The candidates for the state senate seat that represents Evanston disagreed at a debate Wednesday night about gay marriage.

Republican candidate Glenn Farkas of Glenview said that while he accepts civil unions for gays, he’s opposed to gay marriage, while the Democrat, State Rep. Daniel Biss of Evanston, said he supports it.

On other social issues, Biss said he favors maintaining Illinois’ status as the only state that still prohibits concealed carry of guns.

Farkus said he doesn’t have a gun in his home now only because his wife is opposed to having guns while their children are still at home.

But both candidates said they support efforts to decriminalize possession of small amounts of marijuana.

The debate, sponsored Glenbrook South High School, was held at the school auditorium in Glenview, and the audience consisted largely of high school students assigned to attend the session as part of their political science studies.

Bill Smith is the editor and publisher of Evanston Now.

Join the Conversation


    1. I’m certain that gay marriage

      I'm certain that gay marriage is'nt a kids top 20 things of interest,……they care about technology, art, learning, pop music, sports, partying

      1. Young people more open-minded


        They just don't understand why this is still an issue … most young people are much more open minded than this group appears to be

  1. Guess who’s not getting my vote!

    Well Mr. Farkas, you aren't getting my vote! There's no room for hate in Evanston. Is that what you teach your kids? Intolerance Next thing you know he'll tell blacks they can't marry whites. Oh how soon people forget they were once the minority and had no rights because rich white men told them what to do. When is this country going to wake up? This country was founded on the principal that "All men are created equal"!

    Shame on you, you bigot!

    1. Shame on YOU GHK

      Why, pray tell (if we can still say that), is it bigoted to be anti-gay marriage, or is freedom of speech AND OPINION only applicable to those Democrats who agree with you?

    2. Extreme


      You are the one who mentions the following words to paint your opinion against Mr. Farkas:




      You may disagree with Mr. Farkas which is your right.

      But to paint him the way you did using this language illustrates a clear point regarding your views.  Clearly, Gladys, who is the bigot here?

      1. Easy answer

        It appears that Gladys is the biggot and hate monger. It is her right to say what she wants because people don't agree with her opinion. But to denie a person free speech by exercising your free speech… well your not a very good American.

  2. I Though Only ‘People’ Killed?

    "Farkus said he doesn't have a gun in his home now only because his wife is opposed to having guns while their children are still at home."

    I guess that means Mrs. Farkus will be dictating how her husband would vote in the Senate…other than that, he also shot himself in the foot with that statement, seeing that most of his pro-gun-owning supporters believe that "people, not guns, kill people."

  3. Big Love

    Will they offer their same support for polygamy? 

    The arguments are the same—joint love and committment.

    1. No!

      It ain't.

      Committing one person to one person is the same relationship, no matter what type of person is in those spots. Committing one person to one person to one person adds not only another layer of personal complexity that may be detrimental to the people in and around the relationship, but sociologically it is a disaster. Polygamy empirically reduces the number of potential mates, and it (usually) creates a hierarchy among men usually based on age and wealth, and the last thing we need is MORE unattached young men competing for even fewer members of the opposite sex. That's how violence and revolutions happen. Sure, that presumes polygamy doesn't include more men than women, or more than one man (three men, two women) but even then odd numbers represent troubled relationships.  Don't set up straw men just to talk about a slippery slope.

      1. I guess that answers that—rights are rights when your cause

        Why does the writer now define rights to marry in the same sex not socialological fine and not polygamy socially destructive ?  Both reduce the 'pool' he/she comment on.

        Why if you give one group rights and then deny another is that o.k..  I thought they watned everyone kept 'out of the bedroom' and ability to select whom they want.

        As expected moral judgement [hidden as sociology] is applied to the cases—o.k. for what they want, denied for what they don't.

    2. Why not?

      Consenting adults should be able to engage in whatever relationships they choose as long as they are not hurting anyone.  If your married neighbor has a girlfriend does it really impact your marriage or life?

  4. I’m with Gladys!

    Thanks, Gladys, I'm with you. My 75 yr old mother always told all 6 of her children (strict Catholic at that) that "Any Love is Good Love" and that her God was ok with that. Lucky us! Thanks Mom!

    1. Your mother is right

      I do not know anyone who objects to one person loving another. Your mother was right about this. Gay people are welcome at Catholic churchs, as well as others.

      This issue is gay marriage, not love or civil union. You didn't say anything about your mother expressing the subject of this article


      By the way, your mother sounds like a very good person.

Leave a comment
The goal of our comment policy is to make the comments section a vibrant yet civil space. Treat each other with respect — even the people you disagree with. Whenever possible, provide links to credible documentary evidence to back up your factual claims.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *