Mark Drobnick
Mark Drobnick

Marriage: what it Means to rest of Us

"Marriage: what it Means to rest of Us" Classify under, "Since you asked": (copy, response to recent "Organizing for Action"/ BHO agent e-mail, soliciting advocative & monetary support for gay marriage) Dated & e-mail replied: 24 May 2013 I'm with my wife, Loida (Jordan) Drobnick, on this. You are completely wrong about "marriage" between same sex people. If you want to avoid [financial] discrimination against gays, and sanction some kind of civil union, [then] that's one thing. But, "marriage", goes too far. It makes no sense to me as biologist. Further, when I studied law at Texas Tech law school in the 80's, public, gay conduct got you thrown in jail, under Texas Penal Code. When I went to Catholic school as a kid, marriage was one of the seven Holy Sacraments. Giving the benefit of a doubt to him, Obama is paying back a monetary, campaign debt from 2008 (Geffen & co.), so, somewhat understandable. But, no politician has to sell his soul for votes or support. Again, this marriage for gays idea stinks. Deep six it! I've run eight times in politics. I'm telling you, this is going down the wrong path. It's crazy. [A less invective adjective would be: "absurd".] [Marriage is something sacred from God. Kids are humans possessed of the same inherent, civil rights as you and I. They too have the right to choose if they want to be raised in an alternative lifestyle environment during their impressionable, formative years. [(This presents the delicate issue of what rights the biological mother should have, in the event of a test tube baby pregnancy, for example, where she is romantically involved with her same gender "partner". Here, regardless of sexual orientation, I believe that this mother's rights are of paramount importance, right up there with those of the child, so that both must be considered.) [Lacking in capacity until the age of majority, usually 18, the state must intervene as parens patriae to choose for newborns. Don't make public policy empowered to dictatorially usurp this choice from them, prejudicially. That, however, is the slippery slope being followed when you lobby to make Illinois, "un-lucky 13", i.e. another in a state by state, series of mis-steps, which deserves to be pre-empted every bit as much as Prohibition should have been.] Let me emphasize, I donated to you and am an Obama/ Biden supporter (like my wife). What I've [expressed] here, I tell you as a friend. [Unanswered, relevant questions: [1. Re surrogate mothers who serve merely as incubators, without supposed, emotional attachment, what rights do they have in determining raising of newborn? Is it merely a business contract to be disposed of by payment of a monetary price? Does it matter whether the progeny are to be raised in a heterosexual or homosexual household? [2. Re public school teachers, especially at elementary level. Should sexual orientation be a determinative factor in whether to hire? Should local mores be influential? As to single, never married candidates of undisclosed preference, does this unfairly permit them to "fly under the radar"? [3. Re biological, gay fathers, who merely donate male seed: are they to be precluded from raising their offspring in their household because of their orientation? [4. Are children, wards of the state, rescued from pathologically dysfunctional families, best off raised in an orphanage, or in a foster household of gay parents, or of heterosexual parents? Which household environment is optimal for child? That one placement approach may be less expensive for government, how much priority should that consideration be given? [5. Is sexual orientation a moral choice or a genetically determined pre-disposition? Should alternative lifestyle, sexual orientation be politically handled any differently than we currently manage alcoholism? Does it stem from a chosen, moral shortcoming or an involuntary, biological mandate, or, something in between? [6. What if everyone subscribed to gay marriage? Where would our species be, brief centuries from now? Extinct? That universality of same sex gender preference is unlikely, makes it acceptable? [7. That kids have never been able to choose their heterosexual parents, nor their parents' circumstances (monetary, moral, religious, etc.), argues in favor of not giving them the choice in this situation also? And, should this argument carry any weight? [8. How are to be distinguished from each other, the definitions of "marriage" and "civil union"? What should be the difference(s), other than that former contains as an element, man coupled with woman? [What a can of worms this has opened up! Eh? No wonder politicians have steered clear of it in past! With ethics, morality, theology, science, finance, and law in the mix, and politics, I'll be the first to admit, it's a most complicated, controversial, and emotional debate. [When in doubt, leave it out. Again, based on evidence available, I do not see this gay marriage agenda as a step forward for society as a whole.] From Illinois, Respectfully, MARK DROBNICK Footnote: The above policy analysis is generated by author, yours truly, who has learned from "both fools and sages", including law professors at universities in five states (Illinois, Texas, Missouri, Ohio, & Puerto Rico) over a 12 year period. Have a nice day, everybody!


Mark Drobnick


Waukegan, Illinois  USA


Office Phone: available upon request


Or use our contact form.

Campaign News

As an active campaigner, I like to converse with my constituents in person as much as possible. Check out our news page to find a campaign stop near you. 

Get Social With Us

Print | Sitemap
© Mark Drobnick