CINCINNATI — For Chris Seelbach, the legal challenges to state bans on same-sex marriage being argued this week in federal appeals court in Cincinnati mark another milestone – not just for gay rights, but for the city he calls home.
He campaigned a decade ago to repeal a 1990s charter amendment that banned the city from protecting people from discrimination in housing, employment and other matters based on sexual orientation, a measure that was widely viewed as making gays and lesbians feel unwelcome. Three years ago, he was elected as Cincinnati’s first openly gay councilman.
“I don’t know that there’s another city in the nation that has come further than Cincinnati,” said Seelbach, 34. “We’ve come from being perhaps the most anti-gay city to one that’s doing everything it can on equal rights.”
Six challenges to gay marriage bans and restrictions in Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky and Tennessee are before the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which decided to hear all of them in one session Wednesday in one of the most important days yet in the wave of legal efforts around the country to overturn marriage bans.
Cincinnati attorney Al Gerhardstein, who won U.S. district court rulings against Ohio’s ban in two cases being appealed by the state, says it will “a historic day for Cincinnati,” not only for hosting the court cases, but also for spotlighting changes in the city.
“Actually, Cincinnati can offer some reassurance to people that once they get used to the idea that same-sex people get equal rights, the sky doesn’t fall,” Gerhardstein said. “We simply have a more diverse city.”
Phil Burress, leader of the Citizens for Community Values organization based in suburban Sharonville, said the cases seek to overturn popular votes – Ohioans approved the same-sex marriage ban in a 2004 statewide vote – and usurp states’ rights.
“I have considered this from the beginning a Hail Mary pass for those who want same-sex marriage – to try to get the courts to force it upon Americans,” Burress said.
He also still defends the repealed charter amendment, saying it was against treating “homosexual behavior as a minority class.”
Pages: 1 2