Date: Mon, 15 May 1995 15:08:14 -0400
From: LLDEFNY@aol.com

Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Friday, May 12, 1995

Cincinnati Anti-Gay Ballot Initiative Upheld by Federal Appeals Court;
Ruling Denounced by Civil Rights Organizations

In a surprising and serious setback for lesbian and gay civil rights, a
federal court of appeals today ruled that an anti-gay charter amendment
adopted by Cincinnati voters in 1993 is constitutional.  The decision
 departs from every previous ruling on the issue, and is being denounced =
by a
range of civil rights organizations, who say that anti-gay initiatives
violate the very essence of democratic rule.
	=

 =93This decision should give pause to all Americans who value their civi=
l
rights,=94 said Patricia M. Logue, managing attorney for the Midwest Regi=
onal
Office of Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, which is co-counsel in=
 the
case.  =93Anti-gay ballot initiatives like Cincinnati=92s Issue 3 seek to=
 deny
lesbians and gay men the basic civil liberties guaranteed to all citizens=

under our democracy. This ruling runs counter to the true meaning of a
representative democracy.=94
	=

In a 3 to 0 decision, Judge Krupansky, writing for the U.S. Court of Appe=
als
for the Sixth Circuit, ruled that the charter amendment, known as Issue 3=
,
does not infringe upon the fundamental rights of lesbians and gay men, no=
r
does it violate the constitutional guarantees of free expression and due
process.  The ruling reverses a decision handed down in August 1994 by U.=
S.
District Judge S. Arthur Spiegel, who struck the measure down on a host o=
f
constitutional grounds including free expression, due process and the
fundamental right to participate in the political process.  =

	=

Issue 3, which passed by voter initiative in November 1993, is designed t=
o
repeal laws prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation, and t=
o
amend the city charter to bar lawmakers from ever passing any legislation=

that prohibits discrimination against (or provides =93preferential treatm=
ent
to=94) lesbians, gay men or bisexuals.  =

	=

Over the past several years, anti-gay initiatives have become a contentio=
us
political issue around the country as radical right groups have orchestra=
ted
a nationwide campaign to write gays out of state and local constitutions
through ballot measures.  But while these groups have had several success=
es
at getting anti- gay measures passed at the voting booth, every court tha=
t
has looked at this issue has found them unconstitutional until today.
	=

Although today=92s decision is the highest by a federal court to rule on =
such
measures, the U.S. Supreme Court announced this past February that it wil=
l
review a statewide anti-gay initiative similar to Issue 3 passed by the
voters of Colorado in November 1992.  A decision striking down the Colora=
do
measure, Amendment 2, was upheld last October by that state=92s highest c=
ourt.
	=

Suzanne B. Goldberg, staff attorney at Lambda, and co-counsel in the
Cincinnati and Colorado cases said, =93This ruling contains a shocking
disregard for basic constitutional guarantees and provides a dangerous
precedent for giving legal effect to private prejudice.  Issue 3 sets up =
a
second-class citizenship for gay people, and the court=92s ruling will le=
ave
many Americans vulnerable to similar attacks.=94
	=

=93We will demonstrate the ruling=92s flaws to the U.S. Supreme Court eit=
her in
the appeal of this case, or in our challenge to the Colorado anti-gay
amendment,=94 added Goldberg.
	=

The legal team opposing the Cincinnati measure consists of attorneys from=

Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, local civil rights attorney Alph=
onse
Gerhardstein, and Scott Greenwood of the Ohio ACLU chapter.  A broad
coalition of civil rights groups filed briefs as amicus in support of
Lambda=92s position, including the Anti-Defamation League, People for the=

American Way, and the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund.    (The c=
ase
is Equality Foundation of Greater Cincinnati, et al. v. The City of
Cincinnati, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, No. 94-3855.)

-30-

Contact:	Denny Lee, Suzanne B. Goldberg
	(212) 995-8585/8976