A civil matter
Dear Editor:
Last June 28, when we went online to make reservations for our July 23, 2013, wedding in San Francisco's City Hall, my partner of 15 years complained of a sideache, which he attributed to having overdone the weights at our last workout. We'd been waiting on the Illinois legislature, hoping to have our ceremony here in Illinois, but decided it would be better for us to get married sooner rather than later. These are the private vows we exchanged with each other following our official ceremony on that Tuesday in July:
Know that my life is devoted to looking out for your best interests, that I will treat your needs and desires as equal to my own, that I will not consider anything good for me if it is not good for us and the life we share; and know that I am secure in the knowledge that the same is true for you with regards to me. Our interactions with others will always be conducted so as to maintain and strengthen the trust we have in each other.
You are the first person with whom I will share a joy or a sorrow, a fear or a conviction. You are the first person to read the story of me as it is written each day, the only person with rights to access all the words as they are laid down, unedited and uncensored, the person I most trust to know, understand and protect the truth of who I am. And I want you to know without question that you may rely on me to be that same person for you. To be true to myself, I must know, understand and protect the truth of who you are.
I gladly make known to the world that you are the keeper of the artifacts of my life, an equal partner in the business of the life we share, an equal voice in how we make and manage our home and all of our belongings. I gladly enter into the annals by which our society is ordered the declaration that you are the person whom I trust to make my decisions and handle my affairs if I am unable to do so for myself, that you are the person to whom I give control even of my body if I am unable to manage it for myself, that you are the person to whom I entrust the closure of my life should you outlive me.
In as many ways as I am able to devise I will bring you pleasure and delight, I will seek to nurture and enliven your spirit, I will celebrate and appreciate your self-expression, I will meet your creative spirit with my own so that together we may discover new ways to explore and understand our connection with Creation and the Creator, the many and one whose soul we share, in whose expression and endurance we participate with our every breath.
We are the known in the unknown. Together we will share unknown blessings, and together we will address unknown challenges. Together we reach beyond ourselves to embrace our shared destiny, whatever that will be. For better or worse, for richer or poorer, in sickness and in health, come what may we are together until death do us part.
While in San Francisco that week, my new husband called his doctor back here in Chicago because the pain in his side was getting more intense. Based on his description, his doctor suggested it might be an ulcer or possibly something with the gall bladder. She scheduled an ultrasound for him for the week that we returned to Chicago. The ultrasound showed a large tumor in his liver. We soon learned that he had a stage four case of liver cancer which had developed, undetected, from a symptomless case of hepatitis B. He'd had blood tests periodically over the years, one as recent as June, but his liver functions had always tested normal, and still do.
My point in sharing our story is this: Civil unions are not the same as marriage and are not adequate. Because we were married in a state that recognizes same-sex marriage, my employer is able to interpret federal law so as to grant me leave to care for my husband under the Family and Medical Leave Act ( FMLA ), but is not obligated to do so. Nothing has been established in Illinois law to require an employer to do so. Christ( ie ) knows how likely either his or our state legislatures are likely to change this. FMLA would not be available to me had we settled for being joined in a civil union here in Illinois. Leave to take care of my husband would be left completely to the good will of my corporate employer. Corporate and good will are not always found together in the same sentence, much less the same HR office. Also, despite having lived in the same home with joint finances, supporting each other in our careers and sharing all of the other interpersonal commitments of being a couple for 15 years, as of this year we are only now beginning the countdown to the required ten years of marriage before being eligible for each other's social security benefits. How likely we are to make it through that countdown is very much in doubt. Those in civil unions haven't even begun the countdown.
Last spring I was impassioned about the Illinois legislature approving same-sex marriage as a matter of principle and respect. Little did I realize how soon just how very tangible the legal disparity between marriage and civil unions in Illinois would be made to me. This must change now.
Name withheld for privacy,
from a North Side gay man
___________
Replacing George
Open letter to Chicago's LGBT
community and our allies:
I think we can all agree that Cardinal Francis George is no friend of the LGBT community. At every opportunity he has attacked our community with the smugness of judgment. Many would even say he is responsible for the demise of the last attempt at marriage equality in Illinois.
Now he is preparing to leave his job as archbishop of Chicago. Pope Francis will appoint his replacement, and that could happen as soon as this coming January.
A church service and going away dinner is being planned for him Dec. 18. There will be an exceptional gathering of Church leaders to celebrate George' retirement. As many as 150 cardinals and bishops from the United States and beyond are expected at Holy Name Cathedral. Most of these men have played a significant roles in the war on Chicago's LGBT Community along with our national community. Will we remain silent as this speckle unfolds before our eyes?
There will be a gathering at Holy Name Cathedral with lunch to follow at Roy's, a restaurant across the street, and a dinner and reception at the Drake Hotel. George will turn 77 next month, and his replacement will also be Pope Francis' first significant U.S. appointment. I will not go through the list of possibilities because I don't even think the Pope knows who it will be yet. But, needless to say, this is an opportunity for the Chicago's LBGT community to make a statement that would be heard in the Vatican.
This has nothing to do with whether you are Roman Catholic or not, but rather an attempt to set the record straight in the court of public opinion as to the damage this man has done to our community. He is not a good man contrary to what the straight media are trying to project him as.
We have a very diverse community, and I believe if we do have response to this situation it should be a very diverse response.
Joe Murray
___________
Political chicanery
To the editor:
The title of Illinois' SB 10, now languishing in the Illinois House, reads, "The Religious Freedom and Marriage Fairness Act." What did the bill's drafters, Greg Harris and company, have in mind when they drafted so much of the bill ( 44 lines of text ) just to tell the Catholic Church and its ilk that they are protected under the Constitution of the United States?
The U.S. Constitution already affirms the freedom of religious practice. History has shown that kowtowing to the opposition will not bring us any closer to equal-marriage rights. It only strengthens the position of those legislators deadest on denying us our rights at the same time it makes us look weak. What civil-rights legislation of the '60s ever acknowledged the First Amendment rights of the KKK? Did legislation protecting the civil rights of women bend over backwards to appease the misogynous arrogance of some American males?
I can see, as a last-minute bargaining tactic, adding language to SB 10 to mollify the religious conservatives in exchange for a "yes" vote on marriage equality. This was done at the last minute in several states where we now have the freedom to marry. However, it has been months since Greg Harris promised SB 10's passage. Now, new delaying tactics are being proposed, with the offensive language cast in concrete and not available as a bargaining tool.
These politicians are insulting LGBT families in Illinois, and activists of the past and present, in particular those dedicating their time and money for the March on Springfield. Wouldn't it be convenient for Greg Harris' homophobic colleagues if gay marriage were to slip through the back door by judicial fiat?
On Oct. 22, when we assemble in Springfield for a mass rally in support of our marriage rights, let us tell these politicians that the church already has equal rights, but we do not.
Craig Teichen
and Jeff Graubart
___________
Commenting on commentary
To the editor:
Unfortunately, Joe Murray's recent commentary concerning SB10—legislatively known as "The Religious Freedom and Marriage Fairness Act"—is another sad example of how blatantly politically ignorant some Illinoisans are about Illinois' legislative process!
Murray states, "I am sure state Rep. Greg Harris is sincere in his efforts to work for LGBT marriage in Illinois. However, we need more than his sincerity to move same-sex marriage forward. He must honor his word to the LGBT community about introducing the gay-marriage bill this fall."
Murray's self-entitled political kamikaze style of legislative political strategy is legislatively dangerous to the passage of SB10, especially right before the Illinois House of Representatives' veto session!
Furthermore, Murray states, "Harris' apparent lack of leadership skills to get this legislation passed can only suggest to reasonable people that it would be prudent on our part to consider a course correction."
This political neophyte's "course correction" viewpoint is precisely what legislative opponents to SB10 hope will happen; they are politically salivating at the mouth in the hopes that the legislative sponsor of The Religious Freedom and Marriage Fairness Act will not utilize legislative options in gaining passage of this legislation! The only "course correction" that is needed during the Illinois veto session is 71 votes!
Supporters of The Religious Freedom and Marriage Fairness Act should specifically concentrate on attaining the required goal of 71 legislator's votes and cease being blatantly politically ignorant about Illinois' legislative processes.
Michael O'Connor
Former legislative staffer
<
___________
Letter to the editor
I am responding to the letter to the editor written by Michael O'Connor. His letter was a response to my earlier letter to the editor concerning state Rep. Gre Harris' commitment to call for a vote on the "The Religious Freedom and Marriage Fairness Act" this fall.
Michael, I will not honor your personal attacks and political mud throwing because that would bring me down to your level. However, I do think there are various opinions on this matter in our community, and while you may not agree with those various opinions; I do not think it is unreasonable to ask you to honor each individual's right to their opinions without engaging in personal attacks. This behavior/drama is symptomatic of just how dysfunctional our political theater has become.
Why do you feel it is wrong to ask Harris to honor his word to LGBT community to call for a vote on the The Religious Freedom and Marriage Fairness Act this fall? Our politicians are elected and as a result of that election they are responsible to the people who voted them in. Their first priority should be to honor that responsibility. So, yes, when a politician commits his word to a course of action to call for a vote on this legislation I do not think it is unreasonable to ask him to honor that fact. Or, have ethics been thrown out the window in the name of political strategy as you seem to infer. Do you really think asking someone (politician) to honor their word is being too naive?
It does not take a rocket scientist to understand Springfield has become epicenter of dysfunctional politics—that is why Harris' word to the LGBT community is so important. Furthermore, I expect him to call for a roll call vote to The Religious Freedom and Marriage Fairness Act this fall.
I will continue to call out Harris when I feel he is not performing his duties in a responsible manner.
Joe Murray
State of Illinois, 34th Legislative District
