Chicago Sun-Times Editorial - Follow Iowa's lead on gay marriage/Response to The Sun-Times Editorial

Chicago Sun-Times Editorial - Follow Iowa's lead on gay marriage
Copyright by the Chicago Sun-Times
April 7, 2009
http://www.suntimes.com/news/commentary/1514289,CST-EDT-edit07a.article


The power of the court ruling approving gay marriage in Iowa lies in its simplicity.

In its unanimous ruling Friday, the Iowa Supreme Court said that voiding a ban on same-sex marriages was the only decent, common-sense thing to do.

"We are firmly convinced the exclusion of gay and lesbian people from the institution of civil marriage does not substantially further any important government objective," Justice Mark Cady, a Republican appointee, wrote for the seven-member court. "The Legislature has excluded a historically disfavored class of persons from a supremely important civil institution without a constitutionally sufficient justification."

There was no parsing of words, no dissent. The Iowa Supreme Court simply stood on the side of fairness and justice.

It's time for Illinois to join its Midwestern neighbor in the fight for civil rights for same-sex couples. Until now, Connecticut and Massachusetts have led the way.

This page believes gay couples have the right to marry, and that right should be enshrined in Illinois law. Now, Illinois explicitly defines marriage as a union between a man and woman.

Unfortunately, a same-sex marriage bill before the Illinois Legislature appears to be a non-starter. As an alternative, Rep. Greg Harris, a Chicago Democrat, is sponsoring a bill that allows civil unions.

Harris' bill would not be our first choice, nor his, but it does offer same-sex couples important protections, including the right to visit a partner in the hospital, receive benefits upon their death and make funeral arrangements.

Former state Rep. Larry McKeon famously told a state panel how staff at one hospital refused to let him make medical decisions for his dying partner. McKeon reportedly ran home for paperwork to prove his legal rights. By the time he returned, his partner was dead.

Harris' Illinois civil union bill has robust support and a decent chance of passage.

We urge legislators on the fence to support the bill, which would put Illinois law in line with other states, such as New Jersey, New Hampshire and Oregon, that allow for civil unions or domestic partnerships.

But it's just a start. Anything less than marriage tells our gay neighbors and friends they're second-class.

Iowa opened the door in the Midwest. Illinois should walk through.



Response to The Sun-Times Editorial
By Carlos T Mock
March 7, 2009

Chicago Sun-Times Editorial - Follow Iowa's lead on gay marriage

This year, an unprecedented turnout of voters went to the polls and elected the first African American President, however, gay rights did not advance--all but one state took away gay rights from their citizens.

We do not view these results as reason for despair. Struggles over civil rights never follow a straight trajectory, and the outcome of these ballot fights should not obscure the building momentum for full equality for gay people, including acceptance of marriage between gay men and women. But the votes remind us of how much remains to be done.

In Illinois, state representative Greg Harris has introduced HB1826, the Illinois Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Unions Act that would grant civil union rights to same sex couples. We regret that the leaders of our state's Democratic-controlled Legislature do not view this issue with urgency. The bill has been "sidetracked" and has stalled for too long.

Although civil unions are an inadequate substitute for marriage--because they create a separate, new legal structure to confer some benefits to same-sex couples, which neither honors American ideals of fairness, nor does it grant true equality--they are a path in the right direction. Ten years ago, we would not even thought to discuss the subject.

The Constitution set three different branches of government: the executive, the legislative, and the judicial.

The Judicial has the duty to protect the rights of minorities from the majority. Iowa's Supreme Court unanimous ruling Friday, finding that the state's same-sex marriage ban violates the constitutional rights of gay and lesbian couples is a perfect example of the purpose of the Judicial system set by our forefathers.

This is of great importance because it shows that despite attempts to stop gay marriage through right wing ballot initiatives, like in California, the courts will continue to support the case for equal rights for gays.

The power of the court ruling approving gay marriage in Iowa lies in its simplicity.

In its unanimous ruling Friday, the Iowa Supreme Court said that voiding a ban on same-sex marriages was the only decent, common-sense thing to do.

"We are firmly convinced the exclusion of gay and lesbian people from the institution of civil marriage does not substantially further any important government objective," Justice Mark Cady, a Republican appointee, wrote for the seven-member court. "The Legislature has excluded a historically disfavored class of persons from a supremely important civil institution without a constitutionally sufficient justification."

It is time for the Illinois legislature to do the right thing and approve Greg Harris bill which would put Illinois law in line with other states, such as New Jersey, New Hampshire and Oregon, that allow for civil unions or domestic partnerships.

But it's just a start. Anything less than marriage tells our gay citizens that they're second-class.

Iowa opened the door in the Midwest. Illinois should walk through.

Carlos Mock, MD has published three books and is the Floricanto Press editor for its GLBT series. He was inducted in the Chicago Gay & Lesbian Hall of Fame in October of 2007. He grew up middle-class in the suburbs of San Juan, Puerto Rico. His website is: www.carlostmock.com