell-O, but that’s a topic for another day’s commentary.

 

ALL THE TIME and effort that went into making such designations – couldn’t it have been used more productively? Then again, political people will always go for the trivial if it gives them potential to pontificate on a subject without putting anyone at risk.

 

I remember a couple of decades ago an actual political brawl at the Illinois Statehouse when a Springfield-based legislator tried to give recognition to chili (which is the Official State Dish of Texas). Only she used a local quirk in spelling it “chilli” (remember Dan Quayle’s “potatoe”?), which provoked a debate intense enough that you’d have thought life on Planet Earth as we know it was about to end.

 

But back to the pumpkin pie, which I have noticed seems to have an overrated rep when it comes to its edibility.

 

Personally, I don’t mind it. I’ll have an occasional piece (if I ate other fattening foods as infrequently as I do the pumpkin pie, I probably wouldn’t have the gut I have developed throughout the years).

 

ALTHOUGH I HAVE seen Thanksgiving celebrations where people acknowledge the presence of the pumpkin pie, then refuse to eat any of it. Too much of it gets thrown away uneaten.

 

Is that really what we want to honor?

 

I also stumbled across a story published last month by the Slate.com website that picked a dessert for each state, and said that Illinois’ state dessert, so to speak, is brownies – which originally were created for the World’s Fair in Chicago in 1893.

 

Although I can think of another potential brawl over an Official State Pie for Illinois. Let’s not forget that pizza is technically a “pie.” It might not be dessert, but we’d probably be better off if we laid back on the sweet stuff.

 

THERE CAN BE no more filling of a meal than a slice of stuffed pizza, particularly if you have a decent salad to go along with it.

 

Perhaps that’s the direction our officials ought to focus on in terms of making designations about what we eat.

 

  -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.