Phew! Yesterday was a crazy day to be a reporter in Cincinnati. This will be an all-local, all politics morning news update. Since we’ve already talked about a lot of the issues at play in the past couple morning news rundowns, I’ll just hit you with the highlights today.
The big story locally was Hamilton County Commissioners’ vote to put a five-year, .25 percent sales tax increase to fund renovations to Union Terminal on the November ballot. However, that deal differs from one originally proposed by the Cultural Facilities Task Force, which folded Music Hall renovations into a 14-year .25 percent tax increase. The new plan is a last-minute change up by Republican commissioners Greg Hartmann and Chris Monzel. Both say the city hasn’t put enough skin in the game and that the county has history with Union Terminal but none with Music Hall. Needless to say, Mayor John Cranley and Cincinnati City Council were not happy with that. Read my full story from yesterday here.
• The other big story yesterday was the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals hearings on lawsuits challenging gay marriage bans in Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee and Michigan. About 600 people showed up to demonstrate downtown at the Potter Stewart U.S. Courthouse and nearby Fountain Square. Most came to protest the bans and show solidarity with the plaintiffs in the cases, though a few dozen demonstrators came in support of the bans, praying near the steps of the courthouse. Among those showing support were State Rep. Denise Driehaus, D-Cincinnati, and Democratic attorney general candidate David Pepper.
Two of the six cases being considered are from Ohio; both revolve around same sex couples who wish to have their marriages recognized on official state documents such as birth and death certificates.
Attorneys for Ohio argued that voters passed the state’s gay marriage ban and that the court shouldn’t dismantle a law passed by a democratic process. That line of argument differs from states like Kentucky, which say the state government has an interest in incentivizing straight marriage for procreative purposes.
Though the three judges on the panel hearing the arguments in the cases were often hard to read and hammered both sides with tough questions, Kentucky’s argument did not seem well-received. Judge Jeffery Sutton, one of two judges on the panel appointed by former President George W. Bush, said that marriage isn’t about procreation but about love and affection. It was harder to read how judges might rule on Ohio’s line of reasoning, however, and Sutton at one point admonished marriage ban opponents, saying that appealing to voters might serve their cause better.
Brittney Rogers and Brittney Henry-Rogers of Cincinnati are two of the plaintiffs. They sat in court with their newborn son, who was born to Henry-Rogers through artificial insemination. They said they wanted Ohio to recognize them both as his parents.
“We’re not just doing this for our rights,” Rogers said. “This is for him.”
Al Gerhardstein, who is representing the plaintiffs, said the case is about children like the Rogers’.
“We’ve gone 28 years and we’ve accomplished a great deal in 28 years. But what is the status we’re at right now? We’re at three couples, in this case, who come to Ohio and their children are only recognized as having one parent. But they have two parents. The state should be enhancing families, recognizing families, not ignoring basic parental rights. These kids are discriminated against and hurt a great deal by this policy. It’s wrong…. and we think the Supreme Court will ultimately say that.”
• The other, other big news yesterday was City Council’s unanimous vote to approve the appointment of Harry Black as city manager. Interim City Manager Scott Stiles got high praise from the council, and Mayor John Cranley emphasized that his choice to tap Black did not reflect on Stiles’ performance during his nine-month stint at the job. Stiles will go back to his old position as assistant city manager.
Some members of council, especially those who have taken positions in opposition to Mayor Cranley, did express skepticism about Black. Councilwoman Yvette Simpson had asked hard questions of Black during a Tuesday vetting session that stretched two-and-a-half hours. And Councilman Chris Seelbach said he wasn’t “100 percent” when it came to Black’s appointment.
“I’m concerned about the specifics of your vision for the city,” Seelbach said, noting that he needs to hear more details about Black’s ideas before he’s sold. “I hope you use my skepticism as fuel to do the best job possible.”
Black has said he’ll need to time to assess where the city stands before making detailed proposals beyond the broad ideas he discussed in an introductory news conference and council’s vetting session.
• Also big news: Civil rights leader and former presidential hopeful Rev. Jesse Jackson visited Cincinnati yesterday to rally support for a proposed constitutional amendment that would explicitly guarantee voting rights for all Americans. Council passed a motion7-0 supporting the proposed amendment. Any concrete action on such a change to the constitution is a long way off, of course, but it says something about the city that Jackson started his tour to round up support for the effort here in Cincinnati. Stay tuned for a full story on his visit.
Finally, some quick hits:
• The Cincinnati Enquirer says they took down a story detailing the arrest of Robert S. Castellini, son of Reds owner Bob Castellini, and his wife because covering the domestic dispute between two non-public figures was an editorial mistake. Meanwhile, a story about strange arrests for minor crimes in the city, complete with huge mugshots, remains up, though Editor Carolyn Washburn admits that coverage was also an error.
• Jeff Ruby's restaurant is still sinking, and there's an investigation to find out why.
• A really rad Nam June Paik sculpture of a giant retro-futuristic robot is coming back to downtown.
• I stand corrected: Wikimedia contacted me to point out that a morning news item I wrote yesterday involving a monkey, a selfie, and a litigious photographer is inaccurate. The company doesn't actually think a monkey who took a selfie with a British photographer's camera owns the copyright to that picture. They're simply arguing that the photographer who owns the camera doesn't have the copyright and can't force Wikimedia to take the picture down or compensate him. Glad that's all cleared up.