Opinion Page

On one side liberals and gay-rights activists claim that homosexuals deserve protection from discrimination in housing and employment.

On the other side are the conservatives who assert that homosexuality is a behavioral distinction rather than an inherent one such as race or sex.

They argue that providing a group protection based on its behavior would constitute giving it special rather than equal rights.

In the middle are those who lose no matter which faction wins, the individuals. This startling paradox arises from the fallacy that the government should have the ability to expand (or contract) our rights.

Forgotten by today's political leaders and the assorted collectives demanding more rights is the ideal government that Washington, Jefferson and Franklin attempted to establish 200 years ago.

Their vision, which has since corroded, was a government whose powers were delegated by the people. By establishing a constitutional democracy they intended to limit government to one primary task, preventing parties. foreign or domestic, from influencing individuals by force.

The military would safeguard us from foreign invaders, and the police and courts would ensure our free speech. property rights and physical safety.

The founding fathers declared independence from Britain to rid their lives of George III and centuries of monarchs who denied an individual's right to his own life.

Asserting our rights for "life. liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," they declared our rights were only limited by our obligation not to interfere with another individual's right to his own mind, time and property.

Between individuals there can exist no conflict of liberty, that is. no one can possess rights that supersede any one else's rights.

In practice, this would mean that your neighbor couldn't claim a right to your car because doing so would override your ownership rights.

Yet today, at the demand of various collectives, our government representatives legislate away individuals' rights.

Those potential employees have the right not to be forcefully influenced by the employer, but they don't have a right to the job.

An apartment building owner likewise should have the right to select tenants by whatever means he wishes.

The landlord has the right to act irrationally and reduce the profitability of his property; the evicted tenants, though, have no claim to that which clearly belongs to him.

Anti-discrimination laws should serve one purpose, to prevent the government from discriminating against citizens. "By the people, by the people, and for the people." our government should restrict only the rights of criminals; every other person's right to individual liberty must be constitutionally protected.

In addition, the government is not a private business. and because it reports to the people of the United States. it must not discriminate in its hiring practices.

Citizens cannot be forced to pay taxes to a government that doesn't uphold the premise that "all men are created equal."

So analyzed alone. separate from 200 years of history, the Supreme Court's decision to uphold Issue 3 (by not hearing the case) is consistent with the intentions of the founders.

It's telling of Cincinnati, though, that voters singled out homosexuals as the minority whose special rights they wished to revoke (while leaving the special rights of other minorities intact).

The city council should have never adopted any legislation that preempted the rights of individuals, specifically the ownership rights of landlords and businessmen.

Until the participants in this renewed dialogue on special rights focus on the real issue, the disappearance of personal liberty, individuals are left with but one choice.