Discrimination Against Gays

Should Article 12 of the Charter of the City of Cincinnati, which prohibits granting gays and lesbians protection from discrimination, be repealed?

Charles Tassell
President of Blue Chip Young Republicans

It is amazing that some in our culture would invite the government, in all its nefarious forms, into their bedrooms (and by default, ours) by suggesting that the government should consider the issue of sexual orientation. To raise the specter of governmental intervention in the matter of a personal, private choice (who you’re sleeping with) seems utterly absurd. In fact, the only reason it is an issue is because a few people want personal publicity and shock value for their actions more than they want the opportunity to “pursue happiness.”

The civil rights language that would be modified to include sexual orientation has a long and rich history of development, one that has forced Americans to wrestle with deep institutional social bias. While the wrestling was neither easy nor pleasant, it was done because of the public nature of the characteristics that were involved, so individuals would be free from institutionalized prejudice.

Arguments for the inclusion of sexual orientation typically overlook the very private nature of the thoughts and actions surrounding homosexual activity. In fact, to demand a form of recognition and governmental protection seems to beg the very question of privacy that the majority of the gay community wants. The deeper issue seems to be one of social acceptance of sexual behavior that is considered deviant. Whether it is by genetics or choice, homosexuality can never be widely accepted as normal by a society, be it because of religious beliefs or humanist philosophy (the second principle of Darwinism: propagation of the species, etc.).

The American tolerance of “alternative lifestyles” has led a vocal minority to make demands upon society that will only cause a backlash of intolerance. Does this justify behavior that ranges from rude to brutal, even fatal? In no way! However, the Constitutional tolerance (pursuit of happiness) of the homosexual agenda should also not be viewed as justification to make the leap from protecting publicly immutable issues like skin color or gender to the protection of one’s sexual proclivities.

David N. Schaff
President of Hamilton County Young Democrats

Cincinnati should be found guilty for violating Article 12 (Issue 3) of the city’s charter. Before I take Cincinnati to court, let me present the history.

Cincinnati City Council passed a Human Rights Ordinance in 1993 banning discrimination in employment, housing or public accommodation based primarily on race, gender and sexual orientation (or identity, as I like to call it.) In 1999, the passage of Issue 3 prohibited the granting of equal rights to individuals based on sexual identity. According to right-wing conspirator Councilman Phil Heimlich, Issue 3 appeared on the ballot to allow Cincinnati to be more “family-friendly.” Meanwhile, in 1995 city council voted 5-4 to remove sexual orientation from the Human Rights Ordinance. Cincinnati proudly became the only U.S. city to officially discriminate based on sexual identity — which obviously makes us an ideal choice for the Olympics.

And for those of you that think the boycott is a new problem, let me argue to the contrary. Conventioneers have been boycotting the Convention Center since 1993, to the tune of $64 million, as a result of Issue 3.

So why is Cincinnati guilty of violating its charter? The state of Ohio determined that the only legal marriages are between a man and a woman. Marriage licenses are granted to heterosexual couples every day. With this marriage license comes an array of special privileges. These rights are granted to heterosexual individuals based on their sexual identity, which is a direct violation of Issue 3. Therefore a class-action lawsuit should be filed against the city of Cincinnati.

The time has come for city council to lead on the repeal of Issue 3 by putting it on the ballot. This action is one that will set the tone for bringing peace and unity to the city.

Robin Bayless
Member of AIDS Volunteers of Cincinnati Buddy Coordinating Team

I’m writing in opposition to the city of Cincinnati’s support of Issue 3. I write as a devout Christian of several years, and although many of my fellow Christians oppose equal protection of gay and lesbian persons, I believe it vital that we allow gay and lesbian persons the same rights that are afforded to all Cincinnati citizens.

I find it perturbing that many view opposition to Issue 3 as affording special rights to gay and lesbians. Stonewall, along with other persons and organizations, are not petitioning for special rights but simply equal protection.

Also, it is important to recognize the correlation between Issue 3 and the development of hate crimes. Cincinnati’s anti-gay charter amendment is the only remaining measure of its kind in the country.

It’s morally wrong to treat gay, lesbian and bisexual citizens differently from other citizens. Not only morally is this a dilemma, but how can Cincinnati expect to win a bid for the summer Olympics with this type of political tenure?

Simply put, regardless of sexual orientation, we all deserve equal protection under the law. We should have a government and legislation that does not discriminate, but is a working body in support of the people.

It’s time for Cincinnati to wake up, become more progressive and most importantly come to the realization that we have a pluralistic society in which there is no tolerance for city charter amendments such as Issue 3.

This article appears in Aug 15-21, 2001.