By Gregory Korte
Enquirer staff writer

All sides are claiming victory in the battle over ballot language for a Cincinnati gay rights initiative, and that means the war is far from over.

The legal dispute illustrates just how important it is for both sides to frame the issue in the terms most favorable to them.

Gay rights supporters want to label Article XII of the city's charter as permitting "discrimination based on sexual orientation" in their effort to get voters to repeal it.

COMPETING VERSIONS

There are two versions of the ballot language to repeal Cincinnati's Article XII, called the "title" and the "text." Gay rights supporters favor putting the title on the ballot. Opponents want the text. The city wants both. The title "Shall the charter of the city of Cincinnati be amended to repeal Article XII, which prohibits the city from protecting people from discrimination based on sexual orientation?" The text "Be it resolved by the people of Cincinnati that Article XII of the charter of the city be repealed.... Article XII shall be null and void and have no force and effect." What Article XII says "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 of minority or protected status, quota preference or other preferential treatment. This provision of the city charter shall in all respects be self-executing. Any ordinance, regulation, rule or policy enacted before this amendment is adopted that violates the foregoing prohibition shall be null and void and of no force or effect."

Article XII's defenders, a coalition of social conservatives who got voters to approve the amendment in 1993, want a simpler ballot question, saying the proposed language is misleading.

And the city of Cincinnati, whose duty it is to put the issue on the ballot after gay rights activists collected more than twice the 6,771 signatures necessary, now wants to split the difference, allowing both versions of ballot language. A resolution to that effect is headed to City Council Sept. 1.

That's an abrupt shift from its previous position, expressed in an Aug. 4 resolution from City Council approving the language of the gay rights petitioners.

But it's unacceptable to opponents of the measure, who have sued in Hamilton County Common Pleas Court to prevent voters from seeing the word "discrimination" on the ballot.

Judge Mark Schweikert hasn't done that yet, declining this week to issue a temporary restraining order against the Hamilton County Board of Elections.

But if the three sides don't agree on the wording of the question before Aug. 30, Schweikert could issue an injunction, ruling that Cincinnatians shouldn't get to answer it.

"By taking this position, what the city is going to do is end up getting this kicked of the ballot entirely, because the judge can't just write up his own language," said David R. Langdon, the lawyer for the Equal Rights Not Special Rights Campaign, which is defending Article XII.

The gay rights opponents have said they want citizens to get a chance to reaffirm Article XII, which voided a 1992 human rights ordinance that prohibited discrimination based on sexual orientation.

But the other side sees another agenda.

"It's disingenuous for the radical right to argue that they're really just concerned about the wording," said Scott T. Greenwood, a lawyer for the Campaign to Repeal Article XII. "What they would really like to see is this not on the ballot at all - not in this form.

"It's a red herring. They don't argue that Article XII doesn't permit discrimination, they simply argue that the type of discrimination it permits is OK," he said.

Councilman David Pepper, the chairman of City Council's Law Committee and a supporter of the repeal effort, said the city is trying to remain neutral.

"The role of the city is to replicate the exact language on the petition. Even if council wanted to do something different, we couldn't," he said. "The larger debate they're having about that exact clause there - we're not touching that."

---

E-mail gkorte@enquirer.com