CiN Weekly: Gay Marriage Ban in Ohio?

CiN Weekly is asking for your opinion on the Gay Marriage Ban in Ohio? Civil unions should be the minimum level of equality acceptable for homosexuals. Marriage is still something I think they should have the option to participate in if they so choose.

Damn

RedHawks Move Saturday's Hockey Game At The Cincinnati Gardens Back To Goggin Ice Arena For A 7:35 p.m. Start

Burress: Ignorant or Idiot?

Phil is of course a big target of scorn for me, so it goes without saying that I have no respect for the man. I must point out, however, to those who are not as negative on him as I am, his statements in the Post today that I believe indicate he is Ignorant, an Idiot, or both. From the article:

He contends that Article XII does not legalize discrimination against gays, it only forbids gays from receiving a "higher degree of protection than other people."

"Article XII is as far from being anti-gay as you can get," he said. "It is in response to the 1992 City Council ordinance which gave preferential treatment to people who claim to be homosexual."

Burress contended that the preferential treatment was "based on behavior and you cannot have a legal classification of people based on behavior. It has to be immutable characteristics, like race or gender.

"You can't claim to be a minority by joining a certain type of behavior. If you're going to start granting minority class status based on behavior, then the groups you could name are endless."

Ok, lets now easily refute Phil's comments:

1. Article XII states "The city of Cincinnati and its various Boards and Commissions may not enact, adopt, enforce or administer any ordinance, regulation, rule or policy which provides that homosexual, lesbian, or bisexual orientation, status, conduct or relationship constitutes, entitles, or otherwise provides a person with the basis to have any claim of minority or protected status, quota preference or other preferential treatment." The bold section prevents the city from making discrimination against homosexuals illegal. There is no other protection for being discriminated against in State or Federal law based on sexual orientation. If there is any protection it is news to me. What the original law was doing was preventing ANYONE from being discriminated against because they are either heterosexual or homosexual, as the new hate crime states. Gays can’t discriminate against straights and visa versa. Phil is lying on this point.

2. Article XII is anti-gay and only anti-gay. The law did not remove the rights of people to be protected based on their race, religion or nationality. Phil and his goose-steppers singled out homosexuals because they don't like gays, and want to keep them in a second-class status. See the Ohio DOMA law as another example.

3. If discrimination can only be based on immutable characteristics, then why is religion protected? Religion is not immutable, yet I don't see Phil seeking to allow Christians to be prevented from renting an apartment because a Muslim landlord might want to keep out the “infidels”. Phil just needs to group up and accept that being homosexual is as much of a choice as being left handed.

I agree with one thing, people can be treated different because of their behavior. Having sex with a consenting adult is just one that everyone should have the right to do, without the Phils of the world trying to regulate it. I myself do treat bigots who speak out their bigoted beliefs differently. I don't hesitate calling them a bigot or a racist or just plain old “asshole” depending on the instance.

Luken: State of the City

The Enquirer has the full text of his speech. The Repeal Article XII section reads:

There is something else hanging over our heads in Cincinnati.

It's called Article XII. It was passed by Cincinnati voters in 1994.

In my view, it singles out one category of citizens for unfair and discriminatory treatment, and it should be repealed in 2004!

Article XII has cost the city millions of dollars, of that there can be no denial. The repeal of Article XII is about more than money, though.

It stands as a symbol that Cincinnati is willing to tolerate discrimination for one class of our citizens.

Article XII was passed after an expensive and slick campaign that, I think, misled voters about what was at issue. What is at issue now, as then, is discrimination, pure and simple.

I do not believe that Cincinnatians want to discriminate against any citizen, and that includes our gay and lesbian citizens.

I ask you, and every Cincinnatian to join me today and sign your self up for the campaign that is coming in November - to repeal Article XII!

Korte also has an article on Luken's stance.

I have to laugh at the NON-CITY RESIDENT Phil Burress bitching about the movement to keep bigots like him from discriminated against homosexuals:

"No one's entitled to special rights based on private sexual behavior," said Phil Burress, chairman of the Equal Rights, Not Special Rights coalition that drafted the amendment.

Phil, you are an ignorant boob. You are protected under the law with your sexual behavior, why not anyone? But, that is not even the real point. Sexual behavior is not the issue. Sexual behavior is Phil obsession and his biggest fear. The real issue is sexual orientation, and the fact that it is a natural occurrence. If Phil wants to remove all discrimination protections, then his argument might be one based on bigotry.

What was really perplexing was the statement in the article

Burress said current civil rights laws protect homosexuals against discrimination.

This is not a direct quote of Burress, but I have to ask, what civil rights laws protect homosexuals against discrimination for being homosexual???? If that was true Phil, Article XII would be trumped by either State or Federal law. Gay rights are not something homosexuals possess, they still are fighting for equal treatment. The bigotry of many in public office has been opposing those rights and people like Burress are egging on the bigotry.

Yes, I said bigotry a lot. Is there a better word for why DOMA was passed or why sexual orientation discrimination was allowed to continue, but not religion, race, or nationality?

UPDATE: A bit of a shock, the Cincinnati Enquirer's editoral reads, "Cincinnati Mayor Charlie Luken was right to raise the issue of repealing Article XII in his State of the City speech Monday," that is a surprise. I would have guessed they would have not pushed that issue.

Old School

Peter Bronson quipped in his column:

I guess I am hopelessly old school. As I watched I began to wonder if those Islamic mullahs have a good point about American decadence.

Hmmm. Well, If by old school you mean a reactionary who wishes to live like it is 1702, where woman knew their place, kids were seen and not heard, and where a man could kill another man without out fear of worrying about the pesky courts, as long as he was killing a man corrupted by the "devil." If that is what you mean Peter, then yes, you are "old school." Peter who hates government, seems to want government out there to keep the adult world away from kids. I seem to remember someone who normally protects kids. Now, who lives with kids who could possibly be there to keep kids out of harm? Hmmm, well could the kid's parents maybe be responsible for protecting them? Could it be up to parents, Peter? Could parents just turn off the TV? Could prudes like you Peter not make this a big deal? You are giving Janet Jackson what she wanted, attention.

Also, what is with the crack calling Kid Rock stupid? I thought Conservatives were above name-calling? I guess Peter is just like the rest of us.

As a side note, I think I see why CBS did not want to air the moveon.org commercial: competition. If you are planning a media controversy, what would you let another controversy get in your way?

Locally Sadgirlseven comments on the FCC's over-reaction to this. Sledge comments as well.

Hate Mail?

Ok, Jack Klinger gets a puff piece in the Enquirer and gets some "hate" emails and he is pissed? Why? He lists these comments as examples of "hateful" comments:

"You are EVIL!"

"You are a racist, sexist, nationalist bigot!"

"May the sweet Baby Jesus shut your mouth and open your mind!"

If Jack thinks this is hateful, he might want to read the emails Margaret Cho got after an incomplete transcript of her appearance at a moveon.org was published online by Matt Druge. One more mild example

Shut your disgusting face, you loser. You have some nerve coming to America, denouncing us, and making your fortune.

Go home you freakin Asian scum.

Now, that is hate email, and that was by far not the worst she got. Cho by the way was born in the USA.

Now, Jack said he got a lot worse than what he printed, which is unfortunate that anyone had to put up with uneducated idiots, but the examples he listed were not bad at all. Also, it is really not far to use those as an excuse to try and tar and feather all liberals. I make some general examples on sections of conservatives who hold specific beliefs I find wrong or offensive, but I don't try and tie personal demeanor to political ideology. That linkage is without merit.

CT's Barry Gee Speaks Out

Barry has an article at Queen City Forum outlining what Cincinnati Tomorrow is and what our goals are.