Well, maybe that’s not fair. Maybe they’re not confused in Cincinnati, but I’m certainly confused.
I’ve been reading reports (here, here, here, and here) in the Cincinnati papers about Mayor Charlie Luken’s call, in his state of the city address last Monday, for the repeal of Article XII, an amendment to the city charter passed with 63% of the vote in 1993 that prohibits the City Council from enacting or enforcing any measure that gives “minority or protected status, quota preference or other preferential treatment” to homosexuals and bisexuals. This measure was proposed and passed the year after the City Council voted to add sexual orientation to the city’s anti-discrimination ordinance.
So, you ask, what’s so confusing? It’s this: I can’t tell from these articles in the two main Cincinnati papers whether this debate is about “equal rights” or “special rights,” which means, I think, that I can’t tell whether the people in Cincinnati know what the debate is about.
According to one current view, Article XII “repealed the section of the city’s human-rights ordinance that bans discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.” As Mayor Lukens put it, Article XII
singles out one category of citizens for unfair and possibly discriminatory treatment, and it should be repealed in 2004,” the mayor said, prompting a standing ovation from many in the crowd.
“What’s at issue now, pure and simple, is discrimination. I don’t think Cincinnati wants to discriminate against any of our citizens, and that includes gays and lesbians.”
The Cincinnati Post presented the issue in a similar fashion:
Twelve years ago, in a pioneering move, Cincinnati City Council passed an ordinance that not only prohibited discrimination based on race, gender, age, religion, disability, marital status or ethnic origin, but also on sexual orientation.
One year later, in another pioneering move that negated a key section of council’s ordinance, Cincinnati residents voted to make the city the only place in the nation where it is forbidden to extend protected status to persons because of homosexual orientation.
So, since I believe that people should have a right not be discriminated against because of their sexual orientation, I should support this repeal effort, right? Well, no, not according to those who oppose repeal. Phil Burress, chairman of Equal Rights Not Special Rights, the organization that led the drive for Article XII in 1993,
contends that Article XII does not legalize discrimination against gays, it only forbids gays from receiving a “higher degree of protection than other people.”
“Article XII is as far from being anti-gay as you can get,” he said. “It is in response to the 1992 City Council ordinance which gave preferential treatment to people who claim to be homosexual.” [This quote is from the same Cincinnati Post article cited immediately above.]
In a Cincinnati Enquirer article Burress was quoted as saying Article XII does not license discrimination; it merely prevents preferences or quotas.
“If the people don’t read the language (of Article XII) they will never understand this, because of code words like ‘tolerance’ and ‘discrimination,'” Burress said.
This issue is so convoluted, and I believe so poorly explained in the press, that I can’t even tell when there’s a typo. Consider this quote from John Schlagetter, co-chairman of Stonewall Cincinnati, a pro-gay group:
“Article XII is legalized discrimination,” he said. “By forbidding discrimination based on sexual orientation, the city is implicitly making it legal. Cincinnati is the only political jurisdiction in the country that has the language of Article XII.”
Schlagetter said he believes it occurred in Cincinnati as a reaction to City Council’s 1992 ordinance that specifically included sexual orientation in its non-discrimination language.
“Some considered the ordinance to be a stepping stone toward affirmative action or quotas for gays,” he said. “That wasn’t the intent. The ordinance wasn’t about preferential treatment. It was about not discriminating against gays.”
In the first paragraph quoted above, did Schlagetter actually mean to say something like, “By forbidding forbidding discrimination based on sexual orientation, the city is implicitly making it legal”? Am I being clear here? If you think so, I must not be saying it right, for I’m certainly not clear about what’s really at issue.
One unmentioned (in what I’ve read) but I would think highly relevant issue is whether the other “protected groups” receive any preferences from the city. Schlagetter says preferences to gays were not the intent, but he doesn’t say whether they’ve occurred. If other protected groups have received preferences (and if not, then Cincinnati must be about the only place where they haven’t), then it would not be unreasonable to suppose that if sexual orientation is added to the protected list then homosexuals would also be entitled to preferences. On this point, let me quote an obscure non-authority (myself):
I have long suspected that many Americans oppose equal rights for gays because they have seen earlier demands for equal rights morph into demands for preferences.
Currently, the Gay Rights movement is in the phase all minority-rights groups are in at first. They have genuine grievances that need to be addressed and really don’t want anything more than to be protected from rampant discrimination and unjust criminal convictions(IE The anti-sodomy laws several states still have on the ballot).
There is absolutely no way to dispute that there is a vast amount of discrimination against gays in this country. There is the Matthew Limon case, there are the Jim Crow-inspired laws in Florida, the President of the United States personally speaking out , and then there is the bible, a book that is the core of Christianity and the dominant religion in our country, a book that preaches hate against gays. To add insult to injury, hating gays is common among children and teens, what with how ‘Gay’ is used as an insult, IE “Oh this test is so gay.” or “Quit being so gay and help us”.
Finally, To Kill a Mockingbird is getting remade in real life starring a gay man. Link
What’s going on in Cincinatti is traditional double-speak. Phil Burress is not like you and genuinely against ‘Equal Rights Not Special Rights’, odds are he actually hates gays. Citizens for Community Values, a group Phil is a group that says right on their front page that they are affiliated with Focus on the Family, one of the most outspoken gay hate groups in this country. FotF STILL thinks homosexuality can be ‘cured’.
Note that Focus on the Family will publically claim exactly what Phil does – They are for equal rights, not special rights. The problem is that they, well, aren’t. An example of this is available at Morons.org Take careful note of how the article on Planetout is worded – They’re boycotting the BBBS program because BBBS refuses to discriminate.
Anyways, to return to the topic of the article, my guess on the logic Stonewall Cincinatti uses in the quotes in your article is that discrimination is so common against gays that if you don’t condemn it, it will happen and often.
In closing, if you went back in time and told the original black civil rights activists that their movement would be hijacked, I am absolutely sure they would still feel what they were doing was worth doing. Similarily, even if I knew for a fact that the gay rights movement would be hijacked and become another movement that used to have a cause, I would still stand beside our nations gays in support of equal rights for them.
The second paragraph is supposed to look like this. I believe the problem is that I had a link to a CNN article which had /a in the URL and that butchered the rest of the sentence. Preview is my friend.
There is absolutely no way to dispute that there is a vast amount of discrimination against gays in this country. There is the Matthew Limon case, there are the Jim Crow-inspired laws in Florida, the President of the United States personally speaking out in support of banning a component of their rights, and then there is the bible, a book that is the core of Christianity and the dominant religion in our country, a book that preaches hate against gays. To add insult to injury, hating gays is common among children and teens, what with how ‘Gay’ is used as an insult, IE “Oh this test is so gay.” or “Quit being so gay and help us”.
Modesitt, I think you’ve made a very powerful argument, and I appreciate your posting it here.
“Modesitt, I think you’ve made a very powerful argument, and I appreciate your posting it here.” I suppose there might be something to it, if one could get past the slanderous idea that anybody who disagrees with the argument has no motivation besides hatred. (That’s all I get from that post.) I guess the word “homophobia” must have lost its usefulness already.
I don’t neccessairily think anyone that opposes gay rights must hate gays, I apologize if I came across like that. I don’t agree with the arguments against giving homosexuals equal rights, but I acknowledge they exist.
The first one is that allowing gays to marry would put an additional burden on the insurance industry, an industry that has certainly been hurting thanks to the stock market.
The second is what John brought up at the end of his article as did I – If we give them equal rights now, they’ll come back later demanding special rights for how they were treated now. You can see how it has happened with other groups before – Unions had an extremely valid reason to exist because workers were treated horribly and while there are some places in our nation where they are still very neccessary, as a general rule they are just bloated bureacracys that do nothing but steal part of the paycheck of hard working americans. There’s also feminism, african american rights, and various others.
The third is that just because people oppose it doesn’t make it racist. Don’t you hate child molestors for their actions and think they need to be redeemed? You can argue that they are even more sterotyped than gays and face even more opposition to their activities. The logic goes that the same holds true for gays – What they are doing is as wrong as murder and they need to be fixed.
There are others, but that’s a quick sampling of some of them beyond “I just hate them homosexual folk”. I don’t buy any of those arguments, but they are founded on something other than raw hatred of gays.
I’m not particulairly concerned about those opposing gay rights though. I might denounce those against gay rights and the like, but I’m actually pretty sure it’s juat a matter of time. As generations pass, we become more and more accepting of the differences of others. Witness the acceptance of interracial marriage. Ask almost any teenager if they have a problem with a black and a white dating or marrying, I’m fairly confident you will get “Why would that ever matter to me?” for an answer.
I figure that if gay rights gets shot down in the short term, I just need to wait for the generation that grew up with Queer Eye for the Straight Guy to start voting.
Modesitt:
When you refer to the Bible as hate speech, you get right to the heart of what a lot of Christians are afraid of: that laws like the one in Cincinnati will lead to instances like the ones in Cananda and Norway(?, could have been Sweden) where preachers have been arrested for quoting certain verses. To me, that would violate every clause of the First Amendment… but the courts don’t seem to care these days.
Greetings & thank you for your interest in this matter!
The Human Rights Ordinance (HRO) which passed in 1992 (Section 914of our Cincinnati Municipal Code) currently prohibits discrimination in the City in housing, employment and public accommodation on the basis of race, gender, age, color, religion, disability status, marital status, or ethnic, national or Appalachian regional origin.
Sexual orientation had been included but in the wake of the 1993 passage of Issue 3 (constituting Article XII of the Municipal Charter giving Cincinnati “home rule”), it was removed from the HRO.
Those of us who believe that the right to exist as American citizens in America also believe in the right under the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution to equal protection under the law. Discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, a class or status-based discrimination and not a behavioral one, is unequal.
Thus, Article XII, by preventing the City Council from making illegal discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation does affirmatively deny us a right equal to that enjoyed by heterosexuals.
Laws are not written prescribing rights- rights are assumed unless proscribed AGAINST by government (including limitations upon government against infringing the rights).
Mr. Burress et.al. at Citizens for Community Values (CCV), the authors of Article XII, included language about “preferential treatment” to obfuscate their true motive- the denial of EQUAL rights. It is telling that they care not one wit about limiting “special rights” as the only section of the HRO redacted by their ballot measure was that concerning sexual orientation. In 10 years not one person has challenged the remaining aspects of the HRO and no one concerns himself or herself with whether we have “preferential treatment, quotas, setasides or Affirmative Action” for persons who may be old Wiccan Appalachians.
Regarding my silence on the question of whether “preferences” for gays have “occurred”: Article XII is self-executing; therefore, no “preferences” are possible and none are wanted. We want only to enjoy the right to life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness otherwise enjoyed by Americans.
Regarding the “hijacking” of a movement: the desire for non-discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation takes nothing away from the emancipation of Blacks in America and the codification of same under the 13th Amendment and, necessitated by the recalcitrance of certain states to embrace same, the Civil Rights Act, any more than did the Women’s Suffrage Movement resulting in the 19th Amendment or the Equal Rights Amendment.
Equality in America is not a zero-sum game; such is a classist construct suggests that if you get something it takes that away from me; such is not the basis of a nation founded on liberty.
Regarding the incidence rate of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation: either class- or status-based discrimination is wrong on principle or it isn’t; morality, right & wrong are neither a popularity contest subject to the tyranny of the majority OR a numbers game. Murder is wrong on principle because one does not have the right intentionally to take (deny) the life of another except in self-defense: we don’t need a body count to know that.
The matter of marriage (and by extension benefits) is unrelated to Article XII but let me just say this: insurance companies will never lose money writing policies- that’s their business model. Losing money in your investments is not an excuse to deny the many socio-economic benefits that accrue to and from marriage and in fact business, including insurance companies, should be rallying around the right of access to civil marriage by same-sex couples.
I enjoy & appreciate the tenor of the postings here.
Stonewall Cincinnati welcomes the opportunity to answer your questions and invites you to visit our website: http://www.stonewallcincinnati.org
John, Thanks for posting your comment here. It is quite powerful. As I hope my post (as confused as it was, and I am) made clear, I support without reservation the right of individuals to be free from discrimination based on their sexual persuasion. (Unless, I suppose, molesting children could be considered a “sexual persuasion,” but any restrictions against child molesting would apply to hetereosexuals as well as homsexuals.) The specific confusion I referred to concerns whether the repeal in Cincinnatii had the purpose or effect of 1) removing homosexuals from anti-discrimination protection, as you claim; or 2) barring homosexuals from receiving preferential treatment, as your opponents claim. I simply am too uninformed and far removed to make that determination — hence my confusion.
My larger, mainly implicit point, however, was far broader than the specific conflict in Cincinnati, and certainly broader than my own personal confusion. It is my strong sense that a large number of people, perhaps even a large majority, would freely support adding sexual orientation to the groups that are protected from discrimination if they could believe that as soon as that were done they would not be faced with demands for preferential treatment. That is precisely what happened with the long overdue extension of civil rights to blacks, and that movement had been preaching and filing Supreme Court briefs etc. since the 1830s unequivocally proclaiming that all they wanted was equal, not special, rights.
Now, you (quite wisely, I’m sure) haven’t asked for my advice, but if you had I would say that you and your allies could gain wide support from people who are now reluctant to give it if you somehow could persuade them (us) that you really mean it when you say all you demand is equal, not special, rights. I’m not sure the best way to do this, but one way might be to propose including an explicit ban on preferential treatment in any and all legislation, ordinances, etc. you support. This would of course produce friction with black civil rights groups, who have now sadly just about succeeded in redefining “civil rights” to mean racial preference. But if that’s the cost of affirming that what you mean by non-discrimination is, well, non-discrimination, it would seem to be a price worth paying. The only virtue I can see in your (and by “your” I don’t mean you personally but the movement in support of recognizing sexual preference as off limits to discrimination) refusing to accept and support a renunciation of preferential treatment in legislation etc. is that at least I will no longer be confused.
Pedophilia or Ephebophilia (or Pederasty for the purists) is not a sexual orientation- it is a sexual practice involving the physical and psychoemotional abuse by adults of minors who lack the maturity to consent to sex with adults: it is rape.
It is no more causally related to homosexuality than it is to heterosexuality: it is an abuse of power by adults upon children.
Repealing Article XII will return local government to silence on the matter of allowing or banning discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. I suspect that next year the referendum process of restoring to the Human Rights Ordinance “sexual orientation” will begin, which necessarily includes heterosexuality.
At the risk of generalizing, one “criticism” of gays is that we are perceived as being better educated and/or earning more than the general population. If so, I would stipulate this as so for two reasons: 1) the prevailing disinclination to reproduce (the so-called procreation (vs. sex) drive) freeing up some of our time to pursue higher education in lieu of entering the workforce at a younger age to provide for our families (which we’re denied having anyway)) and 2) a prevailing inclination to situate ourselves in white-collar or creative professions where we perceive greater acceptance/less resistance to us than might be encountered “on the line” or “shop floor.”
Thus, the distortion of Affirmative Action, originally the removal of systemic barriers to personal achievement and advancement, into quotas, setasides and social promotion, is lo neither a temptation for us nor a risk to “you.”
At the risk of sounding flip, “we don’t need society’s help,” we just need society to stop putting up barriers vis-a-vis discrimination; hands-off not a hand-up nor a hand-out.
I’ll contact my sysadmin about the email bounceback- thanks for the head’s up! Regards, J.
John, As for molesting children, I completely agree that straights can be as guilty as gays. I mention it only because some regard pedophilia as a “sexual orientation” and I had just made a blanket statement saying I oppose discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, and I wanted to be clear that did not include pedophilia.
I understand your argument about gays not needing special assistance, and I don’t doubt the sincerity, or accuracy, of your belief. But I still don’t hear you saying that you will propose or even accept language in the human rights proposals you support (legislation, city charter amendments, etc., etc.) that explicitly bans preferential treatment. Because of the way civil rights has been redefined to mean preferences, I will no longer suport, or urge support, of any civil rights proposals that do not explicitly ban preferences. Extra-textual statements of intent simply are no longer sufficient.
But what if an individual company wants on its own to provide such “preferential treatment?” Should government deny that?
Ohio’s Super-DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) previously included (and possibly may still contain) language that would have prevented private companies, both closely- and publicly-held, from offering same-sex domestic partner benefits.
I’d prefer government remain silent on the matter, but if it wants to prohibit such prerences in its own hiring, promotion and procurement practices I have no problem with that.
But what if an individual company wants on its own to provide such “preferential treatment?” Should government deny that?
Speaking only for myself, yes. As I’ve mentioned I would support adding sexual orientation to protected class status if it were clear that preferences were precluded. That is, I think sexual preference should be treated then exactly the way I think race should be treated: no discrimination against, no preferences for. The civil rights movement, though, has abandoned that standard, and for that reason my support.
Having the government remain silent in the face of discrimination does not appeal to me any more with regard to sex than it does with regard to race. Recall that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 outlawed private racial discrimination. Should it not have done that?
Of course! Fascinating to me is the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals’ argument when it overturned the District Court’s vacation of Issue 3 is that Court’s belief that acts of commerce, that is, employment, housing and public accommodation, are “private” and beyond the pale of government! The exchange of money, regulated and taxed, was considered private.
Interestingly (I’ve been doing a lot of reading lately), the Appeals Court based a significant part of its argument against vacating Issue 3 on Bowers v. Hardwick. As Bowers since has been overturned by the SCOTUS, I’m wondering how much “teeth” that decision would have in today’s world?
from 914-5 of the Cincinnati Municipal Code:
“The application and enforcement of the protections created herein [the Human Rights Ordinance passed in 1992] are limited solely to the terms of this chapter and such terms shall not create nor enhance protected class status for any other purpose including public and private affirmative action program elibibility. The term ‘affirmative action program’ shall include any program administered by any private or public entity for the purpose of providing preferential treatment for those in a protected class.”
This, included in the original language of the 1992 HRO, in response to your query of 02/27.
Is this the type of language you were looking for? Thanks! J.
Vote NO on issue 3, equal rights for all; not special rights