Mayor Daley’s support for gay marriage didn’t waver Tuesday despite President Bush’s announcement in favor of a constitutional amendment to prohibit same-sex marriages.
Daley called amendment efforts “frivolous” and reiterated feelings expressed last week that gays and lesbian couples deserve the same protections and privilege married couples have.
“Why are we putting this issue up when we have real issues that affect every [one] of us, the economy, the jobs, the environment, a lot of issues that really go to the heart and soul of America?” Daley said Tuesday.
“I hope the debate moves forward and it’s not a debate of hate, of hating one another,” he added. “This community has not destroyed marriage, they’ve had nothing to do with it.”
Daley’s stance has lent support to Cook County Clerk David Orr, who has begun meeting with community groups and elected officials about how to address the issue.
Conservative groups are monitoring the discussion in Chicago and say the time is right for them to push for an amendment to the state constitution banning gay marriage.
They’re focusing on the state constitution because they say it can be amended more easily than the U.S. Constitution.
“It’s more of a doable thing in Illinois to get the state amendment done quickly,” said Peter LaBarbera, executive director for the Illinois Family Institute, a conservative advocacy group.
LaBarbera said a state amendment is urgently needed because of Daley’s recent comments, which he says go against state law defining marriage as between a man and a woman.
“It obviously points to the need to put it in the constitution to keep that from happening,” he said.
Without a constitutional ban, LaBarbera said, gay couples who get married elsewhere will eventually challenge the Illinois law through the courts.
Local gay rights advocates are equally determined to fight a constitutional amendment, calling Bush’s statement a severe abuse of power and a political ploy.
“This is how he begins his presidential reelection campaign–by attacking a whole community. It’s chilling and very disturbing,” said Rick Garcia, political director of Equality Illinois.
“Instead of conservatives talking about the sanctity of marriage, I’d like them to start talking about the sanctity of the constitution. In the past, amendments to the constitution were used to expand rights, not to codify discrimination against an entire group of people,” he added.
It’s also Bush’s way of changing the subject, argues Andy Thayer of the Chicago Anti-Bashing Network. Thayer is organizing an upcoming rally in support of gay marriage.
“The president, by making this statement, is taking a desperate gamble to divert attention from his disastrous policies,” on foreign affairs and the economy, he said.
– – –
More Top Picks Best Carpet Cleaners For Pet Stains
BY THE NUMBERS
Do you think marriages between homosexuals should or should not be recognized by the law as valid, with the same rights as traditional marriages?
32% Should be valid.
64% Should not be valid.
4% No opinion.
48% Said the laws regarding marriages between homosexuals should be determined by federal government.
46% Said the laws regarding marriages between homosexuals should be determined by state government.
Passing an amendment
In order to amend the U.S. Constitution, a bill must be passed by both houses of Congress and then be ratified by three-fourths, or 38, states.
The president has no formal role in the amendment process and cannot veto proposed amendments or state ratification but is free to make an opinion known.
Fast track/slow track
The last U.S. constitutional amendment took nearly 203 years from the time it was proposed in 1789 until it became law in 1992. It says that no law governing pay for members of the House and Senate can go into effect until after the succeeding congressional election.
Its predecessor, the 26th amendment–which lowered the voting age from 21 to 18–took a lightning-fast route into U.S. law. It was proposed March 23, 1971, and ratified June 30, 1971.
Reuters.
– – –
State of unions
There are five states that have defined what constitutes a marriage in their constitution. An additional 34 states have similar language in their laws.