Laura Calvo
Portland OR

The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) issued a 5 to 4 ruling upholding Hastings College’s non-discrimination policy. The ruling in the case, Christian Legal Society v. Martinez (CLS V. Martinez), may well have been off the radar for many. However,the ruling may well be the crystal ball for all. No one knows for sure the full future implications for sure, but both sides of the issue have been watching from the edge of their seats in anticipation.

The National Center of Lesbian Rights (NCLR) issued the following statement:

Today, in a 5-4 decision authored by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the United States Supreme Court rejected a challenge to the University of California Hastings College of the Law’s policy of requiring all funded student groups to be open to all students. The policy was challenged by the Christian Legal Society (CLS), which argued that the policy violated its right to freedom of association. In Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, the Court held:

“In requiring CLS—in common with all other student organizations—to choose between welcoming all students and forgoing the benefits of official recognition, . . . Hastings did not transgress constitutional limitations. CLS . . . seeks not parity with other organizations, but a preferential exemption from Hastings’ policy.”

The National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR) and Paul Smith of Jenner & Block LLP represent Outlaw, the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender student group which intervened to defend Hastings’ non-discrimination policy.

The Court affirmed that the First Amendment does not require public universities to subsidize discrimination: “The First Amendment shields CLS against state prohibition of the organization’s expressive activity, however exclusionary that activity may be. But CLS enjoys no constitutional right to state subvention of its selectivity.”

“Today’s decision affirmed the longstanding doctrine that university non-discrimination policies do not violate free speech when applied in a consistent and even-handed way,” said NCLR Senior Attorney Christopher Stoll. “The Court rejected the dangerous argument that anti-gay groups must be given a special exemption from non-discrimination policies.”

While SCOTUS just ruled on CLS v. Martinez, the ruling comes on the fresh heels, as fresh as of 5 days ago, of a recent federal court jury verdict in Philadelphia regarding the Cradle of Liberty Council of the Boy Scouts versus the City of Philadelphia (AKA The City of Brotherly Love) . Cradles of liberty and cities of brotherly love seem to have clashed in what can only be related to as a boy scout version of Don’t Ask-Don’t Tell complete with a Dan Choi like 18 year old gay Eagle Scout coming out of the closet on television. The gay Eagle Scout had his wings summarily clipped. Ironically the Supreme Court ruled in 2002 that organizations like the Boy Scouts may freely limit (legally discriminate against gays) membership, thereby creating a lawful ban on gays serving in the Boy Scouts. The Cradle of Liberty Boy Scout Council at odds with their national charter and Philly’s non-discrimination policy came to adopt an unofficial Don’t Ask- Don’t Tell like policy. However, the city of Philadelphia ruled that the DADT like policy did not satisfy the city’s non-discrimination policy.

In that case,  the city had been leasing a city owned building to the boy scouts for $1 per year since 1928 (see picture to see what $1 per year gets the boy scouts in Philly). When the city adopted its non-discrimination policy, the boy scouts ban on gay scouts and leaders was immediately at odds with the city’s non-discrimination policy. Since the boy scouts held a long standing discriminatory policy against gay scouts, the city could no longer subsidize any organization which did not have an appropriate non-discrimination policy. The city asked the boy scouts to pay the fair market value rent of $200,000 per year rent for the building or vacate the premise if they did not adopt an appropriate non-discrimination policy. The boy scouts sued the city and won in a jury trial held in federal court just 5 days ago. (See Fox News Story) The boy scouts are now asking for $700,000 in legal fees and get to stay in the city owned building for $1 per year. Looks like the outcome of that trial, just 5 days ago,  flies directly in the face of the CLS v.Martinez ruling by SCOTUS. It will be interesting to see if the Cradle of Freedom Boy Scout Council adopt a lawful non-discrimination policy so they can continue to benefit from the $200,000 per year tax payer subsidy or move out and pay fair market rent rent like any other “no gays allowed” exclusive private organization.  The SCOTUS decision, if applied, says they can still exclude gays, but enjoys no constitutional right to state subvention of its selectivity.

When considering the tired and offensive anti-gay paradigm that gay rights are special rights, the SCOTUS ruling hearkens both a bright line and an irony that can not be overstated.

Quoted directly from the ruling:

“CLS seeks special dispensation from an across the-board open-access requirement designed to further the reasonable educational purposes underpinning the school’s student-organization program.”

“CLS, it bears emphasis, seeks not parity with other organizations, but a preferential exemption from Hastings’ policy”

While the SCOTUS only ruled on the CLS v. Martinez case, it will be interesting to see the legal maneuvering in the Philadelphia case now that the legal landscape has been freshly trimmed and mowed.

The ultimate arbitrators of the law of the land, the U.S. Supreme Court, have signaled that groups of people seeking special exceptions from laws which bar discrimination of gays are seeking special rights. All this time we’ve been told that gays are the ones who are seeking special rights.

The decision may well restore a bit of faith in the United States Bill of Rights and offer a glimpse of hope for the the future. At the same time, the 5 to 4 decision sharply points to extreme importance of a President’s privilege to appoint the justices when vacancies occur. The eagerly watched federal trial of Prop 8 has come to a close in the last week of June too. As we wait again on the edge of our seats for the court’s decision we all know it will be appealed. At the same time, today we see the beginning of Elena Kagan’s senate confirmation hearing as a Supreme Court Justice. Again on the edge of seats, the question is will Kagan maintain the 5 to 4 majority? Considering Justice Sotomayor appears to be comfortably joining the 5 to 4 majority on this case, the nomination of Kagan seems another hopeful sign, at least on this front.

And while we ponder the Kagan’s senate confirmation hearing which started on the same day the SCOTUS ruled on CLS v. Martinez there seems to be another quirky if not wholly ironic twist.

It is widely anticipated that Kagan will get grilled about upholding and enforcing Harvard University’s 1979 non-discrimination policy which barred any employer who discriminated against gays from recruiting on the campus. In 2003 Kagan refused to allow military recruiters on campus due to the discriminatory military prohibition of gays in the military.

The SCOTUS also ruled on another gay rights related case this week. The case of Doe v. Reed was decided by an 8 to 1 vote with the Chief Justice issuing the opinion of the court. As many will recall, we saw Washington state’s Referendum 71 uphold it’s domestic partnership law at the the ballot box at the same time we saw Maine’s Question 1 pass at the polls on the other side of the country taking away the freedom to marry in Maine. The Washington referendum was put on the ballot by citizen petition. The No on 71 proponents gathered over 137,000 petition signatures to try to overturn Washington’s domestic partnership law. The Yes on 71 campaign filed a public records request with the Washington Secretary of State to make public the names of all 137,000+ persons who signed the petition putting the referendum on the ballot. As one would expect the Yes on 71 campaign filed suit and won an injunction to prevent releasing the names on the petition. The case was heard by SCOTUS and the 8 to 1 ruling allows the release of the names of the people who signed the anti gay petition which would have repealed the state’s domestic partnership law.

It would certainly be interesting to go back to 2004 and publish the names and addresses of some of the anti gay initiative petitions filed in Oregon over the years.

• Bookmark on Delicious
• Digg this post
• Recommend on Facebook
• Buzz it up
• Buzz it up
• Tip on Hyves
• Share on Linkedin
• Mixx it up
• Share via MySpace
• Share on Orkut
• share via Reddit
• Share with Stumblers
• Tumblr it
• Tweet about it
• Share on vkontakte
• Subscribe to the comments on this post
• Tell a friend
• Print for later

Laura Calvo
Portland OR

It is April 15th which means it is Tax day. Tax Day may forever be be changed to National Tea Bagging Day.

However, so many American families are feeling the effect of being second class citizens as they file their actual tax returns after having to figure their “what if we were equal” tax return. At a time where health care insurance costs are spiraling out of reach for even the most fiscally sound employers who do the right thing in extending health care insurance benefits to the dependents of thousands of same-sex couples, those very same couples are being unequally taxed on the cost the employer pays for the legally married or domestic partner dependent in a same sex relationship. This alone places a further economic burden on American families who are struggling along like everyone else. It is not a matter of special rights. It is a matter of equal protection and treatment of all Americans under the law.

The Washington legislature has passed a bill that grants domestic partnerships all the state rights and privileges of marriage to same sex couples. The bill passed 65 to 35 and Washington Governor Gregoire is likely to sign the bill into law. Washington had a domestic partnership law with limited benefits to to couples. Today’s bill expands the current law to include all areas of state law that concern couples.  Some have dubbed the bill as, “The everything but marriage bill”.

With the current momentum of states passing domestic partnership laws, 4 states allowing full marriage equality, New York legislation that could make New York the fifth state to pass marriage equality, a holding-your-breath Supreme Court decision soon to be announced in California, and a marriage equality debate pending in Washington D.C., the need to repeal the federal Defense of Marriage Act becomes more and more relevant and urgent. The 800 pound gorilla in the room is getting larger.

At a time in our nation’s history where unemployment is at an all time high, trillions of dollars are being used to bail out troubled “too big to fail” corporations and “economic stimulus” is the word of the day, it is difficult to at times to hear that gay rights need to be put on hold until we get ourselves out of this mess.

Instead of Tea Bagging Parties which don’t do anything to stimulate anything except possibly the uncontrollable smirk as one considers the “not suitable for mixed company” double meaning of the phrase, why can’t we turn a part our consciousness towards stimulating the economy with wedding parties?

An article in U.S. News cited a study done by the Congressional Budget Office on the “The Potential Budgetary Impact of Recognizing Same-Sex Marriages” . The government study found that if all 50 states and the federal government extended the rights and obligations of marriage to same-sex couples, gay weddings would generate almost $1 billion in revenue each year. According to other estimates, same-sex marriages could tack on more than $16 billion annually to the $70 billion wedding industry.

That is a pretty good stimulus package. Especially when you drill down a bit and find that the numbers used to estimate the number of weddings is a conservative number and the study was done in 2004.

In another study, the Williams Institute at the UCLA Law School  predicts the state of California would stand to see an increase of $65 million in revenues as well as $700 million in business revenues to the wedding industry.

New Hampshire would see a net gain of $500,000 per year in state revenues while hearing wedding bells.

Vermont couples walking down the aisle will drop more than rose petals. Try $31 million in new spending over the next three years. The spending will generate 700 new jobs and another $3.3 million in state revenues.

I don’t know, but the next time I get one of those “get your degree” spam generated emails, I think I might look to see if they offer a degree in wedding planning.

• Bookmark on Delicious
• Digg this post
• Recommend on Facebook
• Buzz it up
• Buzz it up
• Tip on Hyves
• Share on Linkedin
• Mixx it up
• Share via MySpace
• Share on Orkut
• share via Reddit
• Share with Stumblers
• Tumblr it
• Tweet about it
• Share on vkontakte
• Subscribe to the comments on this post
• Tell a friend
• Print for later

Press Release – April 7th, 2009

Washington, DC – Today, the Stonewall Democrats issued the following statement in response to the enactment of marriage legislation by the Vermont General Assembly:

“Stonewall Democrats applauds the Vermont General Assembly for enacting legislation granting all Vermonters the freedom to marry.  Stonewall Democrats placed hundreds of calls to the eleven Democrats who, just days ago, voted against the freedom to marry.  We are pleased that Democratic Representatives Bob South and Jeff Young listened to their constituents, changed their votes, and put the values of pro-equality Democrats in practice.

We congratulate the Democratic Leadership for building consensus around this common-sense position.  The freedom to marry is a position supported by the majority of statewide elected officials, the Vermont Democratic Party and leading state figures like Governor Howard Dean.  Stonewall Democrats continues to build Democratic support for the freedom to marry in communities across the country.  Our members do the hard work of electing pro-equality Democrats to public office, holding them accountable once in office and educating the Democratic Party on issues of equality.  Because of the work of Stonewall Democrats across the country, we can expect to see even more victories like the one today in Vermont.”

- Jon Hoadley, Executive Director, Stonewall Democrats

• Bookmark on Delicious
• Digg this post
• Recommend on Facebook
• Buzz it up
• Buzz it up
• Tip on Hyves
• Share on Linkedin
• Mixx it up
• Share via MySpace
• Share on Orkut
• share via Reddit
• Share with Stumblers
• Tumblr it
• Tweet about it
• Share on vkontakte
• Subscribe to the comments on this post
• Tell a friend
• Print for later

Hat Tip to Pam’s House Blend:

Some times something as innocuous as a dictionary reflects a shift in culture. Such is the case as reported over at Pam’s House Blend.

The dictionary we all have used at one time or another, Merriam-Webster has recently published the definition of the word marriage;

Main Entry:
mar·riage Listen to the pronunciation of marriage
Pronunciation:
?mer-ij, ?ma-rij\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
Date:
14th century

1 a (1): the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2): the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage (same-sex marriage) b: the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock c: the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage

2: an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected ; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities

3: an intimate or close union the marriage of painting and poetry – J. T. Shawcross

• Bookmark on Delicious
• Digg this post
• Recommend on Facebook
• Buzz it up
• Buzz it up
• Tip on Hyves
• Share on Linkedin
• Mixx it up
• Share via MySpace
• Share on Orkut
• share via Reddit
• Share with Stumblers
• Tumblr it
• Tweet about it
• Share on vkontakte
• Subscribe to the comments on this post
• Tell a friend
• Print for later

The following article was published in the Multnomah County Democrats Newsletter and Just Out. Photo from Just Out.

Dick Levy was my friend, a mentor to many, and an inspiration to all.  Every so often you meet a person whose combination of sincere warmth, humor, and character touches the lives of many, including your own. As dark a day Dick’s passing brings, the light he leaves behind will always be there for so many.” – Laura Calvo

In Rememberance of Dick Levy 1944-2009

Photo by Just Out

Richard C. Levy died February 24 of complications due to cancer surgery. He was at age 64.

Levy had been out since 1967 when he was a graduate student. He moved to Oregon to teach at the University of Portland.

Levy was one of the founding members of the Portland Town Council, an early gay rights organization here.

Levy once went to work as an aide to conservative Multnomah County Commissioner Gordon Shadburn. Levy’s gay friends were aghast, but he responded that it was an attempt to “work from inside.” But Shadburn’s conservative supporters eventually pressured the commissioner to oust the homosexual. Later Shadburn lost his political career after it was revealed that he had relations with young gay men.

Levy helped raise funds for numerous gay causes, including Basic Rights Oregon and the Sexual Minority Youth Resource Center.

Levy and his partner of 39 years, Larry Hobnet, were among the first gay couples to marry and to register as domestic partners in Multnomah County. Mayor Vera Katz and county chair Beverly Stein were their witnesses.

Levy was a college professor, a Multnomah County Commissioner in 1984 and real estate broker during his more than 40 years in Portland.

Beyond his leadership in the gay community, Levy was active in business and neighborhood issues and was honored by the city with the 1998 Spirit of Portland award.

Mayor Sam Adams recalled Levy as “tough and funny and tireless in his work to improve Portland for all Portlanders.”

Born in the Bronx and raised in a retail environment where both parents worked in a fabric store for more than 30 years in New York, Levy also was a former retail store manager. Levy received a bachelor’s degree from Harpur College/SUNY at Binghamton and masters degree from Michigan State University.

Since 1988 he was a commercial real estate sales and leasing broker. He started with Bluestone Realty and helped form North Rim Realty in 1999. He acquired a Windermere franchise in 2004 and with Craig Gilbert formed PDX Metro Commercial LLC / Windermere Community Commercial Realty. He was active in the Commercial Association of Realtors, Northeast Business Boosters, and Hollywood Business Association and CCIM.

He had served several stints as president of the Irvington Community Association – most recently from 2006 to 2008.

Among his civic activities were being a founding member of the Alliance of Portland Neighborhood Business Associations; chair of the Northeast Coalition of Neighborhoods; member of the Martin Luther King Blvd. Advisory Committee; vice chair of the Oregon Convention Center Urban Renewal Advisory Committee; and vice chair of Ethos Music Academy.

Levy also was active in numerous political campaigns and had been a delegate to the Oregon Democratic Central Committee and a delegate to the Democratic National Convention in 2000.

An open house celebrating Dick Levy’s life will be held  March 14th 2009 from 4 to 7 p.m. at Ethos Music Project, 10 N. Killingsworth St.

Memorial donations in Dick Levy’s name to support the Sexual Minority Youth Resource Center’s programs for gay youth support, recreation and counseling may be sent to:

SMYRC, 2100 SE Belmont St., Portland, OR 97214. E-mail: info@smyrc.org

• Bookmark on Delicious
• Digg this post
• Recommend on Facebook
• Buzz it up
• Buzz it up
• Tip on Hyves
• Share on Linkedin
• Mixx it up
• Share via MySpace
• Share on Orkut
• share via Reddit
• Share with Stumblers
• Tumblr it
• Tweet about it
• Share on vkontakte
• Subscribe to the comments on this post
• Tell a friend
• Print for later

On Sunday March 14th, 2009 the Democratic Party of Oregon State Central Committee will meet to elect a new term of party officers.

The DPO GLBT Caucus has endorsed the following candidates for party office:

Meredith Wood-Smith for Chair
Frank Dixon for Vice Chair
Jill Thorn for Vice Chair
Becky Gladstone for Secretary

The Democratic Party of Oregon State Central Committee is meeting at the Linn-Benton Community College in Albany OR.

The DPO GLBT Caucus will be meeting in conjunction with the State Central Committee meeting from 9:00am to 10:30am. The State Central Committee meeting starts at 1:00pm.

• Bookmark on Delicious
• Digg this post
• Recommend on Facebook
• Buzz it up
• Buzz it up
• Tip on Hyves
• Share on Linkedin
• Mixx it up
• Share via MySpace
• Share on Orkut
• share via Reddit
• Share with Stumblers
• Tumblr it
• Tweet about it
• Share on vkontakte
• Subscribe to the comments on this post
• Tell a friend
• Print for later

Posted by Debra Porta, Vice-Chair, Multnomah County GLBT Caucus.

On Friday, March 6, Basic Rights Oregon, in partnership with the Oregon Students Equal Rights Alliance (a statewide organization of college students representing LGBTQ students across Oregon) will be converging on the capitol in Salem, in support of equality, and specifically the Oregon Safe Schools Act.   This act will strengthen Oregon’s current anti-bullying laws for K-12 schools.  Why do we need this?  Well, let’s see:

Students of color – In 1999, African‐American students were most likely to be bullied in middle and high school. Between 1999 and 2001, bullying of all students of color increased more than 60%. And 24% of children ages 8‐11 report that race‐related bullying takes place at their school either occasionally or often.

Rural students – Rural students are 26% more likely to experience bullying than their urban counterparts.

Students with disabilities – Students with developmental, psychological and physical disabilities are at substantially higher risk of being bullied.

Harassment is listed as the number one reason why students drop out of school.

Gay and transgender students – Gay youth are three times more likely than straight students to drop out of school, to find themselves homeless, and to attempt suicide (and more likely to succeed)—and those numbers jump even more drastically for transgender youth and gay and transgender youth of color. Currently, only 15% of Oregon school districts advertise bullying policies protecting gay youth from bullying, and only 1% advertise bullying policies protecting transgender youth.

Pretty much anyone who has attended a K-12 school, or has a child who has, knows that these numbers have not improved, and in some cases are worse.

Current Oregon law has little to know “bite” when it comes to institutionalizing anti-harassment policies and procedures.  This law addresses that and is a simple way to help to ensure that our youth are educated and have the opportunities that this society claims to want for them.

Contact BRO to get connected to the Day of Action.  Contact your legislators and let them know how important protecting Oregon’s youth is to the future of our state..and to you.

• Bookmark on Delicious
• Digg this post
• Recommend on Facebook
• Buzz it up
• Buzz it up
• Tip on Hyves
• Share on Linkedin
• Mixx it up
• Share via MySpace
• Share on Orkut
• share via Reddit
• Share with Stumblers
• Tumblr it
• Tweet about it
• Share on vkontakte
• Subscribe to the comments on this post
• Tell a friend
• Print for later

From LA Observed

The Los Angeles Daily Journal will report tomorrow that a ruling by Judge Stephen Reinhardt of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals says the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutionally denies benefits to gay federal employees’ spouses.

Here is a copy of the ruling by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, In The Matter of Karen Golinski

• Bookmark on Delicious
• Digg this post
• Recommend on Facebook
• Buzz it up
• Buzz it up
• Tip on Hyves
• Share on Linkedin
• Mixx it up
• Share via MySpace
• Share on Orkut
• share via Reddit
• Share with Stumblers
• Tumblr it
• Tweet about it
• Share on vkontakte
• Subscribe to the comments on this post
• Tell a friend
• Print for later

Read the full story at 365Gay

An inclusive non-discrimination bill was just given the go ahead by a key Kansas legislative committee.

Mult. Dems Chair / Sect. DPO GLBT Caucus Carla "KC" Hanson and Gov. Sebelius

One can only imagine how the Rev. Fred Phelps and the Westboro Church will react to the news in their home state.

From an Oregon perspective, we have a lot of Jayhawk fans wandering about who are probably really happy about this latest developement.

In 2007, Gov. Kathleen Sebelius issued an Executive Order adding sexual orientation and gender identity to the non discrimination protections already extended to most State of Kansas employees.

• Bookmark on Delicious
• Digg this post
• Recommend on Facebook
• Buzz it up
• Buzz it up
• Tip on Hyves
• Share on Linkedin
• Mixx it up
• Share via MySpace
• Share on Orkut
• share via Reddit
• Share with Stumblers
• Tumblr it
• Tweet about it
• Share on vkontakte
• Subscribe to the comments on this post
• Tell a friend
• Print for later

“Mayor Adams has faithfully served Portland city government and championed equal rights for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender (GLBT) people for decades.

Without Adams’ public service, Portland would not be one of the most envied cities in the country.

Without Adams’ GLBT leadership, GLBT people in Oregon and across the country would be years behind in the struggle for equal treatment under the law.

One controversy does not erase a lifetime of service, sacrifice and leadership for Portland. Mayor Adams has never quit fighting for Portland, and our city should not quit on him.

Therefore, the GLBT Caucus of the Democratic Party of Oregon encourages Sam Adams to stay in office until all the facts of this controversy are sorted out. Only then, can Mayor Adams and the city of Portland make an informed decision about his future.

All of Portland must weigh all the evidence and options as we move forward. It is too soon for hasty action by any party involved in this controversy.

Let’s let the facts of the investigation, not overheated rhetoric, lead us to a sensible resolution.”

• Bookmark on Delicious
• Digg this post
• Recommend on Facebook
• Buzz it up
• Buzz it up
• Tip on Hyves
• Share on Linkedin
• Mixx it up
• Share via MySpace
• Share on Orkut
• share via Reddit
• Share with Stumblers
• Tumblr it
• Tweet about it
• Share on vkontakte
• Subscribe to the comments on this post
• Tell a friend
• Print for later