Are we really at a point where we don’t care if Lightfoot is lesbian? Fat chance!

A recent discussion I overheard – it doesn’t matter that mayoral hopeful Lori Lightfoot is a lesbian who actually is married to another woman.

LIGHTFOOT: Is her marriage an issue?

Because we in Chicago are supposedly so sophisticated that no one would openly admit to voting against her because of sexual orientation. It won’t be an issue. Particularly since the kind of people determined to dump Toni Preckwinkle from office can rant about that pop tax she touted while leading Cook County government.

I’LL HAVE TO admit I was kind of hoping there’d be a touch of truth to such thoughts. I would have liked it if I could have made it through the month of the election run-off without having to get into anyone’s marital status.

But that didn’t happen. The issue has sprung up. And the part that bothers me – it seems that it’s Lightfoot herself who seems determined to make an issue of it.

Or maybe she just seems determined to think of herself as the victimized one and wants to be able to claim she’s the one being picked upon. Which makes me wonder how a “Mayor Lightfoot” is going to handle herself against all the interests who will not be inclined to support her on oh so many issues.

But seriously, this election cycle took an ugly turn that would have been so nice if we could have avoided it.

THE ISSUE CAME up when the two candidates faced off in debate last week, and the question was put forth for the two candidates being asked to say something nice about their opponent – as in what did they most respect about their challenger.

That led Preckwinkle to offer up some public praise about the way Lightfoot is public about her sexual orientation.

Or as she put it, “that (Lightfoot is) open and honest about her LGBTQ orientation. You know, I think it’s really important in this country that we be respectful of differences and that we understand that all of us matter and that there is dignity in each and every one of us. And there has been so much discrimination and prejudice and homophobia in our country, it’s very important that particularly prominent people declare their sexual orientation and do it with pride.”

PRECKWINKLE: Sympathetic? Or cruel?

She insists her praise was sincere.

YET LIGHTFOOT LET it be known she took offense. As in she thinks the sole purpose of Preckwinkle saying anything at all was to put a reminder in the minds of voters that “Lori’s gay.”

Which might create just enough doubt in the minds of people with a homophobic streak to let it become an issue in the way they cast their ballot for mayor come April 2.

What’s sort of interesting is that just over a week ago, there were gay rights activists who were saying this was a unique election cycle because Preckwinkle has a record as a government official of being supportive of gay rights issues and causes.

Could it be that Lightfoot absolutely feels the need to have people vote for her because of her orientation? And that Preckwinkle has to be demonized in order to fit her niche in Lightfoot’s world?

OR DID LIGHTFOOT have a point in trying to get the support of those voters, particularly those of African-American descent whose religious attitudes make them hostile to the very concept of homosexuality, whom Lightfoot is counting on Willie Wilson’s endorsement to win over?

WILSON: Will his endorsement make a difference?

Anything’s possible. In fact, I’m inclined to believe there’s an element of truth in what both of them are spewing these days.

It would have been so nice if we could have made it through this election cycle without making an issue of this issue. What if we could seriously consider the qualifications of the individual candidates without getting into the personal nonsense?

Then again, that’s probably an attitude we’ll have to wait a few more decades to achieve. As in the day will come when we realize just how ridiculous we all truly are!

  -30-

EDITOR’S NOTE: For those who care, Lightfoot is married to Amy Eshleman, and they live together with a 10-year-old daughter. Preckwinkle was married to Zeus Preckwinkle for 44 years, until their divorce in 2013. They have two grown children.

How much do celebrity stances, endorsements influence political issues?

I always wonder how much the so-called famous amongst us think we really care about what they think of our “local” issues.

Would the youthful Mick have cared about ERA?

Are they so self-absorbed that they believe we’re going to be swayed by their official pronouncements? Or are there those of us who really will consider taking a stance just because of what an entertainer thinks?

TAKE MICK JAGGER, the aging rocker whose band ripped its name off an old Muddy Waters tune and whose early records included a riff on Chuck Berry with “Around and Around.”

Mick, that aging rocker who still has the big ol’ lips that became the Rolling Stones’ logo, of sorts, wrote a brief letter that his daughter, Elizabeth, distributed through Instagram.

His issue of concern is the Equal Rights Amendment, where there are some political people of Illinois behaving in ways as though the issue is a still-pending one, rather than one whose time expired some 36 years ago.

Mick isn't the first Jagger to try to sway Ill.

For the record, the man whose band gave us the drug-tinged song “Mother’s Little Helper” is for the ERA. In his brief letter, Mick wrote that three of his daughters, including Elizabeth, are U.S. citizens.

“THEY SHOULD ALL deserve equal rights under the Constitution of the United States,” Jagger wrote.

Which struck me as an interesting line of logic in that many of the conservative ideologues who often rant against the ERA acknowledge that same basic concept.

They argue that it is so obvious that women already have equal protection under U.S. law that they don’t want to have to add a constitutional amendment. They go so far as to say it is insulting to women to have to specify they’re equal.

 

Bianca fought for Garcia, who's still alive in '18

 Of course, those ideologues often behave in ways that show their actions are not the same as their thoughts, which is why others believe the ERA – with its simple, declarative statement that “equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State on account of sex.”

JAGGER’S LETTER HAS been brought to the attention of the Illinois House of Representatives, whose members are contemplating the ERA – the same legislative body who back in 1982 failed to approve the measure, and that failure is oft regarded as the death blow for the amendment’s ability to be ratified by three-quarters of the nation’s legislators.

Will Mick Jagger really be able to sway the way our political people think?

Or will his involvement (as minor as it truly is) become the matter that offends ERA critics to the point where their opposition is stepped up to a new intensity.

Will the man who gave us “Paint it Black” or “Sympathy for the Devil” have any impact on the Illinois ERA battle, where state Rep. Lou Lang, D-Skokie, said he hopes to have a vote take place before month’s end – which also would be the end of the ’18 spring legislative session?

IT AMUSES ME in part because I remember a moment from a couple of decades ago when one of Jagger’s ex-wives, Bianca, had her own little activist moment in Illinois.

How many Stones fans also wore these pins?

She actually made the journey to the Statehouse in Springfield to try to sway state officials about capital punishment. Specifically, as to the pending execution of Guinevere Garcia – a woman who killed her husband after being released from prison for another crime she was convicted of.

That 1996 execution ultimately was commuted by then-Gov. Jim Edgar, although I remember some people were bothered by the presence of Amnesty International and Bianca Jagger. As though that would have been reason enough to let Garcia die.

Will Mick’s involvement get the anti-ERA types equally riled up? Or are there others star-gazed enough to wish that the soon-to-be 75 Jagger, himself, could make the sojourn to Springfield.

  -30-

How much is really gained from having public participation during govt mtgs?

The City Council in Chicago began Wednesday to permit public comment during its meetings, which really shouldn’t be a big deal.
 

Hot air emanates from da Hall, although not from pols

Illinois law actually requires municipal entities to set aside a portion of their meeting time to allow people to make statements about what their officials are doing. So the City Council really is just complying with the law.

IN FACT, AS reported by the Chicago Tribune, the City Council’s action was motivated by the courts – a lawsuit was filed and a judge issued an order requiring Chicago to permit some sort of public comment.

But as I have learned in writing about other government entities where public comment questions arose, Illinois law actually does not dictate what form the public comment must take.

Government entities are allowed to set their own rules.

I know that in my years as a reporter-type person, I have covered entities that strictly limited people to 3 minutes of talk and only on issues that were already on the council’s agenda. No trying to bring up anything else that might be of public concern, but that officials didn't want to discuss.

OTHERS HAVE PERMITTED people to bring up issues not on the council agenda, but usually in a portion of the meeting held at the end once all the actual business is complete and public officials are feeling antsy and are more interested in adjourning so they can go home.

I also know of one entity that requires people to submit their questions in writing, so that theoretically city officials can have their attorneys review them so that a proper answer can be provided. Although they’re not always rigid in enforcing that.

In Chicago, it seems the significant rule (as evidenced by Wednesday’s conduct) is that up to 30 minutes will be provided for public comment – with individuals allowed up to 3 minutes each.

If, by chance, there are too many people to fit within that half-hour, then it’s ‘tough luck’ for those individuals who lose out. We’ll have to see whether the courts accept this limit, since the people who filed the original lawsuit against the City Council indicate they intend to continue their court fight over this issue.

FROM MY OWN experience, I know that these government hearings usually attract characters. People who actually work for a living don’t have the time to spare to express themselves publicly.

We often get people who see it as their place in society to be the verbal pain in the political behind. I know one person who routinely shows up at Common Council sessions in Gary, Ind., who thinks his public comments are just as significant a part of the municipal process as the votes the council members take.

At the City Council, the Tribune reported that the first person to make a public comment to the City Council was George Blakemore. Although anybody who pays attention to local government knows Blakemore isn’t a stranger to speaking out.

Back when I used to write for a different newspaper, I covered the Cook County Board (amongst other things) and Blakemore’s presence was a given. He’d always have something to complain about. It would have been newsworthy if he hadn’t spoken.

PERSONALLY, I REMEMBER a time his rant turned into a diatribe against Latinos and how he saw them taking from black people – which caused President Toni Preckwinkle to cut him off and publicly denounce him for making racist remarks.

Of course, he insisted on perceiving the issue as one of being censored by the county board president. I suspect we’ll get lots more rants like this in coming weeks and months.

Personally, I have no problem with the idea of people being able to express themselves at a government meeting. Those officials, after all, are doing “the people’s business,” and the people ought to have a chance to say just what they think.

But now that we have public comment at the City Council sessions, we’re going to learn that the act of being a bloviated buffoon in public isn’t something necessarily limited to the elected officials.

  -30-