Not sure about a convention
I am responding to your April 23 editorial position supporting the constitutional convention that will appear on the November Illinois ballot. Certainly anytime citizens exercise their right to vote it is important. However, I am always cautious when anyone is trying to talk me into voting one way or another under the mantle of self-protection.

 I am Vietnam veteran and take very seriously my right to vote and that of my fellow citizens, whether they be male or female. Voting is a statement about our belief in the decision-making process of this democratic society. While it is not a perfect process it is one that has served both this nation and, of late, our community well.

 I think it is very important that both sides of this issue be respectfully listened to, concerns be freely exchanged in a respectful environment and that Chicago Free Press present a balanced discussion regardless of what its editorial position is.

 My 64 years have made me suspect of constitutional conventions. It could open a Pandora’s box, and yes, they can be and have been used against us. The effects of such a convention could have far reaching affects beyond the GLBT community. One only needs to look to Massachusetts to understand this.

Is Equality Illinois taking a coalition approach on this matter or is it going it alone? The fact that Equality Illinois has put forward civil unions over gay marriage in the Illinois Legislature is problematic for me. I have been a relationship with my lover for 28 years and do not take kindly to anyone putting our relationship on a lesser level than marriage within our own community. We have a marriage with or without the state’s agreement. We have to believe in our own rights in order to achieve them. I think the debate over this issue is very much alive in our national community. New Jersey is one state where civil unions have been shown to represent inequality.

My main concern is the effect such a constitutional convention would have on choice, immigrants and people of color groups, just to mention a few. The moral question that needs to be asked is this: Is it right to put the rights of others in jeopardy to achieve our own rights? What does that say about us, and more importantly what message does it send to other minority communities if we act in isolation on this matter. The overweening confidence in our own political power may be the catnip that distracts us from the broader goals of justice. Is it out of place to call for further dialogue on this issue?

Joe Murray
Washington, D.C.

Count Florida’s votes
We live in a nation where our young women and men have been sent to Iraq to fight for democracy, while here at home 1.7 million voters in Florida are disenfranchised. Where is the fairness in this process?

Despite much misinformation in the media, Florida Democrats did not choose to move their primary earlier—the Republican-majority Florida Legislature did that, and they did it over the active opposition of the Florida Democratic Party. The Republicans knew exactly what they were doing. They were trying to damage Florida Democrats, trying to strip them of their rightful delegates, and the DNC should not help their scheme succeed.

It was a cynical maneuver. After the election debacle of 2000, Florida adopted electronic voting machines and Florida Democrats badly wanted to pass legislation requiring a “paper trail” for electronic ballots. So Republicans included the January 29 early primary in that critical election bill, hoping that Democrats would kill the election protection bill, rather than risk losing their delegates.

Democratic legislators tried to amend the legislation to hold the primary on February 5 instead of January 29, but they were outnumbered by Republicans. It is grossly unfair for the DNC to punish Florida Democrats for the willful actions of Republicans who were intent on causing them harm. We encourage the DNC Credentials Committee to work with state and party leaders to resolve this matter, count the votes, and get back to the issues that will ensure that the Democrats are back in the White House in January 2009.

Kim Gandy
National Organization for Women Political Action Committee
Washington, D.C.