Opinion Page

I feel compelled to respond to the article by Benjamin Leever published on Tuesday, Oct. 27.

Frankly, Mr. Leever's discussion of the recent publicity around one outrageous legislation passed in Cincinnati made me very angry.

I am referring to the so-called Issue 3 passed in 1994 which specifically excluded gays and lesbians from the protection of the anti-discrimination laws.

This gave the conservative bigots the legal right to refuse housing or employment to any person based on their sexual orientation.

Better yet, what we are saying to all of those bigots out there is: "Go ahead and feed your hatred!"

First, I would like to mention some facts which were omitted in Leever's article.

The human rights ordinance which was campaigned for by the gay community and intended to create human-rights protection for all individuals despite their race, gender, sexual orientation or physical disability was proposed in 1993.

The opposition, however, came back with the suggestion to remove sexual orientation as a category that falls under the protection of the human rights laws which, sadly enough, passed by a large majority of the vote in 1994.

Apparently, an anti-discrimination protection is a "special right" for gays but it is a constitutional and a civil right of all others.

Fooled by the campaign slogan "special rights," voters passed the 'initiative. There was also a stipulation to Issue 3 that revoked the rights of gay people to petition for civil-rights protection in the future, effectively removing them from any processes of the government.

The law simply makes no sense! After Issue 3 had been found unconstitutional by local courts, the opposition took the case to the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court, which upheld this barbaric measure.

The lengthy appeal process took Issue 3 to the Supreme Court. This has been going back and forth for over five years.

What happened recently was that after Issue 3 had been brought to the U.S. Supreme Court, it refused to hear the case, arguing that it had no federal merit and was out of the court's jurisdiction.

As a result, what we have here is not just the absence of equal rights for gay people but an effective exclusion of them from any political activities now and in the future.

Do you suppose, Mr Leever, that participating in politics is a 'special right?"

The fundamental problem with Mr. Leever's argument who says that anti-discrimination laws are "special rights" laws and therefore restrict other individuals' rights is that in his short newspaper article he discounted the whole history of oppression and discrimination of minorities in the good old U.S. of A.

Jefferson and Washington owned slaves. I guess black people should consider their rights to freedom to be "special rights?"

Issue 3 is about nothing but feeding the hatred, and it's amazing how people refuse to see the relationship.

Puritanism in this country is out of control. If it's not the Bible that is being shoved into your face, it's the Constitution.

We do not live in the perfect world where everyone is accepted for simply who they are, where the decision to hire an individual is not based on the color of their skin, gender or sexual orientation.

Racists, sexists and homophobes are out there. Therefore, we desperately need the basic human-rights laws that will protect minorities from the unfair treatment by the majority. I suppose my definition of democracy is different from that of Mr. Leever's.

I don't think that democracy is the rule of the majority through the suppression and exclusion of the minority (precisely what Issue 3 is all about) but rather it is the majority rule that preserves political and legal equality of all the people.

Unfortunately, the reality is far from that definition which could only be found in a dictionary.

This amendment (Issue 3) to the human rights ordinance will serve its purpose. My bigoted friends everywhere, do not fear.

There was injustice in the past and, if not stopped, it will continue in the future.

A few years back, there was a notorious case of child custody. A convicted murderer sued his ex-wife for the custody of their child.

Who do you think got the custody?

Well, I will give you a clue, the child's mother was gay. Yep, the custody was awarded to the husband despite the fact that he was a convicted murderer.

The decision was based solely on the fact that the mother of the child was a lesbian!

Do you seriously believe that being gay is worse than killing people?

Had there been a law protecting gays and lesbians from this indecent treatment, this absurd decision may not have been possible.

The U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the case of Issue 3, which means that after five years of court battles it will go in effect.

Be proud, Cincinnatians! This city is now officially the only city in the United States where by law, you have the right to openly discriminate against a certain group of individuals in any way you want.