Letters policy
We welcome letters, but please include your full name, address and a daytime
telephone number. We edit all letters for libel, length and clarity.
Send letters to: Letters, Illinois Times. P.O. Box 5256. Springfield, Illinois
62705. Fax: (217) 753-3958. E-mail: editor@illinoistimes.com
KEEP ‘EM COMING
While I have always enjoyed reading Illinois Times, I have
developed a new reading priority. Now I go directly to a lift-me-up, give-me-a-laugh,
feel-good source: Grace Smith’s column. Her breezy style of a little Dave Barry,
a little Erma Bombeck, and a bit “Far Side” is just fun to read. Grace, keep
them coming.
George A.M. Heroux
Springfield
TIME TO TAKE A STAND
You have probably heard about the court decision stating that the
Massachusetts government discriminates against gay people by denying them the
same benefits heterosexual people have through marriage. What you may not have
heard is how this ruling affected every person in Illinois. On Nov. 19, the
mere threat of voter backlash destroyed the chances of progress on an equal
protection bill when Senate President Emil Jones Jr. refused to hold a vote
on S.B. 101, a bill to add the words “sexual orientation” to the Illinois Human
Rights Act.
Why does a court ruling about marriage-based benefits on the Eastern seaboard
pose a threat to Illinois citizens? At first I thought it was because Illinois
Democrats didn’t think they were smart enough to explain the difference between
equal protection in public accommodations and the concept of marriage to their
constituents. But now I wonder if they are just afraid to stand up and be counted.
It’s discouraging that our senators refuse to go on the record on a civil
rights matter. What is worse is that this has been the standard response in
the Legislature for 30 years. If I give you some background, maybe you will
act where our senators have failed to. S.B. 101 is a state proposal to protect
any person from discrimination based on sexual orientation while conducting
public interactions such as working, shopping, renting or getting a loan.
If politicians don’t want to support human rights on the basis of a person’s
sexual orientation, so be it. But in a democracy, we ought to at least be able
to have a public debate and a vote on the issue.
You should know that in the 30 years that the human-rights amendment has been
put on the table and withdrawn, there have been all kinds of objections raised
and changes made to the proposed bills to account for them. Opponents have said
a Human Rights Act that includes sexual orientation will:
1. Require religious organizations to accept employees with non-heterosexual
orientations. The Act already exempts religious organizations from its definition
of employer, so they will not be held to the standards other employers are.
2. Set up affirmative-action requirements. The bill specifically excludes
affirmative action from applying to the sexual orientation part of the law,
if enacted.
3. Force landlords to rent space in their own homes to someone of a different
sexual orientation. S.B. 101 specifies that the law will not apply to landlords
with less than five units.
4. Promote pedophilia. Pedophilia is already illegal in Illinois and equating
this crime with same-sex relationships is either deliberate fear mongering or
a misunderstanding easily addressed by long-standing research. Nevertheless,
S.B. 101 was amended to specifically state sexual orientation “does not include
a physical or sexual attraction to a minor by an adult.”
[Political opponents] have raised other issues: “We’ll be setting up a special
class of people based on a lifestyle choice” is one that comes to mind. One
chooses whether or not to marry, to seek or choose not to seek an education,
to join or refrain from joining the military, to join or refrain from joining
a religion. Illinois has decided these choices are worthy of protection in the
existing Human Rights Act, so even if sexual orientation is a choice this is
no reason for excluding it.
Will democracy be served if the issue slips quietly away in 2004 at the end
of the current General Assembly and our representatives yet again refuse to
go on the record? Even if you don’t agree that sexual orientation should be
added to the Illinois Human Rights Act, perhaps you too are curious how your
representatives will vote. There is only one way we will ever find out: Have
a hearing on the floor of our state Senate.
Meg Miner
Mansfield
MY RESOLUTION: ELECT TRUTHFUL LEADERS
While our first reaction to revelations of corruption in Illinois
government might be to attempt reducing it by writing more laws with stiffer
penalties, it is unsettling to note that we’ve written tougher laws before and
still the illegal actions continue. Wouldn’t it be a lot easier to just vote
into office people of character who would do the right thing whether there was
a law about it or not? Honest public servants do exist (and many serve us now),
but obviously, we need more of them. And the effort to get more of them is won
or lost at the primary elections in March. If integrity becomes our primary
concern — at the primary — we won’t find ourselves in November saying, “Well,
it looks like it’s just going to be a matter of choosing the better of two evils.”
In the 2002 Illinois primary only 32.8 percent of registered voters showed
up at the polls. This year, let’s work together as citizens to get as many truthful
Democrats and Republicans as possible on the ballot for this November. In the
short run you may have to sacrifice some issues you value, but even more damaging
to your issues would be having them corrupted by association with a scandalous
politician, as we have seen over the years in Illinois.
I suppose there are many ways one could improve one’s batting average when
it comes to voting for honest politicians, but my New Year’s resolution is to
gather some like-minded friends I trust, divide up the list of primary candidates,
and ask everybody to report back their evaluation of the candidate’s integrity.
May Illinois begin a new legacy of truthful government.
Kevin J. Slot
Springfield
KUDOS
Thanks to Senate Minority Leader Frank Watson, R-Greenville, and other
members of the legislature who raised the issue of “shadow government” toward
the end of the discussion about “ethics” legislation during the recent veto
session. And thanks to the members of the legislature, citizen groups, and constitutional
officers for the passage of “ethics” legislation. Well done!
Mike Hayes
Springfield
I am very proud of Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s decision to pardon George
Parry, 49, of Manito for a 27-year-old marijuana possession conviction. This
is a prime example of how ridiculously harsh the punishments are for marijuana.
This man is obviously been extremely generous to his community and state thought
his life, and something so minor as possession of marijuana from 27 years ago
threatened to destroy his life and the lives of his loved ones.
We need more people in power with [Blagojevich’s] logical views — and less
politics, big money and corporations running the show. We need a government
that is willing to invest in the people. We live in changing times in a fast-paced
world, and our government needs to change with the times.
Thanks, Gov. Rod Blagojevich, for your courage to make the right decision
in this case.
Richard J. Rawlings
Illinois Marijuana Party
Bartonville
This article appears in Dec 25-31, 2003.
