The Cincinnati Enquirer |
Editorial Page
|
Oct. 18, 1998 |
| Gay rights have been refused by voters, reversed by city council and rejected by the U. S. Supreme Court. But the battle drags on in Cincinnati.
Granted, the Supreme Court’s refusal Tuesday to consider a Cincinnati ordinance passed five years ago has spread more confusion than clarity. But paired with the court’s 1996 decision in a similar Colorado case, it makes sense. What the two decisions seem to say is that statewide discrimination against gays is illegal; but local communities cannot be compelled to condone homosexual lifestyles by protecting gays with special rights. The Supreme Court told Colorado its statewide ban on gay rights was unconstitutional, because it targeted homosexuals as a class to be denied equal protection given to all other citizens. The majority opinion by Justice Anthony Kennedy implied that simple opposition to a gay-rights ordinance (like Cincinnati’s Issue 3) would be OK: "Yet, (Colorado’s) Amendment 2, in explicit terms, does more than repeal or rescind these provisions. It prohibits all legislative, executive or judicial action at any level of state or local government designed to protect the named class..." Our own reasoning in this complicated debate is similar: Cincinnati City Council was wrong to pass a gay rights ordinance in 1992, because it gave a group defined by behavior the same protections against housing and workplace discrimination that should be reserved for groups with immutable characteristics, such as gender or race. Discrimination against gays is wrong. But it was also wrong for government to stumble down a slippery slope and tell citizens they cannot discriminate against certain protected lifestyles or behavior. Who would be next for such special rights? Alcoholics? Pedophiles? Shoplifters? Smokers? |
Under our Constitution, homosexuals are entitled to equal protection under the laws - just like everyone else. That - not bigotry - is the reason special rights for gays was overwhelmingly rejected by local voters, who passed Issue 3 to outlaw gay-rights.
We opposed Issue 3; it sounded too much like Colorado-style discrimination. Then Cincinnati City Council repealed its gay rights ordinance in 1995, making Issue 3 moot. But this week the Supreme Court put Issue 3 into effect, by affirming lower-court approval. That means Issue 3 is not the same as the Colorado measure. It does not deny rights to homosexuals; it is more limited, approved by local voters to block gay rights in one community, not an entire state. And in the words of the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, which twice approved Issue 3, it "merely prevented homosexuals, as homosexuals, from obtaining special privileges and preferences." From the start of this cultural brawl, gay groups have denied they were seeking "special rights." The Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals now say otherwise. The gay group Stonewall Cincinnati will try to persuade organizations to cancel conventions here, and may launch a petition drive to put the acrimonious controversy back on the ballot next spring. Trying to hurt Cincinnati won’t win friends or change minds. Voters have expressed their opinion, and the Supreme Court says they are entitled to it, without being bullied by government to tolerate, accept or protect a sexual lifestyle that most Americans believe is immoral. Discrimination against gays is wrong. But there are ample remedies to protect their equal rights - without creating special rights.
|
 |
 |
