Date: Mon, 17 Jun 1996 11:36:16 -0800 From: LLDEFNY@aol.com (by way of Doug.Case@sdsu.edu (Doug Case)) Subject: Supreme Court Rules on Issue 3: Press Release and Statement LAMBDA LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATION FUND PRESS RELEASE =46OR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Suzanne B. Goldberg Monday, June 17, 1996 (212) 995-9876 Peg Byron (212) 995-9475 Supreme Court Vacates Cincinnati's Anti-Gay Amendment High Court Applies Its Decision Against Colorado's Amendment 2 (NEW YORK, June 17, 1996) =F3 The United States Supreme Court today flexed t= he muscle in its landmark ruling against a Colorado amendment to ban gay rights protections and reversed a federal appeals court's upholding of an anti-gay city charter amendment in Cincinnati. The action throws the Cincinnati case back to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, signaling that the appeals court's reasoning was fatally flawed and now must conform to the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection as was powerfully affirmed for lesbians and gay men in last month's Romer v. Evans ruling. This action should kill Issue 3. "We convinced the federal trial court in 1994, to strike down Issue 3 based on the same longstanding constitutional principles set out by Justice Kennedy in the Colorado case," said Patricia M. Logue, managing attorney for the Midwest Regional Office of Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund. "We are grateful that Judge Arthur Spiegel's thoughtful decision, although reversed by the Sixth Circuit, has now been vindicated by the Supreme Court,= " she said. Suzanne B. Goldberg, staff attorney for Lambda, which was co-counsel in both the Colorado and Cincinnati cases, said, "The Court today shows the power behind its ruling last month that knocked out a virtually identical Colorado measure: the equal rights of lesbians and gay men must be respected at all levels of government." Goldberg, who oversees Lambda's national project on anti-gay initiatives, added, "After weathering a nationwide onslaught of anti-gay and anti-civil rights measures, we are beginning to emerge triumphant in this arena." Today's order marks the first time that the country's highest court has applied its landmark ruling in Romer v. Evans striking down Colorado's Amendment 2, which was passed by voters in 1992, and, like Cincinnati's 1993 voter-approved measure, would have banned laws prohibiting anti-gay discrimination. Issue 3 would have amended the city charter to ban any city laws and policie= s that would prohibit discrimination against gay Cincinnati residents in employment, housing, and other areas. In effect, lesbians and gay men would be required to jump extra hurdles even to ask for protections available to all other citizens. Today's Supreme Court action means that the Sixth Circuit now must revise its earlier ruling to make it consistent with the high court decision that in May rejected Colorado's Amendment 2 on equal protection grounds. A three-judge panel of the Sixth Circuit held Issue 3 constitutional in May 1995, a decision which departed from every previous ruling by other courts o= n similar anti-gay amendments. Nine months earlier, Judge S.Arthur Speigel ha= d invalidated the Cincinnati measure on numerous constitutional grounds. Equality Foundation of Greater Cincinnati, formed by gay rights supporters t= o fight Issue 3, joined with six other lesbian and gay Cincinnateans to sue th= e city with the help of a legal team that includes Lambda's Logue and Goldberg= , Ohio attorneys Alphonse Gerhardstein and Richard Cordray, and Scott Greenwoo= d of the Ohio chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union. Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, the nation's oldest and largest civil rights organization working on behalf of lesbians, gay men and people with HIV/AIDS, has headquarters in New York City and offices in Chicago and Los Angeles. A Southern Regional Office in Atlanta will be opened in 1997. (Equality Foundation of Greater Cincinnati, et al. v. The City of Cincinnati= , No. 95-239) --30-- LAMBDA LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATION FUND PRESS RELEASE =46OR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Suzanne B. Goldberg Monday, June 17, 1996 (212) 995-9876 Peg Byron (212) 995-9475 Lambda Staff Attorney Suzanne B. Goldberg on U.S. Supreme Court's Vacating the Ruling that Upheld Cincinnati's Anti-Gay Issue 3 "Last week, Cincinnati got rid of Marge Schott. Now, it is time to polish off Issue 3." (NEW YORK, June 17, 1996) =F3 Suzanne B. Goldberg, staff attorney for Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, co-counsel in the Cincinnati Issue 3 challenge, praised today's U.S. Supreme Court order vacating a federal appeals court's ruling that upheld the anti-gay city charter amendment. "The Court today shows the power behind its ruling that knocked out a virtually identical Colorado measure: the equal rights of lesbians and gay men must be respected at all levels of government." said Goldberg, who oversees Lambda's national project on anti-gay initiatives. "After weathering a nationwide onslaught of anti-gay and anti-civil rights measures= , we are beginning to emerge triumphant in this arena," she said. "Alachua County in Florida now is the last community saddled with an anti-ga= y amendment, and the case against that measure gets stronger every day," she said. Lambda, the nation's largest and oldest gay legal organization, heads the legal team now preparing a court challenge to that amendment. "The beauty of Justice Kennedy's ruling against Colorado's Amendment 2 is mirrored in today's action on Cincinnati's equally anti-gay Issue 3. Lesbians and gay men cannot be singled out for discrimination that creates special obstacles to our access to government," Goldberg said. Issue 3 would have amended the city charter to ban any city laws and policie= s that would prohibit discrimination against gay Cincinnati residents in employment, housing, and other areas. In effect, lesbians and gay men would be required to win new revisions to the city charter before obtaining government protections available to all other citizens. Addressing Justice Scalia's dissent, Goldberg said, "As in his dissent in Romer v. Evans striking down Colorado's Amendment 2, Justice Scalia misrepresents the effect of the anti-gay charter amendment here. He fixates on the false notion that civil rights laws grant lesbians and gay men =EBspecial rights.' The question here is not about whether cities should or should not protect the rights of lesbians and gay men. It is about whether all citizens, gay and non-gay alike, should have equal access to their government." Goldberg stressed, "The notion of =EBspecial rights' is a fiction, as Justic= e Kennedy made clear in Romer. These measures would have barred lesbians and gay men from obtaining protections from discrimination protections that most people have luxury of taking for granted." She added, "The climate in Cincinnati is definitely improving. Last week, Cincinnati got rid of Marge Schott. Now, it is time to polish off Issue 3." (Equality Foundation of Greater Cincinnati, et al. v. The City of Cincinnati= , No. 95-239) --30--