The reason that I am in the pulpit this day is because Chris Reed asked me to speak on the repeal of Article XII of our City’s Charter.  The article itself is complicated, confusing and cruel, and it was made purposely difficult for the voters to understand it.  Yes, it is law in Cincinnati but believe me it is not as clear and straight forward as Jesus’ one law, “Love thy neighbor as thy self.” But I am delighted for this opportunity to put in sermonic form my own view of it. I will get to that assignment immediately but I want to first say how pleased I am to be at St.  Johns.  While I have preached at the other three Unitarian Churches in our city, this is my first such effort here.  But I have been here on many other occasions and have worked with many of you on other common concerns. 

Even though I shall probably die a Presbyterian, unless I am removed, I want you to know that I very much believe in the UU Church. As to God I am a Unitarian, for God is One. In fact, the 20^th Century thinker I most respect, the philosopher-mathematician, Alfred North Whitehead, once said, "The Unitarians, I think, come nearest to having found a way to adapt the Christian ideas to the world we live in today."  I agree and can only pray that such adaptation will continue for I believe your spiritual understanding and effort is just what this increasingly smaller and smaller world will need if it is ever to find an equitable peace.

I also must say that during my twenty years here in this city, that you and the other UU churches have been more supportive of me personally than many in my own denomination.  I thank you for it. 

And let me add just one brief word about Mt. Auburn Presbyterian Church, so much in the news lately.  The removal of its Pastor was a very unfortunate but complex matter.  It certainly has caused some division in that church regarding its immediate future, but that church has gathered itself together and will continue to serve all persons equally and without prejudice.  Mt Auburn seeks to remain in the Presbyterian Church and defend its inclusive ministry within it.  I believe it will do so without compromise until the Presbyterian Church itself acknowledges that all persons, no matter their sexual identity or orientation, are equally made in God’s image and there can be no double standard regarding any one’s faith and practice.

But our two churches have been colleagues in our witness about many matters.  When in 1992 our city added gays and lesbians to its existing human rights policy, you were one of the few churches in support of it.  And you were there even in the losing effort to keep it from being repealed.   

In 1993 when the group calling itself, “Equal Rights Not Special Rights” initiated Issue 3 which brought about Article XII as a permanent part of our City Charter, you were one of a few churches who spoke out and worked against it.  In fact, as I remember, when our campaign materials in opposition to Issue 3 arrived, they were introduced and distributed here at St. Johns. 

Even though these materials were true to what we thought was so awful about this anti-gay Issue 3, we realized they were rather provocative and, in the end, probably did alienate more than help.  You may remember our bill boards and yard signs which read, “Never Again! Vote No on Issue 3” and contained huge pictures of Hitler, a hooded Klansman, and also that of Sen. Joseph McCarthy.  Truly a demonic trinity, for sure.

But lifting up such frightful specters didn’t seem to faze the electorate, and Issue 3, which was the promotion of  Article XII,  passed easily by 62% of our citizens.

Legal challenges to it quickly followed and went on for six years.  District Judge Arthur Spiegel immediately found Article XII unconstitutional for several reasons. But the court of appeals reversed his decision.  And finally, the Supreme Court, after some review, decided to leave it alone without ruling on it. Thus, Article XII became part of the highest law of our city.

Looking back, I believe Article XII passed ten years ago for several reasons. 

The obvious reason was that there was more homophobia in our city then.  Homosexuality was less understood and hardly studied, and so the prevailing cultural bias that gays and lesbians could not be fully integrated into our social fabric prevailed.  Of course, during the campaign, all of the false myths about them were shamefully proclaimed by the supporters of Article XII, and the voices to combat them were then much fewer.

Cincinnati is a conservative city and clearly it wanted to remain that way.

But beyond this, it was the clever language of Article XII, which was confusing to most voters, that was the key to its passage.  After all the group advocating it, a group largely made up of conservative and fundamentalist Christians, was called, as I said, “Equal Rights Not Special Rights.”

Their name was confusing itself for most fair minded Cincinnatians, deceptive as that slogan was and is, would tend to agree with it.  Even our President agrees with it.  Of course, those in the “Equal Rights Not Special Rights” camp had no desire to give equal rights to gays.  They felt homosexual behavior was intrinsically sinful and so they were not really concerned if gays were discriminated against in employment, housing or public accommodations.  They believe homosexuals are inferior both as to being fully human and as to their ability to love one another.

Just look at the language of Article XII itself and you can see why many in Cincinnati were not only confused but might believe Article XII really promoted fairness and moral integrity.  The hot button words in its text that turned them off were “quota preferences or other preferential treatment.”

The word “quota” then, as it does today, immediately sets up a red flag in our society.  Many would wonder does that mean that we must hire so many gays in order to be just?  Isn’t that forced integration and especially with those whose life style is abhorrent to us?  You could see how that brought fear to many and also seemed unfair.

And why grant them “preferential treatment?”  That too sounded on the surface as unfair.  Why would voters, who again generally find such persons to be social aliens, want to give them preferential treatment or any one else?

As to giving them “protected status”, most voters would glibly assume that any harm to them was already protected by law.  Such persons didn’t need any further protection.

So you can see why 62% of our citizens voted for this initiative.  Gays and bisexuals need no “special rights.”

The problem, of course, and the irony of it, was that gays, lesbians and bisexuals were not asking for quota preferences or preferential treatment then or do they now.   They have only asked for the same equal rights guaranteed and enjoyed by all citizens.  These words, “quotas and preferential treatment” were cleverly and disingenuously injected in this article only to inflame the fears of the voters, and it worked.

Article XII is well written if your concern is to keep homosexuals in the closet and out side equal due process of the law.  I am sure that attitude does not include any one here.

But if so, let me tell you what is unfair about Article XII, if any are in doubt.

First, the very title of Article XII makes clear that no person’s sexual orientation should be made into a “special class status.”  But who wrote that? Heterosexuals who believe their sexual orientation is the only class that exists.  In theology we call this heterosexual idolatry and in sociology it is called heterosexism. 

What the title of Article XII is really saying is that there is no status except hetero or, better said, homosexuals don’t really exist and if so, it is only a false choice.  What a simplistic denial that is, contrary to creation itself, for homosexuals do exist and by no intent of their own, even as it is not our fault that most of us are heterosexuals. 

Second, Article XII limits our elected officials from considering any helpful legislation on behalf of homosexual persons, which they certainly do for heterosexuals.  This made homosexual persons second class citizens in our city, denying them the same rights we all enjoy.

Third, Article XII removes GLB persons from any protective status.  This means in our city GLB persons can be discriminated against and not because of anything they have done but simply because of who they are.  It is legal in our city to fire gay, lesbian and bisexuals, deny them housing, refuse them public accommodations, or service in a restaurant or in a store, simple because of who they are.  With Article XII, Cincinnati officially became committed to bigotry.

Fourth, Article XII declares that not only are gays and lesbians unworthy of protection now or in the future, but it puts our government on the side of our citizen’s private biases against such persons.  The Supreme Court has ruled that “Private biases may be outside the reach of the law, but the law cannot, directly or indirectly, give them effect.”  (Palmore)  With Article XII, our city government is not neutral but endorses private biases.  It couldn’t be clearer that our city does not value its gay and bisexual citizens and it is permissible to discriminate against them.

I can’t imagine how it must feel to be gay in our city when our highest law places their very being outside of its protection.   

And our city is unique in this distinction.  There is no other city in our country that singles out one group of citizens and specifically prohibits protecting that group from discrimination.

That alone ought to make everyone in this city blush with shame but it further declares to gay and bisexual persons that if they want to have such protection for who they are they must go to the very majority who denied them such protection in the first place!

That is why I have title this sermon “Article XII - the Tyranny of the Majority?”  I put a question mark behind that title which I will explain in a moment.  But this tyranny by the majority is just what the founders of our country warned can happen even in our form of government.  Democracy is always weakened when selfishness, bias, prejudice or ignorance dominates.  That’s why we have a constitution of unalienable rights and the several checks and balances placed in our polity, all to put a damper on the emotions and passions, and indeed, the prejudices of the public, including discrimination based on religious dogma.

Which is to say, even if we agree that we have the best government possible, considering all others, tyranny by the majority can still exist, and in Article XII it does exist.

And the stigma and unprotected status we have imposed on this minority is not a trivial matter.  One lawyer, who deals especially with such issues, has estimated that the cases of discrimination and harassments of gays in our city in employment, housing and in other public venues are yearly in the several hundreds.  Of course many of these go unreported for they expose the complainant to further prejudice and ill will.  This lawyer sadly tells those that do come forth seeking a resolution that with Article XII on the books there is little he or anyone else can do for them. 

We are all aware that the Supreme Court last month decisively ruled unconstitutional all sodomy laws in our country.  But in that well decided decision, we should especially note something Judge Kennedy said in his remarks regarding it.  He did not refer to Article XII, but he did make reference to what was identically the same law that was passed in Colorado.  In that Colorado case, (Romer) which was declared unconstitutional, Kennedy writes that when Colorado deprived gays and lesbians of “protection under state antidiscrimination laws, we (the Supreme Court) concluded that the provision was ‘born of animosity toward the class of persons affected’ and further that it had no rational relation to a legitimate governmental purpose.”

Well, the same identical judgment can be made regarding Article XII.  It too was born of animosity of gay and bisexual persons and serves no rational governmental purpose.  No one, as Judge Spiegel once told me, knows why the Supreme Court did not rule on Article XII, other then perhaps the justices were pushing other issues at that time.  What that meant, however, is that we in Cincinnati were left to deal with Article XII ourselves, to get our own house in order, and the only way we can is to get it on the ballot and seek its repeal.

Citizens to Restore Fairness was formed over three years ago to do just that and only that – to eradicate Article XII from our city charter.  After much thought and preparation, we are now in a full press campaign mode to do so and are aiming for the November 2004 election.

CRF’s campaign committee includes a cross section of citizens from all walks of life and our plan is basically a grass roots effort.  We are now actively securing signatures for our recall petitions and our goal is to have 16,000 signatures by next February.  We have about 4,000 to date so we need your help. 

We also have estimated that approximately 126,000 persons will vote in the November 2004 election.  So it is obvious that we need to have at least 63,000 votes for the repeal, plus one, in order to win.  That is why we are canvassing all of Cincinnati to identify our supporters and to be sure about them at election time.  We need at least fifteen hundred volunteers to accomplish just that.

This is an enormous effort!  We need you both to volunteer for the countless tasks before us and your financial support.  Chris Reed, your minister, Frank Carpenter, Cathy Roma, along with others from this church, are actively involved, and I know they will keep you informed as to how you can personally enlist in this effort. 

There will be great national attention again on Cincinnati because of this campaign and undoubtedly our opposition, which has permanently secured their disingenuous name, “Equal Rights Not Special Rights” will again be out in full force.

As I said, I put a question mark behind my title, “The Tyranny of the Majority?” but only because I don’t really think that a sizeable number of our citizens really knew what Article XII was all about, or do I think today that a majority of our citizens want Cincinnati to be known for such intolerance.  But much yet needs to be done. 

In a recent editorial, The Cincinnati Enquirer, in encouraging a reexamination of Article XII, said of it that “…it has had a major impact on the city’s business and image since its passage in 1993.  It has been a major factor in giving Cincinnati an underserved reputation for intolerance.”  Well, a reputation of intolerance it has given us, and how could it not?

Just today in The Cincinnati Enquirer’s editorial about housing discrimination in our city that is happening to Hispanics, the editor wrote, “There is no place in a civil society for discrimination on the bases of race, creed or color.”  What is blatantly missing is “sexual orientation.”  So you see that paper hasn’t yet arrived as to complete fairness.

But in reality, we know much has changed since ten years ago, both national and locally.  Many have now become deeply aware of the real injustice that exists against gay and bisexual persons. 

Recently, acknowledging that hate crimes against this minority continues to climb yearly, Cincinnati has rightly included sexual orientation in its own hate crimes ordinance. 

Further indication of this change in attitude can be found with our neighbors in the City of Covington which more recently and unanimously passed its own Human Rights Ordinance which includes sexual ordination. 

There has also been a great change in the religious communities with more churches and synagogues declaring their support and becoming welcoming places for gay and bisexual persons.  Indeed, I have documented that all the historically main line religious groups, Catholic, Protestant and Jewish,  regardless of their various views regarding homosexuality, have gone on record demanding equal rights for gay and lesbian persons in our society.   

We are also confident that a majority of our City Council will support this effort.

More obviously, the efforts of the business corporate community have been leading the way for diversity and fairness in its work place for all persons.  They have realized the wisdom of what Professor Richard Florida has written in The Rise of the Creative Class that “a region’s economic growth is directly related to its level of tolerance and openness to diversity…” and he has shown specifically that the tolerance of gays and lesbians is directly related with a city’s prosperity.  As our own Convention Center has stated, our city has lost over forty-six million in revenue because Article XII is on our books.

Yes, much has changed in ten years.  I agree with Chip Harrod, the local Executive Director of the National Conference of Communities for Justice, (NCCJ) and his assessment that today our community “is more welcoming, more knowledgeable, and more accepting.”  Even if that is not the case, we must not let discrimination prevail in our community.  

Friends, in our society we believe in the self-evident truth that all people are created equal with the same unalienable rights of being – that we all are to be equally treated and by the same laws.

As Judge Spiegel wrote, and such a fine human being he is, "Allowing the majority to prohibit a small, unpopular group of citizens from obtaining favorable legislation unless they request it directly from the very majority that deprived them access to the legislature in the first place, violates even rudimentary notion of fundamental fairness, and undermines the integrity of our nation.”  And so it does.

On the way here this morning I passed by Good Samaritan Hospital, a marvelously humane institution that was generated by Jesus’ parable of the same name.  Of course, his parable was meant to disclose that all persons in need are our neighbors and we must be prepared to give them a benevolent hand.

But the parable was even more revolutionary than that for the Samaritan, who was a despised outsider, behaved contrary to the prevailing cultural biases on that day.  Which is to wondrously say, that Jesus himself, who taught the parable, didn’t seem to understand that any person, no matter their nationality, ethnicity, sexuality, or religiosity were to be considered outside of the one human family. 

Sadly, Article XII says just the opposite and, for the sake of all in our human family in Cincinnati, we must repeal it – and we will.   Amen.

Rev. Harold Porter, Pastor Emeritus,
Mt. Auburn Presbyterian Church

Delivered at St. John’s Unitarian Church,
Cincinnati on Sunday, August 17, 2003
 

More details regarding Citizens to Restore Fairness as to its constituency, its current efforts, and how you can be involved, can be found on CRF’s web page: 

http://www.citizenstorestorefairness.org