The Cincinnati Enquirer |
Editorial Page
|
Oct. 27, 1998 |
| The Cincinnati Enquirer's editorial "Cincinnati's opinion is ratified by courts" [Oct. 18] misleads readers beginning with the headline. The Supreme Court did no such thing: It simply did not take the case. The three justices who issued a statement with the denial of the petition for certiorari stated explicitly that the denial was not a comment on the substance of the case.
You say that discrimination against homosexuals is wrong and that was the Supreme Court's ruling in the Colorado case (a case in which it did rule, unlike the Cincinnati case). If it was discrimination in Colorado, it is discrimination in Cincinnati. Why does it suddenly become about "condoning homosexual lifestyles by granting gays special rights" when it happens in Cincinnati? How can you say discrimination is wrong, and then turn around and use extremely discriminatory language to justify a position that is itself discriminatory? It is hateful and irresponsible for a newspaper to compare how and who people love to criminal behavior. To have this life I have build with a women in deep companionship |
and commitment over 11 years placed alongside pedophilia and shoplifting is an outrage. It is the lives of thousands of gays, lesbians and bisexuals that you attack with such language, not a "lifestyle".
Stonewall is in no way trying to hurt the city. We believe that people need to know about Issue 3 and understand that Cincinnati is the only city to have made such a denial of basic civil rights a part of its city charter. The city has already lost $35 million in convention business because of Issue 3. People who see Issue 3 for what it is - discrimination by a city against a part of its population - have decided to take their business elswhere and we expect more will do the same. We all want Cincinnati to be a great city. The voters will have it in their hands to make it one by repealing Issue 3.
Lycette Nelson, Executive Director, Stonewall Cincinnati
|
 |
 |
