"In a ruling gay-rights advocates are calling "revolutionary," a federal judge
has struck down Cincinnati, Ohio's city charter amendment that denied homosexu-
als anti-discrimination protections (Equality Foundation v. Cincinnati, DC
SOhio, No.C-1-93-0773, 8/9/94)" [Several people have asked me for an exact cite
.That's it. -- K]

"The judge also ruled that homosexuals and bisexuals belong to 'a quasi-suspect
 category,' a clss that requires the courts to look with special scrutiny at
legal issues involving them. 'Based on the record and our analysis of the case
law, we find that under strict or heightened scrutiny, as well as under ration-
al basis review, Issue 3 was insufficiently linked to any governmental interest
to pass constitutional muster,' Spiegel said."

"Issue 3 -- a ballot initiative pased last November that excised sexual orien-
tation language from the city's human rights ordinance -- violates the First
Amendment rights of homosexuals and is unconstitutionally vague, U. S. District
Court Judge S. Arthur Spiegel said in a 75-page opinion issued Aug. 9. Given
that the charter amendment is unconstitutional, it cannot be enforced, said
Spiegel, who issued a permanent injunction blocking Issue 3's application."

[75 pages -- probably more than I can get away with xeroxing at the office. Can
someone find it on-line? -- K]


"....[An] American Civil Liberties Union attorney ... said Spiegel's ruling is
"revolutionary" in terms of civil rights law.

" 'It is tremendously significant,' said [Scott] Greenwood, 'because it says
that laws that target a group of people because of their sexual orientation
alone have to be justified by very compelling government reason.'"

[Note that compelling public interest is a higher standard than rational basis
-- KS]
                    [Here comes more of the really good stuff]
...

"Spiegel acknowledged in his ruling that federal appellate courts have ruled
that laws involving sexual orientation should not be accorded any special scrut
iny. However he declined to follow their reasoning, noting that he disagrees
'with the fundamental underpinning of those decisions' -- that homosexuality is
 a status defined by conduct.

"Apart from violating homosexuals' First Amendment rights to free speech and
association, Issue 3 also blocks this group's right to petition the government
for a redress of grievances and infringes on its fundamental right to equal
access to the political process, said Spiegel." [I assume that this must be one
of the spots where my testimony was heavily cited. We spent a lot of time mak-
ing these points in direct testimony. -- KS]

Although voters endorsed the amendment, Spiegel said that rights protected by
the constitution can never be subordinated to the vote of the majority." [This,
too, was part of the PoliSci 111 lecture that I passed off as expert testimony.
--K]

"He said the ruling does not give any group special rights. 'To the contrary,
we are simply, but crucially, preventing one group of citizens from being de-
prived of the very rights we all share.'"

....


"The city has not yet decided whether it will appeal Spiegel's ruling. Equal
Rights -- Not Special Rights, the group that sponsored Issue 3, said it will ap
peal the ruling, however, all the way to the U. S. Supreme Court if necessary."