Shuttlesworth anti Issue 3???

[PeterABnny]

WTF???

Saw an Issue 3 political ad Monday that had Rev. Fred Shuttlesworth coming down against it... Hah? I thought Issue 3 was a progressive measure to remove legislation that gays consider biased and discriminatory. So why would a respected Civil Rights pioneer and heavy-hitter like Shuttlesworth come out AGAINST Issue 3???

What exactly is Issue 3, anyway? Away from the rhetoric and political posturing, that is. I figured if I could get straight answers from anywhere, it'd be here.

[aqualou]

Simply, Issue 3, adopted in 1993 when city voters supported what is now known as Article XII of the city charter.

The article repealed the section of the city's human-rights ordinance that bans discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

[postfeminist]

I think the issue w/ Shuttlesworth is that there's a fine line between traditionally black churches and queerness...we could dig into it all day...

but in my opinion, one issue that divides people of color and queers is gentrification.

queer people buy up cheap property in working class neighborhoods, predominantly popultated by people of color, then gentrify the shit out of it... i think that causes a lot of tension between people of color and the double-income-no-kids queer folk...

[onest2.0]

I got an automated call yesterday claiming to be a survey, but when I said I was voting yes on Issue 3, I got a little message from Shuttlesworth telling me to vote no.

I respect you Rev., but I'm still voting yes.

[Duemellon]

Plz denote the diff:

Gay rights is not civil rights.

Why can I say this? B/c it's not being used that way. IMO they r, in fact, the same thing, but on the books, they rn't. So therefore Civil Rights <> Gay rights.

I'm so glad no one is tryin to pass laws for special rights for fat/ugly/foreigners b/c God knows that's not civil rights either :rolleyes:

[PeterABnny]

Originally posted by aqualou
Simply, Issue 3, adopted in 1993 when city voters supported what is now known as Article XII of the city charter.

The article repealed the section of the city's human-rights ordinance that bans discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.


That's what I thought! So in theory, someone can get the "You're fired!" simply because they're gay, but not because they're female/male, black and so on.

Okay... Just to play devil boy for the moment, doesn't language already on the books protect gays from discrimination? Isn't it already written that people can't be discriminated against due to race, sex, national origin, and about every other variable known to mankind? If so, why would it be so evil to have additional legislation ensuring the protection of gays from discrimination? Hell, if gays already feel so discriminated against that they need an amendment to the charter, why not give it to 'em? Or don't those people count in the eyes of City Hall?

That's what makes this whole thing with the right reverend so confusing. I mean, Shuttlesworth probably knows more about discrinimation and racial hated and bigotry more than anyone else here, so why on earth should he be against an anti-discrimination issue like I3?

[PeterABnny]

Originally posted by postfeminist
I think the issue w/ Shuttlesworth is that there's a fine line between traditionally black churches and queerness...we could dig into it all day...

but in my opinion, one issue that divides people of color and queers is gentrification.

queer people buy up cheap property in working class neighborhoods, predominantly popultated by people of color, then gentrify the shit out of it... i think that causes a lot of tension between people of color and the double-income-no-kids queer folk...


Hah??? You're being serious on this one PF? :confused: :confused: :confused:

I've heard about quasi-legal outfits that buy run-down houses, put band-aids on them, and then turn around and sell them to high-risk debtors for WAY more than the house is actually worth (thus bringing down the neighborhood when the poor slob can't make house payments and the joint is forclosed), but that's a new one to me...

[Seattle93]

*Preface: I am not black. I am not gay. Everything I've written is based on information culled through experience and my job in TV news.*

A sizeable percentage of Af-Amer folks believe that "Civil Rights" are solely their domain. Countless Baptist ministers and bishops have gone on television decrying the use of the term "civil rights" in regards to gay rights.

Also, AfAms are among the most discriminatory towards gay people. They are not THE most discriminatory, but they seem to have a certain distaste. Just listen to a rap record. Calling someone a faggot is probably the biggest insult. (I know that rap music is not indicative of the entire black population, but it is a reflection on the culture.)

So, gay people "co-opting" civil rights is seen as a slap in the face to black folks everywhere.

[slmpickens]

Originally posted by PeterABnny



That's what I thought! So in theory, someone can get the "You're fired!" simply because they're gay, but not because they're female/male, black and so on.

Okay... Just to play devil boy for the moment, doesn't language already on the books protect gays from discrimination? Isn't it already written that people can't be discriminated against due to race, sex, national origin, and about every other variable known to mankind? If so, why would it be so evil to have additional legislation ensuring the protection of gays from discrimination? Hell, if gays already feel so discriminated against that they need an amendment to the charter, why not give it to 'em? Or don't those people count in the eyes of City Hall?

That's what makes this whole thing with the right reverend so confusing. I mean, Shuttlesworth probably knows more about discrinimation and racial hated and bigotry more than anyone else here, so why on earth should he be against an anti-discrimination issue like I3?

I don't claim to be an expert on this, but it is my understanding that homosexuals are not a protected class under anti-discrimination laws (at least federally). So to answer you're question, yes, someone can be fired (or not hired) for being homosexual. In fact, it is well known that the Cracker Barrel (the down-home, old country restaurant/store) at one time had a company-wide policy of refusing to employ homosexuals, and actually cited a female employee's homosexuality as her reason for being fired. This naturally sparked boycott, etc and the Cracker Barrel has since done away with this policy. But the bottom line is that homosexuals are not a protected class, unless state or local governments have taken the steps to protect them.

Also, it seems to me that the biggest difference between black civil rights activists and gay rights activists (at least from what I hear) is that those who are against gay rights argue that homosexuality is a choice, as opposed to race. They often like to cite examples of people being "deprogramed" out of homosexuality. Personally, I think that's one of the dumbest things I've ever heard, but that's what I gather to be their argument.

So while organizations like the Committee for Family Values (I think that's what they're called) pour a lot of resources into keeping Title XII on the books, keep in mind that the mayor, city council, and the chamber of commerce are all in support of repealing it. Also, while the greater Cincinnati area is traditionally conservative, only city residents vote on this issue, which would make me think it has a much better change of being repealed, as opposed to this being a county-wide vote.

[supra-genius]

Originally posted by PeterABnny



Hah??? You're being serious on this one PF? :confused: :confused: :confused:

I've heard about quasi-legal outfits that buy run-down houses, put band-aids on them, and then turn around and sell them to high-risk debtors for WAY more than the house is actually worth (thus bringing down the neighborhood when the poor slob can't make house payments and the joint is forclosed), but that's a new one to me...

As someone who has lived in a neighborhood like this I can say there is a great deal of animosity between young gay professionals and working poor minorities. The working poor argue that the gentrification makes it impossible for them to afford to live in their neighborhoods, the gays/lesbians argue that they are improving the area, raising everyones property values and should be applauded. The truth is, they are both right and they are both wrong.

[aqualou]

Originally posted by PeterABnny
Okay... Just to play devil boy for the moment, doesn't language already on the books protect gays from discrimination? Isn't it already written that people can't be discriminated against due to race, sex, national origin, and about every other variable known to mankind?and it included sexual orientation until 1993 when article 12 took that language out.

I got a automated "survey" phonecall asking

A) will you be voting on November 2nd? - Yes
B) will you be voting on issue 3, the issue to give gays and lesbians special rights? - go fuck yourself
*click*

I really hate these calls that act like surveys, but whose questions are so leaning one way or another I don't know how these people can live with themselves. Politicians now have another means to lie to us. Thanks!

I had one of these last year in favor of Pat Dewine and against David Pepper and one earlier this week for Kerry and against Bush. These "surveys" make me sick. :mad:

[Duemellon]

Someone answer me:

What r the special rights that the gays will get? Who will protect our soil?

[aqualou]

You know what Stuart? I like you. You're not like the other people herein the trailer park. Oh no, don't get me wrong, they're fine people, goodAmericans. But they're content to sit back, maybe watch a little Mork and Mindy on channel 57. Maybe kick back a cool Coors 16-ouncer. They're good fine people, Stuart. But they don't know what the queers are doing to the soil.

You know that Johnny Werzner kid - the kid who delivers papers in the neighborhood? He's a fine kid. Some of the neighbors say he smokes crack, but I don't believe it. Anyway, for his 10th birthday, all he wanted was a burrow owl, just like his old man. "Dad, get me a burrow owl. I'll never ask for anything else as long as I live". So the guy breaks down and buys him a burrow owl. Anyway at 10:30 the other night I go out into my yard and there's the Werzner kid looking up in the tree. I said, "What are you looking for?" He said, "I'm looking for my burrow owl." I say, "Jumping Jesus on a pogo stick! Everybody knows that a
burrow owl lives in a hole in the ground! Why the hell do you think they call it a burrow owl, anyway?!" Now Stuart, do you think a kid like that is gonna know what the queers are doing to the soil?

I first became aware of this, about 10 years ago, the summer my oldest boy Bill Jr. died. You know that carnival that comes to town every year? Well this year it came with a ride called the Mixer. The man said "Keep your head and arms inside the mixer at all times." But Bill Jr., he was a daredevil, just like his old man. He was leaning out saying, "Hey everybody! Look at me, look at me!" POW! He was decapitated. They found his head over by the snowcone concession. A few days after that, I open up the mail and there's a pamphlet in there, from Pueblo, Colorado. And it's addressed to Bill Jr. And it's entitled, "Do you know what the queers are doing to our soil?"

Now Stuart, if you look at the soil around any large U.S. city with a big underground homosexual population - Des Moines, Iowa, perfect example. Look at the soil around Des Moines, Stuart. You can't build on it, you can't grow anything in it. The government says it's due to poor farming. But I know what's really going on, Stuart. I know it's the queers. They're in it with the aliens. They're building landing strips for gay Martians. I swear to God.

You know what Stuart, I like you. You're not like the other people, here in the trailer park.

[Duemellon]

I spent the latter part of the day talkin/w some guy about Issue #3 & xplained to him these important points:

(1)
Articl XII was voted in about a decade ago & removed the language that specifically stated that sexual orientation was protected from discrmination.

(1a)
Then went over the typical list which I kno he's familiar/w:
The Cincy charter says they will not discriminate or tolerate discrimination based on race, color, creed, religion, gender, or age.

It used to include "sexual orientation" in there & that is the entirety that Article XXI took out.

(2)
Issue #3 is a request to remove Article XII. If Article XII is removed than the language returns into the charter that includes "sexual orientation". It does nothing more. It just means ppl can't kick someone out of a home, fire someone, or deny loans, b/c they'r gay.

(3)
Has anyone talked about what "special rights" gays would hav? These special rights they keep scarin you/us with rn't even mentiond anywhere in the language

(3a)
Preventin discrimination in the charter does not hav anything to do/w civil unions or marriage

(3b)
It has nothin to do/w any added level of protection, such as additional penalties, higher hire quotas, or whatever, than someone who might b discriminated against b/c their black, old, Islamic, or dark-skinned.

(3c)
If anyone... & I mean ANYONE, says they get "special rights" from this ask them to specify what the new rights will b & how they differ from what rights blacks, the elderly, Jews, or pale-skinned ppl hav. I gaurantee u they'll start talkin about marriage, work benefits, free money, & crap like that. None of which has nothin to do/w what this is about:

Adding "sexual orientation" to our city's charter

[aqualou]

back in '93 I was all over this issue and one of the arguements was that being gay was a choice. That's a whole 'nother can of worms i don't want to get into, but let's go ahead and say that it is. Sorry Due, but one of the things that is also protected is marital status. I've been to a couple of weddings and they ask you, "Do you take this man/women?" Basic yes or no question. Sounds like a choice to me. Now if there was a ceremony where someone (let's say Rip Taylor . . . that would be fun) asked you "Do you . . . George Micheal . . . swear to come out of the closet and profess your love for your fellow men?" Now that would be cool. I'm getting off the subject, but you get the idea.

[Duemellon]

Originally posted by aqualou
Sorry Due, but one of the things that is also protected is marital status. I've been to a couple of weddings and they ask you, "Do you take this man/women?" Basic yes or no question. Sounds like a choice to me. I'm confussed...

?

Did u just say that the laws against discrimination pre-XII inheirently included the right for gays to marry here in Cinci? or r u addin in there somethin new b/c that's the next step u want it to go?

b/c, yah, I'm/w ya on that one, but also pointin out the difference between an anti-discrimination law & recognition of marriages for non-traditional unions. The pre-XII charter had nothin to do/w marriage or domestic partner benefits. I think that needs to b pointd out when talkin/w those votin against #3.

[PeterABnny]

Isn't Issue 1 - or is it 4? - about how marriage is defined?

Well, this has certainly been one insightful conversation! I had no idea there was such an animosity between blacks/low income people and DINK/higher income gays!

So those "special rights" that people are bitching about are nothing more than the right to not be discriminated against because you're gay/lesbian... Pft... All due respect to Herr Reverend, I think his pal MLK Jr. would have agreed with me that all Americans are entitled to Civil Rights, not just black Americans. I'm for I3.

As far as that goes I think Midnight Oil put it best in "Beds Are Burning":

The time has come
To say fair's fair
To pay the rent now
To pay our share

The time has come
A fact's a fact
It belongs to them
We've gotta give it back

[aqualou]

Originally posted by Duemellon
I'm confussed...

?

Did u just say that the laws against discrimination pre-XII inheirently included the right for gays to marry here in Cinci? or r u addin in there somethin new b/c that's the next step u want it to go?

b/c, yah, I'm/w ya on that one, but also pointin out the difference between an anti-discrimination law & recognition of marriages for non-traditional unions. The pre-XII charter had nothin to do/w marriage or domestic partner benefits. I think that needs to b pointd out when talkin/w those votin against #3.

No no no . . . nothing about gay marriage. There's protection of maritial status. If a woman gets married, management can't just fire her thinking she's gonna have childern and be difficult. I don't remember anything about children, but that's got to be in there too.

[Duemellon]

Originally posted by PeterABnny
Pft... All due respect to Herr Reverend, I think his pal MLK Jr. would have agreed with me that all Americans are entitled to Civil Rights, not just black Americans. unfortunately I do believe they would b in agreement/w each othr, not opposed.

Religious devotion to funamental Christianity usually trumps freedom for GLBT.

[slmpickens]

Originally posted by PeterABnny
Isn't Issue 1 - or is it 4? - about how marriage is defined?

Ohio Issue 1 reads as follows:

Be it Resolved by the People of the State of Ohio:

That the Constitution of the State of Ohio be amended by adopting a section to be designated as Section 11 of Article XV thereof, to read as follows:

Article XV

Section 11. Only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this state and its political subdivisions. This state and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage.

[yoshomon]

I was in NYC recently and spent some time in a glbt center serving predominantly people of color, so we have to remember that there are glbtq folks of all genders, races, and classes.

If issue 3 doesn't pass, there better be a riot.

[PeterABnny]

Originally posted by Duemellon
unfortunately I do believe they would b in agreement/w each othr, not opposed.



That would be just sad... :(

[PeterABnny]

Originally posted by yoshomon
If issue 3 doesn't pass, there better be a riot.


Attaboy, Yosh! There's nothing that garners sympathy and support to your side quite like beating innocent people and destroying their property! :rolleyes:

[mike]

As a newly minted resident of KY, I'm watching this with interest in the hopes that Issue III passes in Cinti. Unfortunately, I feel that as it reads, the article on the ballot is a bit confusing to the avg. Joe & I'm fearful it'll get voted down.

With the exception of sport stadiums, the one thing I'm fairly certain of is the regularity of the voting populace to vote NO on damn near anything.

[postfeminist]

1. Sexual orientation was never a protected status in cincinnati. The first issue 3, in 1992, said that it's illegal to make a law that would protect citizens based on sexual orientation in the municipality of cincinnati ohio.

2. So, that campaign was insane. It was a mess, and a shady awful campaign with yard signs w/ hitler on them (does anyone else remember those?) and chaos, and no one understood issue 3 because it was confusing. you mean you want to make a law that says you can't make another law? Yes? WTF? it was confusing.

3. Aspen CO had the same law. The Supreme Court overturned it, saying it was unconstitutional. They would not hear the case on cinci because they said, "fuck, we just settled one just like this. we're not hearing this."

4. It has been 12 years in the making, but if people are ready to repeal Amendment 12--that which says it's illegal to make a law that would protect based on sexual orientation. they should know, repealing A 12 would not make sexual orientation a protected status, but it would reopen the door to do so.

[daemon]

what I'm concerned about is that they have at least two ads to vote no (the creepy WASP stepford lady and the rev) but I haven't seen any for voting yes. the no-sayers have also latched on to the "special rights" phrase, as if removing article XII is going to mean that they are going to start having gay parking spaces. or you'll be at kings island waiting to get ride the log flume only to have some gay person cut in front of you.

article XII does mention "preferential treatment", but I don't think people are going to understand that getting rid of the article does not mean that gays are going to start getting preferential treatment. it just means that the council could (if it wanted to...and why would they?) enact a rule to provide preferential treatment (in addition to protection from being fired, evicted, etc.). it's almost as if they threw that extra verbiage in there for the sole purpose of causing confusion.

here's hoping there's enough intelligent people out there who know the difference (yes, I'm an optimistic guy). by the way, the league of women voters has a page (http://www.lwvcincinnati.org/voting/issue32004.html) describing this very issue.

[the-dude]

I saw this editorial (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1317&ncid=742&e=11&u=/ucas/20041024/cm_ucas/homophobiarunsrampantinblackamerica) and immediately thougth about some of the things mentioned in this thread. Whaddaya think? Being a cracker ass cracker, i have no idea....