http://www.qrd.org/qrd/usa/legal/ohio/equality.sup.ct.cert.petitionEQUALITY FOUNDATION OF GREATER CINCINNATI, INC., RICHARD BUCHANAN, CHAD BUSH, EDWIN GREENE, RITA MATHIS, ROGER ASTERINO, AND H.O.M.E., INC., Petitioners,
v.
THE CITY OF CINCINNATI, EQUAL RIGHTS NOT SPECIAL RIGHTS, MARK MILLER, THOMAS E. BRINKMAN, JR., AND ALBERT MOORE, Respondents.
Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
###
Issue 3 was proposed as an open and obvious effort to reduce the political power and influence of gay people within the City of Cincinnati. Phil Burress, one of the primary instigators of Issue 3, testified that the Human Rights Ordinance “was only 10 percent of the issue. Ninety percent of the problem was the fact that the homosexuals...were going to start pushing their agenda through their elected officials.”
He and Chris Finney, who drafted the actual text of Issue 3, both freely admitted that the amendment was designed as a direct response to the perception of growing gay political power in Cincinnati.The goal of neutralizing the political power of lesbians, gay men and bisexuals was accomplished, as the District Court found, by means of ERNSR (Equal Rights Not Special Rights) campaign materials and advertisements that were “grossly inaccurate” and “riddled with unreliable data, irrational misconceptions and insupportable misrepresentations about homosexuals.” The “main educational tool” of ERNSR was the video “Gay Rights/Special Rights,” which provides a vivid, fear-inducing, and inaccurate portrayal of gay people. ERNSR also circulated pamphlets that perversely and provocatively distorted facts and data about gay people.
In particular, ERNSR prominently highlighted false stereotypes of gay men as pedophiles, App. 28a, including depictions of a fabricated “Real Homosexual Agenda,” which included the statement that “they want the children.”
Gay people also were described in the most “inflammatory” terms and were portrayed, for example, as habitually engaging in bizarre sexual practices, including some “which allegedly involved the use of rodents.”
Expert witnesses in political history and on civil rights issues pointed out that the inaccurate sexual stereotyping of lesbians, gay men and bisexuals during the Issue 3 campaign has direct historical parallels in arguments that have been used to malign African-Americans, Jews, and Mexican-Americans.ERNSR also distributed “patently misleading” materials which mischaracterized Issue 3 and the Human Rights Ordinance to sway potential voters. In particular, the Human Rights Ordinance, whose wording is precisely neutral on the issue of sexual orientation, was consistently referred to as providing “special rights for homosexuals.” Issue 3 also was consistently billed as a mere repealer of the Human Rights Ordinance, rather than as a superlegislative measure that disables the political participation rights of lesbians, gay men and bisexuals now and in the future.
At trial, civil rights experts reviewed the above materials and concluded that Issue 3 was sold to voters through naked appeals to prejudice and their “base” instincts. Thus,
as a ballot proposal, Issue 3 was turned into an “up/down” vote on gay people.