Can't wait to see the Enquirer's editorial on this one. [img]graemlins/sure.gif[/img]
An editorial from the Cincinnati Post:
Correcting a mistake
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Every action, says Sir Isaac Newton's Third Law of Motion, has an equal and opposite reaction.
That equation applies to politics as well as to physics, though not quite as neatly. Case in point: the third issue on the Nov. 2 ballot in Cincinnati.
Issue 3 would undo the damage wrought in 1993 when Cincinnati voters approved an amendment to the city charter which prohibits the extension of "any claim of minority or protected status, quota preference or other preferential treatment'' on the basis of an individual's "homosexual, lesbian, or bisexual orientation, status, conduct, or relationship.''
The amendment to Article XII of the city charter was drafted and championed by social conservatives in reaction to the passage by City Council in 1992 of a "Human Rights Ordinance'' prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation.
Although there is disagreement on the point, we are convinced that this debate is more about symbol than substance. There was little evidence that gays were being discriminated against when the Human Rights Ordinance was adopted in 1992; the ordinance was almost never invoked during the time it was in effect; little evidence has been presented during the current repeal campaign that Article XII has materially affected the day-to-day lives of Cincinnati's gay, lesbian or bisexual residents.
But having Article XII as a part of Cincinnati's charter does have enormous symbolic importance -- and that symbolism is horrible.
Cincinnati, critics note, is the only city in the nation that has written this sort of discrimination into its constitution. Article XII has become an ugly symbol, one that says to the world that this town is hostile to anyone who is outside the heterosexual mainstream. And that has real consequences, ranging from the loss of convention business to difficulty by Greater Cincinnati's universities and corporations in recruiting employees, to outside companies asking themselves if they really want to locate in this type of environment.
That's a big part of the reason the repeal drive this year has picked up such strong mainstream support. Cincinnati Mayor Charlie Luken is serving as honorary chairman of the repeal effort, and he has been joined by a large and bi-partisan array of political leaders as well as a long list of religious, business, civic and academic leaders and organizations.
Today The Post's editorial board joins their number. We urge a "Yes'' vote on Issue 3 -- a vote in favor of repealing an odious mistake.
Publication Date: 10-22-2004
Can't wait to see the Enquirer's editorial on this one. [img]graemlins/sure.gif[/img]
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">SURPRISE!Originally posted by LanDroid:
Can't wait to see the Enquirer's editorial on this one. [img]graemlins/sure.gif[/img]
The Enquirer also supports the repeal of Article XII.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">This is true.Originally posted by reason:
An editorial from the Cincinnati Post:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.....this town is hostile to anyone who is outside the heterosexual mainstream........
Publication Date: 10-22-2004
However, our Constitution was specifically written to prevent the misguided majority from infringing upon the rights of the minority to hold and act upon unpopular beliefs, including but not specifically limited to religion. If I were on the Supreme Court, I'd be ruling that sexual orientation that is directed toward consenting adults should be protected in the same way and for the same reasons as unpopular religions.
That being said, I want to be a Rastafarian.
Reason is right, I found the Enquirer editorial on this. (This is the 2nd editorial that has completely shocked me. [img]tongue.gif[/img] ) Of course their primary reason for undoing the mistake is money, conventions that go to other cities. However, they did mention the following.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I saw a billboard about "special rights" a week or so ago, pink I think, nice touch. Also saw an ad with the venerable Mr Shuttlesworth decrying "special rights". Sad.The ballot language says only that Article XII shall be null and void. Contrary to what opponents say, it would grant no special rights to anyone. It simply renders the Charter neutral on the subject.
...It did, however, make a great number of people feel unwelcome and uncomfortable here. That is not Cincinnati's intent and it is not its nature. Article XII should be repealed.
http://www.enquirer.com/editions/200..._ed1art12.html
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Thanks for noticing the pink lettering. I went to a fundraiser Friday night, and let me tell you, among many other things, that has got people pissed.I saw a billboard about "special rights" a week or so ago, pink I think, nice touch. Also saw an ad with the venerable Mr Shuttlesworth decrying "special rights". Sad.
Interesting note:
The repeal campaign has raised over $800,000, which is noted in the campaign finance report.
The "special rights" organization only reported around $147,000. That despite purchasing over $500,000 of television adverstising. That despite at least two full page ads in the Enquirer featuring Phil Heimlich. That despite at least 4 billboards featuring the aforementioned pink letters.
It's a sham. A legal one, but a sham. Richard Farmer and Carl Lindner write a big check (or so is speculated) to an outside nonprofit group like Focus on the Family, who then is allowed to turn around an give up to 10% of their revenues to political causes. So the giver gets a tax break for doing so, and no one knows that they've given to a political cause.
I'm all for boycotting Lindner.
Another side note: As I've mentioned before, I've been making phone calls on behalf of the Yes on 3 campaign. While there is some confusion about the special rights thing, and some more confusion about the proposed marriage amendment - which is another issue - I have found people to be generally supportive.
Yesterday, I made about 100 phone calls, talked to about 16 people. I think the final tally was 8 for, 5 undecided, and 3 against. Granted, the script prompts a postive response, but that response will be reinforced with a bombardment of mailings over the next 8 or so days.
<font color="#000002" size="1">[ October 25, 2004 07:58 AM: Message edited by: reason ]</font>
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks