Times change; so should our customs

A CLARIFICATION: My aunt, Christine, insists that her mother (also my grandmother) was actually 15 years old at the time of her marriage in 1935. Not that the difference in fact changes the larger point I was trying to make.

  -0-

I couldn’t help but reflect upon New York state altering its laws that relate to the age of consent for marriage.
 

My grandmother was a 14-year-old bride

Assuming that Gov. Andrew Cuomo doesn’t change his mind and decide to use his “veto” pen, the “Empire State” will soon require that people be at least 17 if they wish to get married.

THAT COMPARES TO the current status, where Noo Yawkers could get married as young as 14 if they had proper parental consent.

It sounds primitive. It sounds backward. It brings to mind the images of people who value a woman’s place so little that they figure her only worth is as a wife – so why wait?!? Marry her at 14, she can have the first of many babies by the time she’s 16, and if it turns out she can cook, then she’s the perfect mate for some guy.

I have read assorted comments on the Internet from people who are astounded that such a practice was ever permitted, and others who are merely astonished that such thoughts continued to exist in the 21^st Century – even if just on paper.

Yet I also have to confess that my maternal grandmother, Socorro Salas, was just such a bride. She was 14 on that day nearly nine decades ago that she was wed to Miguel Vargas – my maternal grandfather who himself arrived in this country from Mexico in 1926 when he was 17 and a few years later was a young man working in the steel mills that used to exist on Chicago’s South Side.

AS IF THE age wasn’t an old-world-enough factor, consider too that it technically was an arranged marriage. It was felt that my grandfather had become established enough in life to think about taking a wife and having a family.

Even though my grandmother was the one of my four grandparents to actually be born in this country (her parents were the immigrants from Mexico at the end of the 19^th Century), there was enough of the ethnic sentiment to have her settle down with a respectable Mexican man so they could have their life together.

Which they did, living for many years in the South Chicago neighborhood until they eventually moved up economically, first to the South Shore neighborhood, then to the suburbs of Calumet City, then Lansing, where they lived at the time of my grandfather’s death in 1978 (I was not quite 13 back then).

My grandparents on the occasion of the birth 73 years ago Friday of twin siblings, including my mother, Jenny -- who were children number four and five out of eight

In short, they lived “til death did they part.”

THEY HAD A lasting marriage of nearly 50 years – a partnership that resulted in eight children (including my mother, Jenny, who was one of the twins born 73 years ago Friday).

They fought. They quarreled. They bickered. Yet they were a couple with mutual respect, and I remember my grandmother never did get over my grandfather’s death – mourning until her own demise three years later.

In short, married at 14 wasn’t a disaster for her. Even though they didn’t encourage it for their own children (they actually thought my mother’s marriage to my father at age 20 was too young).

Yet I’m also realistic enough to know that none of the young couples who took advantage of New York’s permissive age requirements are anything like my grandparents.

IN ALL LIKELIHOOD, anybody considering getting married that young today is likely only doing so because of a pregnancy and some desire on their part to put up the appearance of a “happy family.” Meaning it’s likely they’ll never evolve into such circumstances.

And at that age, they likely never will become anything like the appearance of respectability that they’re trying to put forth.

Of course, this would be theoretical in Illinois – where the age now for marriage is 18, or as low as 16 if for some reason the parents do offer their consent.

So call it a step in the right direction that New York got with the program – although to tell you the truth, even a 17-year-old is a tad young to be married off. Somehow, I suspect even my grandparents would agree if they were still amongst us today.

  -30-

Is decade-old West Wing 'reality' TV?

I can’t help but remember a decade-old episode of “The West Wing,” that television drama starring Martin Sheen as an idealistic take on who at least some of us wish were our nation’s president.

SHEEN (as Bartlet): 'Reality' TV?

In this particular episode, there was a subplot about how the president’s staff was dealing with a member of Congress who (they thought) had a reputation for being flaky.

WHAT WACKO IDEA did he come up with this time? It was an amendment to the Constitution that would completely take government out of the equation when it came to the recognition of marriage.

The Bartlet administration didn’t want to be bothered with the issue. They wanted it to go away. And they didn’t want this member of Congress to get all hissy-fittish, because that might get the gay rights activists all worked up against them.

Yet letting this member of Congress proceed with his rhetoric surely would stir up the religious right.

Yes, all of this came back to my mind when I learned Wednesday of the lawsuits filed by the American Civil Liberties Union and Lambda Legal. The two groups represent 25 gay couples across Illinois who are upset that all they can do is get their match recognized with a civil union – and not something that bears the name “marriage.”

THEY CLAIM THAT the due process and equality clauses of the Illinois state Constitution can be interpreted to mean that these couples have every right to be “married” as any heterosexual couple does.

Which, I’m sure, on a certain level is giving the Barack Obama White House staff the same headaches that the fictional Bartlet administration acted out all those years ago – and for the very same reason.

OBAMA: Seeking advice from TV?

Fiction predicting reality? It’s kind of eerie, to tell you the truth.

Because the arguments made by that wacky congressman character a decade ago on television are literally the ones being heard Wednesday in Illinois.

GOVERNMENT SHOULDN’T BE getting involved in deciding whose “union” is legitimate and whose isn’t.

Let religions have the claim to the phrase marriage, and turn everybody’s matchup into a civil union. The people who want to go the additional step of being “married” in their church can do so.

Those who don’t have strong religious convictions could get that same City Hall wedding service, or can seek out those people who manage to get themselves certified to perform marriages by filling out a couple of forms.

And before it seems like I’m making fun of those people, I must confess to having a sister-in-law who performs wedding services as a sideline. If that kind of service makes one happy, who am I to mock it?

THE REAL BOTTOM line is that it takes away any legal distinction between a “marriage” and a “civil union,” which is a distinction that ought to be erased.

For the only people who really want to have any distinction exist are the ones who are looking for a reason to be able to look down upon other people for whatever reason. That is something we should go out of our way to discourage.

Because I think for many couples, the religious rites (a few seconds of holiness) are far less significant than the legal rights and benefits that couples gain from being “legally bound” to each other.

The real negative of a couple just “living together” isn’t so much that they’re in sin, but that they’re putting up with each others annoying moments without getting the benefits come Income Tax Day.

IN FACT, IF you think of it objectively, the only people who ought to be “opposed” to this idea are the ones who will be upset that they can’t denigrate other couples for not having the same service they had.

Which isn’t much of an excuse, to me, to keep the status quo.

It also makes me wonder if I should start scouring those DVDs of “The West Wing” episodes that I have tucked in a drawer. Maybe we’ll get a sense of where we’re headed in the next few years. Particularly since the past decade’s television joke may have a strain of legitimate policy to it.

Let’s only hope we never get a real-life take on that one episode where Big Bird and Elmo turned up at the White House!

  -30-

EXTRA: The wedding is off!

Gee. Playboy founder Hugh Hefner is not getting married after all.  There won’t be a “June wedding” come Saturday at the Playboy Mansion. The girls and games and images of orgies will continue.

What a shock. And that is meant with the heaviest of sarcasm. Now we can get on with our lives.

  -30-

Political spouses have unique bond

One is sick and most likely dying, and would like to have her husband at her side.

While this plea failed, ...

The other died with her husband at her side, but apparently wanted to show the world she was severing her tie to her spouse.

WE’RE TALKING ABOUT Lura Lynn Ryan and Elizabeth Edwards, whose one thing in common is that they met in their lives a very young man and married him, then went along for the career ride as that man’s political aspirations powered the engine.

In the case of Ryan, we’re talking about how she became the first lady of Illinois, while Edwards was the spouse of a U.S. senator whom, had a couple of factors gone differently, would have been first lady of the United States.

Edwards, as those of us following the news reports know, died recently from cancer. Her last years of life were spent fighting her condition, while showing signs of dignity in the process.

Ryan is now undergoing her own illness, suffering from cancer throughout her body and lung problems and is now in an intensive care unit at a hospital in her hometown of Kankakee. Depending on whom one wants to listen to, Ryan has anywhere from “weeks” to “days” to live.

THE 76-YEAR-old woman is approaching the end of her life, and her wish is that she could have her husband at her side to provide a mental jolt.

Of course, her husband, former Gov. George Ryan, can’t just show up at the hospital after work, or take a few days off. He remains an inmate at the work camp that is part of the maximum-security federal correctional center in Terre Haute, Ind. He still has just under 2 ½ years to serve on his prison sentence before he can be released.

... will this plea succeed?

In short, it would take a true miracle for Lura Lynn Ryan to live long enough to be at her husband’s side when he is released from prison.

An appeal is now working its way through the Court of Appeals to get some of the convictions dismissed – enough that his time already served would be considered sufficient and he could be released now. But criminal appeals tend to work at their own pace. Nobody is going to speed things up because of anyone’s health – no matter how mortal.

WHICH IS WHY Ryan’s attorneys (including former Gov. James R. Thompson) are now trying to get Ryan a temporary release from prison so he can be at his wife’s side at the moment she passes away. One motion literally calls for him to be transferred to the Kankakee County Jail, where he would spend his time while not at the hospital with his wife.

No word on whether he’d be allowed to remain for the funeral, or whether he’d be whisked back to Terre Haute once his wife passes. Ultimately, it is up to the warden in Terre Haute whether or not George Ryan is permitted this move, and that warden does not have to give any public explanation for his decision – whichever way it turns out.

Of course, the hard-core Ryan critics are showing their callousness by insisting that he be deprived of even this moment. Which makes me think some people have a twisted sense of criminal punishment and rehabilitation.

Personally, I would think that Ryan being an inmate in Kankakee County’s jail would be the most humiliating experience for him – since he was once THE local political big shot. It would be the ultimate evidence of how far he’s fallen, and people who have known him their entire lives would get to see his decline.

EDWARDS: Supportive, until after the end

THEN, THERE IS the case of Elizabeth Edwards, whose husband, John, rose to the ranks of U.S. senator from North Carolina and was the vice presidential running mate in 2004 with Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry. He tried running his own presidential bids in ’04 and 2008.

But ultimately, his undoing was infidelity with a campaign worker. He got caught when the worker had his child. Elizabeth stood by John’s side publicly in life. Even after they formally separated last year, she kept the criticism to a minimum.

But when her will was made public this week, we learned that she made last-minute changes less than a week before death. She cut her husband out.

Her property and wealth (including some real estate holdings and a trust whose contents cannot be disclosed) go to the surviving children.

THE RYANS AND Edwardses have some things in common. Lura Lynn met George when the two were in high school, and their married life together is more than a half-century. Which makes it all the more logical that she would want him nearby at the end.

After all, the Edwardses met while  the two were in law school and their marriage lasted a third of a century. Despite the problems and the split, even John Edwards saw to it that he was by his wife’s side in her final days of life.

All it really means is that George Ryan would like to have the same final perk as did John Edwards. It’s not the most unreasonable request to make.

  -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-

Ashley Bond is now an afterthought

Ashley Bond is a native of suburban Streamwood who devoted a significant portion of her life to competing in pageants in hopes of bolstering her chances of success in life. Getting crowned Miss Illinois USA back in December was a sign that she had succeeded.

But now, the woman (right) who represented Illinois at the Miss USA pageant held earlier this week will only have as a claim to fame that she was in the same building when her pageant colleague, Miss California USA Carrie Prejean, put her high-heeled foot in her mouth while trying to talk about gay marriage.

THAT IS THE same Miss California who now claims she lost the Miss USA title (won by a blonde from North Carolina) solely because she expressed her honest opinion, which she claims is backed by the Bible.

Miss California (she may have a real name, but I honestly think most people just think of her as the California blonde) is trying to portray herself as some sort of victim, being penalized for using her right to free expression.

Actually, what she’s being penalized for is being obnoxious enough to think that she can speak out against others, but that no one has a right to criticize her perky self.

It all goes back to Sunday when she was questioned (admittedly, by a snotty weblog publisher who likely is reveling in the stink he managed to create) about whether gay people should have a legally legitimate ability to marry.

IF THE LADY from Southern California had merely said something along the lines of “I do not approve of gay people being married” or “I think marriage is for heterosexuals,” I think she would have managed to tick off some gay rights activists who would have created a stir for a day or two, before moving on to the new “flavor of the month” issue of concern.

But it is the fact that she persists in presenting herself as a victim that is what is most offensive to me, and it is why I am enjoying the thought of her getting dumped on by some of the pompous self-righteous types who populate celebrity-hood in Hollywood.

Her answer to the question itself on Sunday went as follows.

“We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage. And you know what, I think in my country, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that’s how I was raised.”

FIRST OFF, WE don’t live in a land where people can choose types of marriage. Despite the actions of some states, marriage is largely defined these days as a heterosexual thing, and there are groups working to ensure it remains that way.

I also have a problem with her thought that opposition to gay marriage was “how I was raised.” That sounds too much like the talk of the old Southern segregationists, who always claimed that Jim Crow and the way of life that separated black people was just the way things were in their part of the country.

But what really ticks me off about her answer, and the reason why I finally felt compelled to write about the Miss USA competition at all, is the latter part of her answer.

That clause about, “no offense to anybody out there.”

I’M SURE SHE will claim she was just using good manners. I claim she is trying to tell people she doesn’t want to hear anyone object to her. This pageant winner thinks she has the final word on the issue.

In short, she’s telling them that she automatically pronounces their opinion wrong, and doesn’t want to hear it.

What she is going to learn is that she doesn’t, in the same way that I don’t either. I’m sure I will get vociferous responses to this commentary from people – both to tell me I’m wrong and I’m right, or that I’m boring them and can’t I find something socially relevant to write about.

Like I said, if she had merely said she objects to gay marriage, I’d defend her right to express that thought – even though I personally would think she is nothing more than a twit for believing that. (My own thoughts on the issue are that the only marriage I ought to be concerned about is one involving myself, everybody else’s is none of my business).

BUT IT IS the fact that she tried to pre-empt criticism of herself that bothers me. That irritation is compounded by her continued talk and use of the Bible to defend herself – citing those same provisions that the social conservatives always use when they want to denounce homosexuality in general.

She even went so far as to tell Fox News Channel that she now sees the question about gay marriage as “a test’ by God, to see if she would stand up for her principles on the issue.

Personally, I think God (however one perceives him) has more important things to do than to act as a beauty pageant judge, asking questions of the contestants. But she thinks she passed, as though we’re all now supposed to reward her for thinking that certain people in society have to accept her criticism and keep quiet about it.

That kind of attitude is one I find “un-American.” It bothers me to the point where I find it distracting that the beauty pageant that really amounts to little more than the Donald Trump Show (he’s the producer of the spectacle that dressed all the contestants in bathing suits that looked like skimpy lingerie) has become bogged down in this rhetoric about gay marriage.

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTES: First, Miss California claims that she should be the “last word” on the issue (http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2009/04/20/miss-california-sparks-outrage-over-gay-marriage-remarks/), then she says God is testing her faith by having someone (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,517228,00.html) question her. Personally, I have a hard time imagining God (or anyone else) using Perez Hilton for such a divine purpose.

I’d rather pay attention to Ashley Bond than this California controversy (http://www.missillinoisusa.com/ashley_bio.html), or even the winner from North Carolina.

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.

Activists must fight vocal opposition when it comes to marriage for all (even gays)

The most interesting aspect of the marches that took place in cities across the nation to express outrage with Californians backward enough to vote for a measure repealing the state’s recognition of marriage for all people (regardless of orientation) is the fact that some people claim the vote ought to end the issue.

It happened in Chicago as well, as the activists who like to politicize their religion held their own counterdemonstration Saturday across the street from the Federal Plaza – where hundreds (if not thousands) of gay rights activists held their own march and rally.

THOSE PROTESTERS OF the (far) right want to believe that if Illinois law were as ridiculous as California law in allowing so many fringe elements to put their pet crusades on the ballot so easily, they’d be able to get a majority of Illinoisans to vote against allowing gay couples to have any of the legal rights associated with marriage.

“The people spoke in California and we believe they’d speak the same way here,” Peter LaBarbera (who on Saturday identified himself as being with a group calling itself Protect Marriage Illinois – the rest of the year, he is with the group Americans for Truth About Homosexuality) told the Chicago Tribune.

He’s probably right.

There are enough people who get irrational when it comes to the issue of marriage that a majority probably would be silly enough to vote “yes” on a measure they perceived as opposing the interests of gay people.

BUT I HAVE to argue – that attitude is irrelevant, regardless of how prevalent it is.

There are times when the correct thing for a society to do is the minority opinion, and it is the duty of a responsible government to be able to figure out when those issues occur and to prevent the majority opinion from running roughshod over the rights of the minority.

The most drastic situation was with regards to the days when segregation based upon race was completely legal in this country (it even had Supreme Court backing from the case of “Plessy vs. Ferguson”).

I have no doubt that any “vote” on the issue taken in the Southern states on whether segregation of the races was justified would have created a majority of voters (even if one assumes that black people were not interfered with at the polling places) who would have voted “yes” to maintain it. Anything promoting integration would have been voted down.

IN OTHER PARTS of the country, there likely would have been a majority of the people who would have been willing to look at the issue as being purely local – as though certain basic rights ought to be denied to some people, based upon what state they happen to be in.

That wouldn’t have meant they would have been correct.

If anything, it would have been more evidence of the repulsiveness of society as it existed then, just as the vote in California last week to repeal new laws that permitted gay people to marry legally (just like everybody else) is an example of how flawed our society remains.

It just strikes me that gay marriage is an absurd issue for people to get worked up over, particularly how I don’t see how one couple’s decision to live their lives together and seek the same legal rights as other married couples have affects my life, one way or the other.

THE REALITY IS that these gay couples seeking marriage likely are not going to find many religious denominations willing to perform them. So we’re talking about a lot more people going to City Hall to have a justice of the peace or some other clerk perform the ceremony.

It’s not like we’re hearing people argue for church weddings. It’s not like any religious denomination is being pressured to change its ways or beliefs because of this.

And if this issue comes down to religious fanatics upset that their particular religion’s beliefs are not being allowed to dominate society over all others, then to me it sounds like these people view religion as their excuse to bully others into submission.

They come off sounding as ridiculous as the Illinois General Assembly did a few years ago when they passed a law saying that marriage between couples of the same gender was NOT legal in Illinois – even though the state’s laws concerning marriage already defined the concept as being a union between couples of differing genders.

IT ALWAYS STRUCK me as completely appropriate that then-Gov. Jim Edgar went out of his way to sign that bill into law at a time when there was so much other business pending at the Statehouse that there was no way he’d have to answer questions about it – because I suspect even he realized how absurd the argument truly is.

If someone truly believes that marriage to someone of the same gender is wrong, I’d argue that no one is forcing them to marry another man (or woman, depending on the crackpot’s gender). That’s actually similar to my belief on abortion – nobody forces a woman to have one if she truly doesn’t want to.

In short, the people who make these arguments against gay marriage come off as the ultimate schoolyard bullies, all grown up and still looking for reasons to use force to cram their sense of ignorance into everybody else’s mind.

Aside from being immoral, such an attitude is ironic because it strikes me as being incredibly un-Christian.

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTES: Did California voters manage to anger gay rights activists to the point (http://nwi.com/articles/2008/11/16/news/illiana/docd9f575e2941b54038625750300043904.txt) they will fight seriously on the issue of gay marriage?

Chicagoans joined activists in many other cities in engaging in protest on the access to legal (http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2008/11/chicago-crowd-protests-calif-gay-marriage-ban.html) marriage issue.