Citizens for Community Values
Home | About Us | Make a Donation | Contact Us 

Special Rights Legislation

All across America, it is becoming more common every day that government bodies and corporate entities are considering "special rights" laws based solely on someone's private sexual behavior. This battle was waged in Cincinnati, Ohio 10 years ago and Citizens for Community Values led the fight to stop it.

Following are insights gleaned from our struggle that may be of benefit to anyone who would like to oppose such legislation in their community.

The "homosexual rights" debate

From 1992 to 1998 CCV and its sister organization, Equal Rights not Special Rights (ERNSR) debated the issue of laws providing special rights based on private sexual behavior.

We all know that discrimination, per se, is not wrong or illegal. To the contrary, to say that one is "discriminating" - in his choice of friends, his choice of food, his choice of reading materials, etc. - is a complement. Personal discrimination based on legitimate values is a virtue, and discrimination even when based on whimsical preferences, is a right.

On the other hand, most people in our society recognize that discrimination with respect to treatment of individuals, when based on immutable characteristics such as skin color - characteristics that have no bearing on an individual’s behavior or morals - is wrong. Properly, in 1964 Congress passed the Civil Rights Act to protect against that kind of discrimination.

Unfortunately, CCV and ERNSR had to spend more than one million dollars to prove that discrimination based on others’ sexual behavior is not in the same category as discrimination based on non-behavioral characteristics such as skin color. Sadly, we had to work hard to prove that homosexual activists’ claims of discrimination, whether or not they were valid, did not give them a constitutional right to pass ordinances providing them special protection based on sexual behavior. Many times people have made claims in court that their "sexual orientation" was a status similar to those classes protected by the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It is important to note that in every such case decided by a federal court, those claims have been denied.

History of Issue 3

Note: In Cincinnati, this debate was referred to by its ballot designation, "Issue 3."
  • 1991: Cincinnati City Council adds sexual orientation to the anti-discrimination language of its EEO policies.
  • 1992: Cincinnati City Council passes legislation known as the Human Rights Ordinance, making it illegal for private employers and property owners to discriminate on the basis of race, gender, religion, marital status, age, disability status, HIV status, sexual orientation, national and ethnic origin and Appalachian regional origin.
  • 1993: "Equal Rights Not Special Rights" puts a Charter Amendment on the ballot known as "Issue 3" to change Cincinnati’s City Charter to prohibit the enactment of any law granting special preferential treatment based on sexual orientation. Issue 3 passes by a 62% margin.
  • 1993: U.S. District Judge Arthur Spiegel rules that Issue 3 is unconstitutional and issues a permanent injunction. [Note: homosexuals, bisexuals, and lesbians were equated as suspect class.]
  • 1994: U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th District reverses Judge Spiegel’s decision thereby allowing Issue 3 to be implemented.
  • 1995: Citing the 1993 ballot results and the Court of Appeals ruling Cincinnati City Council, by a 5-4 vote, removes the "sexual orientation" classification from the Human Rights Ordinance.
  • 1996: The U.S. Supreme Court strikes down Colorado’s Amendment 2 (Romer case), which uses similar language as Cincinnati’s Issue 3.
  • 1996: The U.S. Supreme Court instructs the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit to reconsider its previous decision on Issue 3 in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling on Amendment 2.
  • 1997: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit hears arguments from both sides before reconsidering their earlier decision.
  • 1997: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit upholds its 1994 ruling on Issue 3. [Note: the Court distinguishes between the two in that Issue 3 is a local Charter Amendment versus Amendment 2 which is a statewide initiative.
  • 1998: The U.S. Supreme Court refuses to hear the case. Article XII of the City Charter goes into effect.
  • 2004: Local activists, with financial support from national homosexual organizations repealed Article XII from the Cincinnati City Charter.
  • 2006: Cincinnati City Council amended the city's human rights ordinance to prohibit discrimination on the basis of heterosexual or homosexual orientation.
The "D" Word

The accusation of "discrimination" has been one of the activists’ most effective tools. You know the fundamental argument regarding discrimination, as briefly stated above. When the "D" word is thrown at you, cite the Cincinnati example. How can discrimination based on a person’s sexual behavior be illegal discrimination when the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals twice unanimously upheld a change in the Cincinnati City Charter to prohibit its City Council from passing any laws based on claims of such discrimination?

In addition, the Human Rights Ordinance that was passed by the Cincinnati City Council in 1992 was in effect for two and one-half years before we were able to repeal the law. During the entire time that the ordinance was in effect, not one case of discrimination was proven. Not only is it wrong to pass laws based on sexual orientations, but also the claims of discrimination based on sexual orientation are greatly exaggerated.

Sexual Orientation: A Loaded Term

During the lengthy debate we assembled a long list of "sexual orientations" and repeatedly asked whether laws barring discrimination based on "sexual orientation" would embrace all of the orientations on our list. The homosexual activists refused to answer the question.

It is important to remember that our Creator’s plan was that human sexuality be expressed only in a lifelong, monogamous relationship between one man and one woman. In accordance with that plan, He created males and females with complementary reproductive organs; i.e. He, the Creator, designed each one of us to be heterosexual.

For a number of reasons, including some complex same gender identity disorders, certain human beings have an inclination or desire to engage in sexual relationships with members of the same sex. The existence of that inclination or desire is not a matter of choice, just a matter of fact.

As in the case of any inclination or desire contrary to the Creator’s plan, the decision to actually engage in homosexual behavior is a matter of choice. To repeat, the inclination often is due to sexual identity disorders dating back to childhood years and beyond the individual’s control, but the decision to engage in the behavior still is a matter of the will, a matter of choice.

Our question to the homosexual activist was always this: "If we were to grant special privileges to those who choose to participate in behavior peculiar to one's self-described 'sexual orientation' - homosexuality - would we not be obligated to grant the same privileges to those who choose to engage in the behaviors associated with any of the other known sexual orientations?"

By simply placing the word "rights" behind each one of these sexual orientations listed below, we begin to see the problem posed by granting so-called "gay rights" based on sexual orientation.

Sexual Orientations

NOTE: Page numbers are from "Paraphilias," Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, Text Revision (Washington: American Psychiatric Association, 2000), pp. 566-582
  1. Apotemnophilia - sexual arousal associated with the stump(s) of an amputee
  2. Asphyxophilia - sexual gratification derived from activities that involve oxygen deprivation through hanging, strangulation, or other means
  3. Autogynephilia - the sexual arousal of a man by his own perception of himself as a woman or dressed as a woman (p. 574)
  4. Bisexual - the capacity to feel erotic attraction toward, or to engage in sexual interaction with, both males and females
  5. Coprophilia - sexual arousal associated with feces (p. 576)
  6. Exhibitionism - the act of exposing one’s genitals to an unwilling observer to obtain sexual gratification (p. 569)
  7. Fetishism/Sexual Fetishism - obtaining sexual excitement primarily or exclusively from an inanimate object or a particular part of the body (p. 570)
  8. Frotteurism - approaching an unknown woman from the rear and pressing or rubbing the penis against her buttocks (p. 570)
  9. Heterosexuality - the universal norm of sexuality with those of the opposite sex
  10. Homosexual/Gay/Lesbian - people who form sexual relationships primarily or exclusively with members of their own gender
  11. Gender Identity Disorder - a strong and persistent cross-gender identification, which is the desire to be, or the insistence that one is, or the other sex, "along with" persistent discomfort about one’s assigned sex or a sense of the inappropriateness in the gender role of that sex (p. 576)
  12. Gerontosexuality - distinct preference for sexual relationships primarily or exclusively with an elderly partner
  13. Incest - sex with a sibling or parent
  14. Kleptophilia - obtaining sexual excitement from stealing
  15. Klismaphilia - erotic pleasure derived from enemas (p. 576)
  16. Necrophilia - sexual arousal and/or activity with a corpse (p. 576)
  17. Partialism - A fetish in which a person is sexually attracted to a specific body part exclusive of the person (p. 576)
  18. Pedophilia - Sexual activity with a prepubescent child (generally age 13 years or younger). The individual with pedophilia must be age 16 years or older and at least 5 years older than the child. For individuals in late adolescence with pedophilia, no precise age difference is specified, and clinical judgment must be used; both the sexual maturity of the child and the age difference must be taken into account; the adult may be sexually attracted to opposite sex, same sex, or prefer either (p. 571)
  19. Prostitution - the act or practice of offering sexual stimulation or intercourse for money
  20. Sexual Masochism - obtaining sexual gratification by being subjected to pain or humiliation (p. 573)
  21. Sexual Sadism - the intentional infliction of pain or humiliation on another person in order to achieve sexual excitement (p. 574)
  22. Telephone Scatalogia - sexual arousal associated with making or receiving obscene phone calls (p. 576)
  23. Toucherism - characterized by a strong desire to touch the breast or genitals of an unknown woman without her consent; often occurs in conjunction with other paraphilia
  24. Transgenderism - an umbrella term referring to and/or covering transvestitism, drag queen/king, and transsexualism
  25. Transsexual - a person whose gender identity is different from his or her anatomical gender
  26. Transvestite - a person who is sexually stimulated or gratified by wearing the clothes of the other gender
  27. Transvestic Fetishism - intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving cross-dressing (p. 575)
  28. Urophilia - sexual arousal associated with urine (p. 576)
  29. Voyeurism - obtaining sexual arousal by observing people without their consent when they are undressed or engaged in sexual activity (p. 575)
  30. Zoophilia/Bestiality - engaging in sexual activity with animals (p. 576)