|
|
As with a lot in life that is unfair, is our susceptibility to HIV just by chance? Well, even if those with weaker Langerhans cells might have a harder time fighting off HIV, it also means scientists can work with these cells toward some sort of vaccine/cure/prevention-of-some-sort. And even if the cure for AIDS is a long way off I’m not too proud to be hopeful when I hear about a breakthrough such as this. […]
Lord knows its tough enough getting a job in this town without having to worry about transitioning or gender issues. (Even gay issues are still tough despite that most employers are fairly queer friendly they’re certainly not required to be and benefits are still just not equal and we all know that.) Even if you’re not trans if you’ve been following Max’s L Word plight you might have some concept of the difficulties of transitioning on the job. And he works in computers, probably one of the less volatile environments. (Remember Damon Woodock, the PDX cop?)
March 10th the Q Center will host a Transgender Employment Conference, which will hopefully lend advice and support for trans folks dealing with work-related issues.
The purpose of this conference is to establish dialogue in the Trans and GLBT Community about employment issues, offer networking opportunities, and educate others that a change in gender does not mean a change in skills or worth in the marketplace.
Saturday, March 10th – 10am to 2pm, Q Center (69 SE Taylor). For more information, call (503) 381-9478.
[…]
Why does it always seem as if I’m reading these lovely articles about lovely bills passing and then it turns out out was really only one house or another. Well, I guess New Jersey’s Civil Union bill actually did become law but the good news from the north about Washington’s Civil Unions bill is positive, it passed the Senate and Gov Gregoire is expected to sign it, but it still has the House to go.
I was going to leave you with a little clip of one of my favorite Saturday Night Live skits about the gay couple from New Jersey (I was born there and I have a family full of Jersey girls so I’m allowed to make as much fun of Jersey as gay people of course) but neither You Tube nor the official NBC website has the clip. Man, if you’re not going to post it, let other people! That particular Christmas weekend update was hilarious. Oh well, you can use this Wikipedia entry to remind yourself of how funny that episode was…OH!
[…]
Whoa, you thought your lesbian drama was excessive. What is all this I hear about a fortune and a woman adopting her lover in order to make sure their wealth was distributed upon her death? Ok, I’m all for a partner of 14 years receving a portion of the fortune. 14 years isn’t a gold-digging fly-by-night affair. But what I don’t understand, and everyone (article writers, commenters etc.) seem to expect me to, is how anyone can be adopted past 18 at all. Can anyone adopt anyone even if they are a year older than them. I just don’t get it. Anyone else have insight on this? I love my momma but boy if I could have an adoptive second parent there could be all kinds on interesting eligible candidates. I mean, I’ve been trying to finagle citizenship in a lot of interesting coutries for awhile now… […]
Wow, I’m super stoked in this way of going about things. I’ve always thought it so strange how in a country founded on the very basis of separation of church and state that a religious argument over marriage can even be argued in any sort of legal situation. Marriage itself, however, is such a religious matter I also wonder at why we’ve made it so fundmental to our legal and economic systems. Yet we have. So if it is a social and not religious insitution I am for gay marriage, of course. That’s why this argument being put forth by the Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance is so smart.
Under the measure, marriage would be limited to men and women who are able to have children. Couples would be required to prove they can have children in order to get a marriage license, and if they did not have children within three years, their marriage would be subject to annulment.
All other marriages would be defined as "unrecognized" and people in those marriages would be ineligible to receive any marriage benefits.
If one argument the right has against gay marriages is children this should be fine with them. But of course it’s not fine. It’s horrible. Why would I deny any Romeo and Juliet from contractually fullfilling their love. I wouldn’t.
According to the group’s Web site, organizers hope that the supreme court will strike down the initiatives as unconstitutional, weakening the basis for the same-sex marriage ban.
Absolutely brilliant. I can’t wait to see this one play out.
[…]
Courtesy Basic Rights Oregon:
Today, the Oregon Legislature introduced two historic bills that would enact basic fairness for GLBT Oregonians and their families. The legislation is based on the recommendations of The Governor’s Task Force on Equality–a diverse committee of business, clergy and civil rights advocates from across Oregon. The Task Force invested seven months in assessing current Oregon law, analyzing applicable legal precedent, and listening to public testimony at open meetings across the state. Based on this process, the Task Force recommended that the legislature and Governor take action on both anti-discrimination and relationship recognition this session.
The first of these bills is HB 2007, titled "The Oregon Family Fairness Act". House Bill 2007 would create a new Oregon law to legally recognize the committed relationships of same-sex couples and their families. This legislation would confer on same-sex couples certain legal protections, rights and responsibilities similar to those generally afforded to opposite couples through marriage.
Upon introduction of HB 2007, our newly elected, fair-minded Speaker of the House, Jeff Merkley said, "The Oregon Equality Act and The Oregon Family Fairness Act are essential to ending discrimination against LGBT Oregonians. Both of these issues will be considered by the Oregon House this session and I will do everything I can to see that we pass these fundamental human rights."
The second is SB 2, titled "The Oregon Equality Act". Senate Bill 2 would amend Oregon’s existing non-discrimination laws to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity in such situations as housing, employment and public accommodation.
"No Oregonian should suffer from discrimination and I am excited to work on this landmark legislation in the Senate. The time for this is long overdue," remarked Senate Majority Leader Kate Brown, who last session was a chief sponsor for Senate Bill 1000. Basic Rights Oregon is thrilled to be able to give this legislation our full and unequivocal support. This is a very exciting day for our community and for our state, and we applaud Governor Kulongoski and the House and Senate leadership for recognizing the importance of extending basic fairness to all Oregonians.
So now what? Now is the time to move into action. While we have a lot of support in Salem, those who oppose the Basic Fairness Package will be hard at work trying to stop this legislation from passing. We can take nothing for granted. It will take hard work by lawmakers and advocates alike to make this legislation a reality in Oregon… so your legislators need to hear from you!
Join Basic Rights Oregon and hundreds of pro-equality members of the community as we converge on the Capitol in Salem on March 7th. The day’s activities will include lobbying visits with our elected officials, and a rally on the steps of the Capitol.
Breaking news… We also just learned that Christine Chavez, granddaughter of Cesar Chavez, has eagerly agreed to be a keynote speaker at the rally! Christine is flying up from Los Angeles just to attend this event – you won’t want to miss it!
So sign up now for Lobby Day on March 7th. The more people we have on the steps of the capitol–the clearer the message that IT IS TIME for basic fairness. Remember, alone our voice may be heard, but together our voices will resonate.
Magnify your voice! Click here to register now for Lobby Day.
[…]
Despite it being one of the more boring Oscar years, I followed much of last night’s show (ok, an hour interrupted by the L Word but, whatever, I hear I didn’t miss much).
Highlights:
As more and more ladies of some age appeared on the stage looking absolutely fantastic my girlfriend dubbed them GILFS, a takeoff on the popular MILF acronym, replacing Grandma with Mother. So congratulations Helen Mirren, Meryl Streep and Diane Keaton. You certainly get an Oscar from me.
Melissa Ethridge winning for "An Incoventient Truth." Tammy Lynn Michaels, who I can only really ever think of as a mean girl from D.E.B.S. is so sweet and in love with her. She was biting back tears as she kissed her on live TV. I’ve never been a huge Melissa fan (ok, I did go to a concert when I was about 12) but it’s always good to see the liberals and the queers teaming up and WINNING. Yes, we will inherit the earth. Al Gore’s speech cutoff joke wasn’t bad either.
Penelope Cruz. The best dress ever. ‘Nuff said.
Lowlights:
Much of the show in general.
Sadly, Ellen. I love her normally but she really was pretty lame, although I actually thought the vacumming was a little bit amusing (and Queerty seemed to like her, though I think they’re the only ones). I can’t imagine though having to host a huge show like that, then go on that creepy creepy Jimmy Kimmel’s show (I didn’t actually stay up late enough to watch this because I loathe him, but I assume it was as painful as his horrible negation of identity as he tried to fight with Rebecca Romijn last week), go to a bunch of parties until 6am, and then wake up to tape your own daily show. I don’t envy her so I’m gonna cut her some slack.
The worst local angle was Willamette Week who effectively ruined my enjoyment of the Deaparted as it waited for me in my mailbox the very same day the Willy published. It’s one thing to give spoilers, it’s quite another to splash them in huge letters across a centerfold page with other articles. I hate you.
As for the rest of the weekend it was pretty excellent. I actually went out twice in a row! That’s a lot for me as I enter my golden years. But the new club nights at Rotture are pretty good, even if they don’t really get hopping until 12:30. But there’s actually two, The Thin Pink Line and Juicy, so you got something every Friday night. They’re pretty dang queer but mixed with heteros as well so its a pretty interesting scene. Definitely recommended. One thing about this club, as well as my Saturday night Double Down experience, that I’ve noticed is that they’ll always put the mediocre DJ somewhere after the middle of the night so that you say 2 more songs and if they suck we’re gone. Inevitably, the better DJ will come back just as your gathering your coats. At Rotture, I held one, at Double Down I was tired of fighting the smashed in crowds and bailed. Eh, it’s a formula I guess.
And one last thing. We all watched L Word, as usual, and still hate everybody for the most part but I gotta say Alice and her new girl are adorable. Alice is still ok in my book and has really always been the only decent character. (Also, the only out actress on teh show until Daniela Sea). Her new lady’s pretty hot too and we all understand why she’s gotta bite that butt.
[…]
Thought our neighbors to the North were just a friendly bunch of Canucks? Well you were wrong. Because they’re gonna make you gay.
It’s not huge news or even particularly locally relevant (although you might want to rethink those weekend plans to Vancouver) but I just couldn’t resist this one…
[…]
Today the Portland Commish has filed suit over same-sex partnership rights. I was fairly surprised to see this bit of news pop up a few minutes ago. Who knew this was in the works? It looks as if Basic Rights wasn’t involved, or at least it’s implied by this news post, because it mentions that they have their own agenda coming up. It’s great to see new challenges to current law and the unfair state of things come up but I do wonder sometimes that there is a lack of communication between the many individuals and organizations in Oregon that work for gay rights. Hey, I would’t go through Basic Rights all the time either; they’ve got their own set of continually revolving leadership problems. But still, it’d be nice to know what’s coming.
Then again, I know very little about the legal system so perhaps in that respect surprise attacks are key. In my own less political realm this says to me that he could indeed be Portland’s most eligible (gay) bachelor. Not only that, but judging my the suit, he’s all about being fair and amicable in a breakup. So go for it boys.
PS This gives me yet another opportunity to bring up my soapbox speech on the gay tax. Yay me.
[…]
Looks like Lon Mabon ain’t outta the woods yet. The Oregon Court of Appeals on today sided with a gay-rights activist who accused the former head of the Oregon Citizens Alliance of fraudulently transferring assets to avoid paying a judgement she won against the group in 1992. I do get frustrated when judgements are made and wealthy groups or individuals dodge them my crying poor. Let’s hope the OCA’s attempt at dodging the legal system will result in their bankruptcy.
Below is the complete Oregonian news post:
Court sides with gay-rights activist against Lon Mabon
The Oregon Court of Appeals on Wednesday sided with a gay-rights activist who accused the former head of the Oregon Citizens Alliance of fraudulently transferring assets to avoid paying a judgement she won against the group in 1992.
Catherine Stauffer filed suit in 2003 against former board members of the OCA, which has sponsored several ballot measures seeking to curtail the rights of gays and lesbians.
A jury in 1992 awarded Stauffer $31,500 after an OCA member forcibly removed her from a campaign event.
Stauffer has settled with some former OCA members, but not Lon Mabon, who founded the now-defunct organization, and his wife, Bonnie.
The Court of Appeals rejected the Mabon’s claim that the judge violated their rights during the trial when he dismissed their legal arguments after they resisted providing information to the plaintiff.
[…]
|
|