Rick Garcia, who runs the state’s largest gay rights organization,
is obviously a little fed up with some Democrats in the Illinois state Senate.
“They’re just wusses,” Garcia says.
Garcia is upset at the Democrats for preventing Senate Bill 101 from receiving
a vote by the full Senate. The bill would essentially forbid discrimination
in housing, employment, public accommodations, and credit on the basis of sexual
orientation.
In past years, the Democrats were able to blame the Senate’s Republican majority
for killing the bill. Last year, however, the Democrats took over as the majority
party, yet the bill continued to languish in committee.
The House passed the bill several times, but it always died in the Senate
Rules Committee. Last year, the House Democrats decided it was time that the
Senate took the lead and refused to call the bill for a vote until after the
Senate had passed it.
“Most of them have the goofiest reasons for not supporting the bill,” says
Garcia, the director of Equality Illinois.
Those reasons have shifted over the past several months. At first, several
downstate and Chicago Democrats admitted they favored the concept, but claimed
their constituents opposed the bill. Garcia countered with a late-’90s poll
that showed an overwhelming majority of Illinoisans (85.5 percent) said gays
and lesbians ought to have equal access to housing and employment.
Garcia also pointed out to the senators that many of their own House members
(each Senate district is made up of two House districts) had voted for the bill
in years past and easily survived re-election. “They’re out of touch with the
electorate,” Garcia says.
Then, the recalcitrant Democrats complained that the bill would allow cross-dressers
to teach school in drag. The Democrats pointed to a study by the ultra-conservative
Concerned Women for America that came up with 27 sexual proclivities that the
bill would protect, including zoophilia (sex with animals), necrophilia (sex
with dead people), pedophilia (sex with children), exhibitionism (sexual pleasure
from exposing oneself), sadism and masochism.
“I have no problem with voting to support a bill that absolutely prohibits
discrimination against a person who is gay or lesbian,” said state Sen. Larry
Walsh, D-Elwood, not long ago, “but I have some concerns about the detailed
additional language in the bill.” Walsh’s comments are typical of the Senate
Democratic opposition to SB 101.
Garcia claims it’s “almost laughable” that some Democrats “are so intimidated
by cross-dressers.”
Almost every major city in Illinois has a local anti-discrimination ordinance
modeled after SB 101. And there’s been no evidence the ordinances protected
or promoted deviant sexual proclivities, Garcia points out.
Champaign’s human rights ordinance has been in place since the mid-’70s, but
not a single necrophiliac has ever sued to get his or her apartment back. No
uncloseted zoophiliac has demanded to teach school in Chicago. Springfield’s
human rights ordinance has not resulted in a single cross-dresser showing up
for work at the Statehouse (although several have lobbied there on behalf of
SB 101).
In all of the literature released by CWA and other conservative Illinois groups,
Garcia emphasizes, not a single negative example has surfaced from Illinois
municipalities that have gay rights ordinances.
But enough senators hinted that they would switch their votes if the bill
were changed that Garcia decided to give in to their demands and amend the legislation.
The new language would specifically limit the bill to people who have actual
or perceived attractions to others of the same sex. It would also exclude pedophiles
from any protections and allow employers to enforce dress codes to prevent Mr.
Smith from showing up to work dressed as Ms. Smith.
But even that change may not be enough. The argument has shifted once again
in just the past several weeks.
Now, many Senate Democrats who said last spring that they wanted the bill
tightened up are saying that the legislation should be completely avoided during
this spring’s legislative session. “Just putting an amendment on a bill that’s
known as the ‘gay rights bill’ is not going to make anything any easier for
us,” says one downstate Senate Democrat, who asked not to be identified.
The attitude change occurred, they say, after the November veto session. The
Senate narrowly defeated a bill in November that would have allowed illegal
immigrants to obtain driver’s licenses.
Several downstate Democratic senators claim they caught an earful from their
constituents about the bill while they were circulating their re-election petitions
in early December. It didn’t matter that they had voted against the bill, their
constituents were still clearly upset that the Senate would even consider the
idea.
There is also a growing feeling among the more conservative Democratic senators,
and/or those with more conservative districts, that their party may have gone
too far last year.
Democrats control both legislative chambers and the governor’s mansion — the
first time that’s happened since 1974, when Richard Nixon’s Watergate scandal
led to a national Democratic landslide. By 1976, however, Democratic over-reaching
helped elect a Republican governor, Jim Thompson.
Ten years ago, in 1994, a liberal Congress and a too-ambitious-by-half president
(Bill Clinton) helped bring about a national Republican landslide, which even
managed to knock the gavel out of the hands of longtime Illinois House Speaker
Michael Madigan.
Last year, the Democrat-controlled Legislature passed several liberal bills,
including an increase in the minimum wage, an equal pay law, a toughened-up
prevailing wage law, a mandate on insurance companies to cover contraception,
and a bill that allowed illegal immigrants to pay in-state tuition at Illinois
universities and community colleges.
The Senate Democrats have a fairly comfortable margin right now — 33 seats
out of 59. The Republicans would have to pick up four seats this November to
regain the majority.
And the Senate Democrats have done a good job of ensuring that their more
politically vulnerable members avoided making any bad votes.
But what worries the Democrats is that it might not matter how their more
vulnerable colleagues have voted. The worry is that the Republicans might manage
to create a climate where more conservative downstate voters reject all Democrats
because of the newly liberal Springfield atmosphere.
The Republicans are clearly trying to do just that. Freshman Sen. John Sullivan,
D-Rushville, is a moderate Democrat who voted against every liberal Democratic
bill last year. So when Republican Gary Speckhart officially kicked off his
campaign, he attacked liberal Springfield, rather than try to tag Sullivan,
himself, as a liberal.
The House Democrats are sufficiently worried about the possibility of all
Democrats being branded as Chicago-style liberals that they’ve encouraged one
of their more vulnerable downstate incumbents, Rep. Bill Grunloh, D-Effingham,
to introduce a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.
But can this work? Not long after Speckhart launched his assault on liberal
Springfield, he sent a letter to his top supporters saying he was dropping out
of the race — a huge blow to any hopes of a Republican resurgence in the Senate.
And a noted political analyst says he doubts a mere vote on the human rights
bill would hurt the Democrats this November, despite what the downstaters claim.
Kent Redfield, director of the University of Illinois at Springfield’s Legislative
Study Center, says the Senate Democrats have given themselves ample “political
cover” by refusing to raise general taxes and keeping the lid on the state’s
bureaucracy. If that continues, he says, the Democrats should be able to fend
off any charges that they’ve become too liberal.
Redfield does admit, however, that it wouldn’t be smooth sailing. “If you’ve
got a well-known incumbent, then everybody views the race as local,” Redfield
says. “They know who he is.
“But where you’ve got a Democrat in a district that’s been represented by
a Republican, like Sullivan, or where the voters don’t really know the person,
then what you try to do is get the focus away from the candidate and make him
a surrogate for the Chicago-dominated liberal extreme agenda.”
Redfield also predicts that the issue of gay rights and gay marriage would
come up in the U.S. Senate race this fall. “Gay and lesbian politics are an
important part of the national Democratic Party in terms of fundraising, etc.,”
Redfield says. “They’ve become a national constituency, so the Democrats can’t
afford to offend the gay community. It’s a place where the Republicans can present
a contrast.”
Redfield said the issue would most likely help the Republican U.S. Senate
candidate energize his conservative base of support. But, Redfield says, “It’s
not a big issue for independent voters.” Those voters tend to focus more on
the economy and war and peace issues, he says.
Still, though, Redfield gives the Republicans the edge on the issue because
the conservatives are a larger bloc of voters than gay and lesbian voters.
Senate President Emil Jones says he’s undecided about whether he will allow
the recently retooled human rights bill to come to a floor vote this spring,
according to a spokesperson.
The issue likely will be broached at a Democratic Caucus meeting, where downstaters
and conservative Chicagoans will have a chance to make their case.
Â
Chicago journalist Rich Miller publishes Capitol Fax, a
daily political newsletter. He’s a frequent contributor to Illinois Times.
Local lawmakers say no to Adam and Steve
It’s questionable whether Democrats can muster enough support to pass a gay
rights bill in Illinois. But there’s no question where local representatives
stand on the measure.
When asked of their position on Senate Bill 101, which
adds “sexual orientation” to the list of protected classes in Illinois’ Human
Rights Act, state Sen. Larry Bomke and Reps. Raymond Poe and Richard Brauer
say they plan to oppose it.
“Although I have been fairly consistently against the
issue, I also know of no one who has been discriminated against because of their
sexual preference,” Bomke says. “Unlike someone’s race, creed, national origin,
or sex, [sexual preference] is not obvious. I don’t understand the rational
for adding it. Having said that, I have good friends who are gay and are very
responsible individuals.”
“This gets back to core basic beliefs,” says Brauer. “Bill
101 is for special rights, not equal rights. Sexual orientation doesn’t belong
on the same pedestal as race, religion and gender.”
Poe agrees — that adding “sexual orientation” as a basic
right in Illinois means granting special privileges to a few people. Poe also
says he suspects such a change to the law would create a backlog of court cases.
“I just feel we already have equal rights,” Poe says.
“They’re already provided in the Constitution.”
Bomke, Poe and Brauer, all Republicans, says they support
proposals for a state constitutional amendment that bans same-sex marriages.
A state law has banned same-sex marriages here since 1996, but adding the ban
to the state’s constitution would make it harder for a judge to strike down
the state law. An amendment to the state constitution not only requires three-fifths
passage in both chambers of the General Assembly but three-fifths approval by
Illinois voters as well.
“It all depends on how you’re raised,” Poe says. “Marriage
ought to be defined as between a man and a woman. It’s a church belief I have
and will always have.”
To make sure that “activist” judges don’t strike down other
state laws on same-sex marriage, opponents of gay marriage now want amendments
to the state and federal constitutions. In Illinois, two state representatives,
William Grunloh, D-Effingham, and Bill Mitchell, R-Forsyth, last month separately
introduced bills to amend the state constitution. If passed by the House and
Senate, the measures would go on the statewide ballot.
President George W. Bush also weighed into the debate
last week by throwing his support behind a constitutional amendment to keep
homosexuals from marrying. In his State of the Union speech, Bush alluded to
the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling: “Activist judges have begun defining
marriage by court order, without regard for the will of the people and their
elected representatives.”
“If judges insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon
the people,” Bush said, “the only alternative left to the people would be the
constitutional process. Our nation must defend the sanctity of marriage.”
None of the major Democratic presidential candidates have
embraced a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. At the same time,
none of the leading candidates has supported gay marriage, either.
Here are the Democratic candidates’ positions:
Wesley Clark, retired Army general
Opposes same-sex marriage, but favors civil unions. “People
who want same-sex relationships should have exactly the same rights as people
who are in conventional marriages,” Clark says. “I am talking about joint domicile,
rights of survivorship, insurance coverage … I think that’s essential in America
today.” (The Washington Times, Jan. 7)
Howard Dean, former governor of Vermont
Opposes same-sex marriage, but as governor, signed the
nation’s first civil-union bill, giving gay couples the same benefits as married
couples. “Marriage isn’t the federal government’s business,” Dean says. “We
have to have a civil institution to provide equal rights for every single American.”
(San FranciscoChronicle, July 16, 2003)
U.S. Sen. John Edwards, D-North
Carolina
Opposes same-sex marriage and civil unions, though he supports
gay adoption. Like Dean, believes states, and not the federal government, should
wrestle with this question. “I believe gay and lesbian Americans are entitled
to equal respect and dignity under our laws. While I personally do not support
gay marriage, I recognize that different states will address this in different
ways.” (The Boston Globe, Nov. 19, 2003)
U.S. Sen. John Kerry, D-Massachusetts
Opposes same-sex marriage, but has left the door open
— if it could win congressional, and popular, support. “At this particular moment
in time, I don’t believe that exists,” Kerry said. “I don’t support [gay] marriage
itself because…. of how I view the world culturally.” Kerry voted against
the Defense of Marriage Act. (San Francisco Chronicle, July 16, 2003)
U.S. Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio
Supports same-sex marriage. “As a matter of simple justice,
it’s the right thing to do,” Kucinich said. (NBC News, Nov. 18, 2003)
The Rev. Al Sharpton
Supports same-sex marriage, and makes no distinction between
gay and conventional marriage. “It is like asking do I support black marriage
or white marriage, because the inference of the question is that gays and lesbians
are not human beings that can make decisions like any other human being.” Sharpton
has said he’d gladly officiate at a marriage of gay partners. (The Washington
Post, July 16, 2003)
This article appears in Feb 5-11, 2004.
