Message me
If both Joe Laiacona--an openly gay man--and Deb Mell--an openly lesbian woman--keep their hats in the ring, the 40th District Democratic primary race will be the first of its kind at this level of politics in Illinois. And yet, despite this political milestone, there is little to no fanfare of the event. In fact, neither of the candidates even mentions sexual orientation in his/her online campaign bio.
One Political Race, Two Gay Candidates, Not One Word About It
nbcchicago.com - 3 weeks ago - 256 views
17 Comments Have your say. Vote up the best responses. ↓
Reactions on the web
Latest tweets linking to this story (Share url: http://windycitizen.com/weNk)
Latest tweets linking to this story (Share url: http://windycitizen.com/weNk)
Invite your friends
Top Politics Stories This Week
3
Comments
Welcome, man! How'd you find this crazy party we throw every day?
On the subject of this story, surely it's a good thing that no one's talking about the sexual orientation of these candidates, right? It just doesn't matter. Great to hear that from the local electorate.
When everyone professes such a sexual orientation, doesn't that make it less significant distinguishing campaign characteristic, polomex?
Why should anyone care if someone is gay? I thought they wanted "acceptance"? With acceptance comes indifference to their condition, ya know?
Then they should be able to mention it without repercussion.
Why should they mention it at all? Mentioning it MEANS they are highlighting it! If they want to be considered "normal" then there is no reason at all to mention it.
I don't walk up to people and say, "Hi, I'm a hetero!" Why should they say, "Vote for me, I'm gay."
One need not mention what is already assumed. If you don't tell people otherwise, they will automatically assume you are straight anyway.
I disagree. I never approach someone and make a judgment on their sex life as a first thought. I would also never look at a politician and even wonder for a second about their sex life. My only interest is in their political stance and policies. Like I said, why mention sexual proclivities in politics?
Well, a hetro politician would never conceive of leaving their spouse off their campaign bio. Heck, the spouse would be dragged up front whenever possible. There's a difference between not highlighting something and hiding it.
Should one's sexual orientation, one's religious affiliation, one's marital arrangment, one's race or one's ethnicity make a difference in a post-racial world?
While some politicians press for inclusiveness & diversity, they continue to pander to divisiveness & profess polarization. As LA civil rights celebrity Rodney King once asked, "can't we all learn to get along?"
(I just watched the author Truman Capote movie about the writing of the movie--In Cold Blood.)
People have this horrible habit of thinking that labels are bad. That we shouldn't be Black, be gay, or be working-class; we should all just "be."
Why can't we instead understand and embrace our labels? Yes, labels can be divisive, but they can also be a useful tool in understanding each other.
Labels aren't the problem. The difficulties lie in our reactions to them.
Labels come with a whole lot more than just a title.
Along with it comes stereotypes, segregation (whether or not intended people relate better to those that are labeled as peers) and a slew of other things. The point behind getting rid of categorizing everyone is to focus on more serious issues then what is done in bedrooms or what color skin someone has.
They act as a red herring and derail everything.
This thread is awesome. I approve. Upvotes for everyone.
I'm not suggesting it should be a campaign characteristic. It should be a personal one though. Purposely omitting the love of your life from your personal biography? I'd say that's pretty big.
It seems to me that the gays are just like another ethnicity in Chicago, like the Irish, or the Blacks, or the Lithuanians. They've got their own neighborhood. Their own clout. An alderman or two to stick up for their interests.
This is what is great about America.
Upvoted for awesomeness.
Personally I prefer politicians that had to overcome a lot. The ones that were handed everything often end up just being someone with a title *cough*Bush*cough* while those that really have a good heaping portion of adversity tend to be better at the job.
I am not saying it is right to point out they are gay, but they are, and it is still a taboo subject in politics. They obviously both really want this job and have worked hard to get to where they are.
Yeah I agree. I hate those politicians that were handed everything in their lives and have never had to work a single day. Like John Kerry, Richard Daley, Ted Kennedy (every Kennedy for that matter), Lisa Madigan, Barack Hussein Obama, Hillary Clinton... *cough, cough*!
Post new comment