NO on Issue 3 Signs OK
I've been nice to Greg Korte the last few days because he has been doing a relatively good job. Today is different. Just by reading the headline "Gay rights issue signs targeting blacks ruled OK" I should have known there would be problems with this story.
I don't know how many times I have to point this out, Greg Korte continues to publish stories using the wrong name of the campaign committee urging a NO vote on Issue 3. The group headed by Councilman Sam Malone is called "Equal Rights NO Special Rights" not "Equal Rights NOT Special Rights". How is it that neither Korte nor his editors caught this mistake? What's the difference? Well, for one thing it makes it hard to find the campaign's website when you use the wrong name. [The website is http://www.equalrightsNOspecialrights.org.]
The signs don't target Blacks or ask African American voters to "save civil rights and marriage", the signs ask voters of every race to "save civil rights and marriage". Is Korte suggesting white voters don't care about saving civil rights or marriage (whatever that means)?
While Korte is correct that "Article XII overturned a 1992 gay rights ordinance", I'm not so sure it prohibits City Council from legislating in the area of gay rights. What about City Council's inclusion of gays and lesbians in the City's hate crime ordinance? The truth is Article XII forbids the City from providing minority or protected status, quota preference, or other preferential treatment to persons because of homosexual, lesbian or bisexual orientation.
None of this changes the fact that taxpayer-funded author Deborah Calardo-Arapa's complaint was dismissed as the Ohio Elections Commission found the slogan "save civil rights and marriage" was a Constitutionally protected opinion.
1 comments:
Nate - in response to your question, "I'm not so sure it prohibits City Council from legislating in the area of gay rights. What about City Council's inclusion of gays and lesbians in the City's hate crime ordinance?" here's the somewhat complex answer.
The hate crimes ordinance covers perceived (and real) sexual orientation (regardless of sexual orientation), not just status as gay, lesbian, or bisexual (or the actual redundant language in Article XII itself, "homosexual, lesbian, or bisexual."). Therefore, it applies equally to perceived and real heterosexuality, thereby quashing an argument of unequal or "special" rights or "minority" status.
Second, the sexual orientation issue involved goes to the "mens rea" of a crime. As you probably know, to be gulity of most every crime in our society, the defendant must possess two elements: actus reus (an act) and mens rea (a motive or intent). The hate crimes ordinance applies to the *motive*/*intent* of the attacker, not the actual sexual orientation of the victim.
In a nutshell, that's why the hate crimes ordinance is outside of Article XII - it applies to motive, and the motive is equally written across all sexual orientations, both real and perceived.
Post a Comment