|
Comment on this article |
Email this Article
|
|
Hidden with code "Submitted as Feature" |
|
Getting A Vote |
Current rating: 0 |
by Meg Miner
Email: blue2 (nospam) net66.com (unverified!) |
28 Dec 2003
|
State Senator Emil Jones refuses to call a vote on SB101. What kind of democracy exists when we don't vote on things until we know they will go our way?
By now you have probably heard about the Massachusetts' court decision stating that the MA government discriminates against gay people by denying them access to the same benefits heterosexual people have through marriage. What you may not have heard is how this ruling affected every person in Illinois.
On November 19th, 2003 the mere threat of voter backlash in November 2004 destroyed the chances of progress on an equal protection bill when Senate President Emil Jones, Jr. refused to hold a vote with on SB101, a bill that will add the words "sexual orientation" to the Illinois Human Rights Act. |
By now you have probably heard about the Massachusetts’ court decision stating that the MA government discriminates against gay people by denying them access to the same benefits heterosexual people have through marriage. What you may not have heard is how this ruling affected every person in Illinois.
On November 19th, 2003 the mere threat of voter backlash in November 2004 destroyed the chances of progress on an equal protection bill when Senate President Emil Jones, Jr. refused to hold a vote with on SB101, a bill that will 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’ civil rights when a federal law limiting marriage to men and women (Defense of Marriage Act, DOMA) and an Illinois law stating the same (750 ILCS 5/201) already exist?
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.
I find it discouraging that our senators refuse to go on the record about supporting or opposing civil rights. But what is worse is that this has been the standard response in the Illinois Legislature for 30 years. If I give you some background on the issue, maybe you will act where our senators have failed to.
SB101 is a state proposal to protect any person with a sexual orientation from discrimination while conducting public interactions such as working, shopping, renting or getting a loan.
Now note how this differs from the current laws about marriage:
DOMA became a Federal law in 1996. It says states don’t have to honor other states’ laws regarding same-sex relationships, and it establishes that marriage is limited to “a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife” and that a spouse can only be a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife. The Illinois marriage law was enacted in the late 1970s and ensures that state recognition of relationships applies to heterosexuals only.
Same-sex marriage may become an issue in this state some day, but no one is challenging these laws at this time. I am sure if it ever comes up, we’ll all hear a lot about it.
So maybe we can get back to the issue at hand? 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, I think 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 Illinois Human Rights Act 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 do the following:
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 proposed 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. SB101 specifies that the law will not apply to landlords with less than 5 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, SB101 has been amended to specifically state “‘sexual orientation’ does not include a physical or sexual attraction to a minor by an adult.”
There are other arguments that I’ve heard politicians raise: “We’ll be setting up a special class of people based on a lifestyle choice” 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. The state of 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.
Will you contact Senator Jones, tell him you understand the distinction between civil rights and marriage, and ask him to call SB101 in January? You can reach him at
Senator Emil Jones, Jr.
507 West 111th Street
Chicago, IL 60628
(773) 995-7748
Then go one step further, contact your Senator and express your opinion on the issue, one way or the other.
|
