Living as close to Cincinnati as I do, I take a vested interest in what's happening in Porkopolis. Issue 3 is very interesting and it's sparked a lot of controversy during this election.

Back in 1993, Cincinnati City Council passed -- and ostensibly, the voters approved -- an amendment to the city charter known as Article XII. It reads thus:

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 or minority or protected status, quota preference or other preferential treatment.

The rest of the charter prohibits discrimination against other minorities, but this amendment to the charter specifically removes that prohibition for one particular group: homosexuals. Why would Cincinnati do this? Well, why does Cincinnati do any of the things it does? People who live there tell me that this kind of stuff is typical of the bigotry and narrow-sightedness that exists there.

Now, the Chamber of Commerce and other groups have collected enough signatures to put this issue on the ballot: repeal Article XII or no? The Chamber of Commerce wants it gone because Article XII hurts business:

"We think it's bad for business in terms of lost business in the convention area. We think it's bad for business in limiting our ability to recruit talent and keep the best talent," said Michael Fischer, of the Greater Cincinnati Chamber of Commerce, "in particular in the young and creative class." (Source)

Man, you should see the commercials they've come out with. An anti-Issue 3 group has come out with advertisements insisting that repealing Article XII constitutes "special rights." These commercials feature a smarmy woman talking about how Issue 3 is about "special rights," and she concludes, "What part of 'no' don't they understand?" She needs to be punched in the mouth.

Opponents of Issue 3 insist that discrimination based on sexual orientation is a moral issue, not a legal one, and that equating the black civil rights movements of the 1960s with the current gay civil rights movements is incorrect. Here's what proponents of Article XII have to say:

Nothing in the present law prevents any member of the Cincinnati Chamber of Commerce from hiring anyone who is sexually deviant. Again, what the proposed Issue 3 would do, is to enable City Council to pass an Ordinance to deny basic freedoms to everyone else: The Freedom to not hire those whose personal conduct is deemed offensive or immoral; the Freedom to determine who will come on one's own property; the Freedom to practice Biblically based Western Religion.

We are not suggesting reviving the stoning pits of the Old Testament. But one certainly has a right not to be forced to spend one's money to hire someone who flaunts an intention to act in a manner that for at least 3,000 years has been considered an abomination in Western theology. This is obvious to anyone not suffering from the most pathological and subjective form of "Tunnel Vision." (Source)

Yikes! And all of that capitalization is as it appears in the original! As I have explained before, using a religious argument in a secular state doesn't fly. "Tradition" and "morality" are not defenses to a legal argument about discrimination against homosexuals, as Lawrence v. Texas has proven.

But wait: Ohio gets worse! A statewide initiative called Issue 1 would add the following amendment to Ohio's constitution:

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.

Okay, so it's an anti-gay marriage amendment. So what? Well, you'd better read carefully to fully understand what the implications of this amendment are. The particular language of this amendment would have the following effects: 1) common-law marriages would become illegal; and 2) state institutions (like Miami University, for example, or any state university) would be prohibited from extending marriage-like benefits to unmarried homosexual couples. Oh, and by the way, homosexual couples can't even get the benefit of a "civil union." They get nothing.

Is there any good reason for this amendment? Only if you're a Bible-thumper with a morbid fear of homosexuality. I can only guess that prohibiting state entities from extending benefits to unmarried couples is some sort of punishment upon homosexuals for being homosexuals ("How dare you even think of getting married! Perverts!"). While Miami University enacted domestic partner benefits in July of this year, the passage of Issue 1 would nullify those benefits.

How radical is Issue 1? Even the very Republican governor, Bob Taft (who would have supported a standard anti-gay marriage amendment), wants you to vote "no" on Issue 1. Miami University enacted domestic partner benefits after recognizing that it could lose potential employees without them. Ohio, which is trying desperately to become a new center of industry and technology, will only hurt itself if Issue 1 passes. Progressive-thinking people do not want to live in a state with laws like Issue 1. They will move somewhere else and Ohio will continue its slow economic decline. (If the equal rights argument doesn't sway you, maybe the economic one will.) And if Bob Taft says it's too radical ... well, maybe it's too radical.