I’m happy to report that the same judge who, one month earlier, ordered a stay on Oregon’s domestic partnership bill has reversed his own ruling! Now gays and lesbians here in Oregon can get legal benefits almost but not quite exactly like straight couples. It’s not called “marriage” though, because gay marriage was voted down a couple years ago. To be honest, I’m perfectly fine with that. Marriage is a religious institution anyway and has no business being muddled with by the government.

But when has the government taken the separation of church and state seriously lately? Oh well. Go and get yourselves happily domestically partnered all you lovely Oregon queers out there! Yayness all around!

elle jo

With only four days before domestic partnership rights were to be bestowed upon us Oregon queers, U.S. District Judge Michael Mosman, in his right-winged wisdom, threw a grenade into the works. I wonder if he thought to himself, “Lets wait until the last possible second to make this ruling just so that I can fuck with people’s heads.”

As it turns out, a conservative out-of-state organization called The Alliance Defense Fund brought the issue of Oregon’s domestic partnership bill to the U.S. District Court.  The ADF is a conservative group started by nutters like James Dobson and James Kennedy. Tell me that an out-of-state group, a conservative one at that, and a federal court imposing its agenda on what is supposed to be a state issue doesn’t sound suspicious.

Thankfully the ruling doesn’t affect the other rights that will be bestowed unto us Oregon queers beginning January 1. Rights such as protections from discrimination and equal housing. Nevertheless, the blatant federal attack on one of the biggest issues in the LGBT alphabet soup is just disgraceful. Basic Rights Oregon is already fighting the ruling but the injunction pretty much ensures that the law won’t go into effect until February 1 (unless Dobson and his cronies gets their way).

I’ll be attending a vigil on January 2 to protest this ruling. And I’m pretty certain my comic will be addressing this issue as well.

elle jo

A while ago, I drew a little comic for Lambda Legal’s “Life Without Fair Courts” contest. The gist of the contest was to depict a world in which some Supreme Court civil rights case had been ruled against. I wracked my brain for days trying to come up with a civil rights case that might, in some small way, apply to me. Eventually I chose to depict the (practically unknown) case of Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins (1989) in which Ann Hopkins, an employee for Price Waterhouse, was denied promotion because her bosses deemed her “too masculine” in her attire and demeanor. Well, she sued their asses off and the case made it all the way to the Supreme Court where it was ultimately ruled in favor of Ms. Hopkins on the grounds that she was being discriminated against because of her sex.

Now I would argue that this wasn’t merely sex discrimination, but it was gender discrimination as well. The (presumably make) bosses denied Ms. Hopkins a promotion because they believed her to be “too masculine,” as if to say that women are only allowed to be “feminine” in the cutthroat world of … um … accounting. And this wasn’t a one-time deal at Price Waterhouse. This quote from the Opinion of the Court piece by Justice Brennan says:

In previous years, other female candidates for partnership also had been evaluated in sex-based terms. As a general matter, Judge Gesell concluded, “[c]andidates were viewed favorably if partners believed they maintained their femin[in]ity while becoming effective professional managers”; in this environment, “[t]o be identified as a ‘women’s lib[b]er’ was regarded as [a] negative comment.”

from the Supreme Court Collection at Cornell University

These were decisions based not solely on sex, but on gender as well. That is, the expected gender performance for a given sex: masculine for men and feminine for women. This kind of thing has been going on for ages, and it’s not limited to big corporations.

There is a bill siting in Congress as I blog called the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) which will extend protections on the basis of sexual orientation and (if all goes well) gender identity as well. Unfortunately democrats in Congress are feeling a little twitchy about including gender identity in ENDA. They feel there will not be enough votes to pass legislation with trans protections attached.

Transgender folk have been on the sidelines of LGB culture ever since Christine Jorgenson got off the boat in New York. We’ve been treated as novelties, curiosities of science, or sideshow freaks who don’t belong anywhere but the sideshow or Jerry Springer. I know I’ve never felt completely at home in the queer resource center here on the UO campus even though I identify as a lesbian. The whole ‘trans’ thing fucks everything up. Now the same kind of sidelining is going on with ENDA. Dems apparently are too uptight to extend protections to a class of people that most still consider to be sideshow freaks.

But let me tell you, offering protections on the basis of gender identity will include more than just transsexuals. When we have legislation in place that states there shall be no expectation by employers that their employees behave exclusively masculine for men or feminine for women, it will be a shining day for people of all sexes, genders, and orientations. The mousy straight guy in the pink sweater won’t lose his job because his homophobic boss thinks he’s gay. The dominatrix of the boardroom in the black pinstripe suit will know that that promotion is hers, without an additional review. The trans-dyke illustrator can submit portfolios to any potential employer knowing full well that she’ll get hired (or not) based on her merits and not what’s between her legs.

So Congress, do not drop gender identity protection from ENDA. It could extend protections to so many more folk than just transsexuals. It would ensure that anyone who deviates from the archaic 1950s view of men and women could get a job and keep a job.

ellejohara

I’m happy to hear that the Matthew Shepard Act managed to pass the cloture vote (just barely) 60-39 (with John-Boy McCain not voting). This bill is attached to a defense spending bill (clever), so if Bush vetoes, he doesn’t get money for his war. Dubya hasn’t said anything about vetoing a defense spending bill, just a hate crimes bill.

So that was happy news to hear. (Even though hearing the word ‘cloture’ means the Republicans must have threatened another filibuster. Fuckers.)

And in the world of the stupid: Democrats are freaking out over T. Specifically the T in LBGT, meaning ‘transgender.’ Apparently the Jesus freaks are convincing the Dems that passing ENDA with trans-inclusion would mean, well, let me just point you to this graphic over at Pam’s House Blend:

If this is what the fundies are freaking out about, they have some serious growing up to do. What’s particularly annoying is that transfolk have been snubbed for a long time in queer circles. Back in the day, thanks to tomes like Janice Raymond’s “The Transsexual Empire,” transfolk, specifically MTFs, were seen as a threat to the second wave feminism of the 1970s. Thankfully things have changed since then and the queer community is considerably more open to transfolk, although there are still a few second wave feminist holdouts (such as at the Michigan Womyn’s Music Festival), and recent books like J. Michael Bailey’s “The Man Who Would Be Queen” certainly aren’t helping.

It’s tough enough to be fighting an uphill battle in Congress, but it will be even more frustrating if transfolk get booted from ENDA in the same way we get booted from the Michigan Womyn’s Music Festival. We’re prepared to go that extra mile if we have to, because as human beings, we are deserving of the same rights as those white Christian fuckers that get to take them so much for granted.

elle jo

Gay marriage is legal in Iowa. In Iowa! The ban on gay marriage in the land of corn and straw polls was declared unconstitutional by Judge Robert Hanson. Unfortunately, the ruling barely lasted a day before the wingnuts pushed for a stay on the ruling until it was appealed.

Fucking freepers. Fortunately there were a lucky few who took advantage of the ruling and got themselves legally hitched. In Iowa!

I’m sure the nutters in Jesusland will be up in arms about this, calling it a ruling by a so-called “activist judge.” No, this was not a decision made by an activist judge. This was a decision made by a judge who recognizes injustice and inequality when he sees it.

It was a pink letter day in Iowa. In fucking Iowa! Damn!

el jo

The YouTube question posed by Reverend Reggie Longcrier was absolutely brilliant! John Edwards claimed that his religious background is the reason why he still opposes gay marriage. (His highly enlightened wife supports gay marriage. Why isn’t she running for president?) Rev. Longcrier asked Senator Edwards why it was still okay to deny a group of Americans equal rights under the law based on religious views, especially since very similar views were used to deny women the right to vote, to deny interracial couples from marrying, to endorse slavery, and so forth. Mr. Edwards then proceeded to dance around the issue, never actually coming right out and answering the good Reverend’s question.

Ohh, and then when Anderson Cooper announced that Rev. Longcrier was in the audience, John-boy’s sphincter must have really cinched up! The Reverend’s question was not answered in a satisfactory manner. In fact, when Edwards discussed how his wife “supports … uhh … gay marriage,” he was visibly uncomfortable with it. This guy does not support gay marriage. Nor does Obama, or Clinton. Oh sure, they support “civil unions,” but you and I know full well that a civil union is little more than a drinking fountain with a sign marked “colored” hanging off it.

Separate is not equal. It has been proven before, why must we prove it again? The only candidate who truly supports gay marriage, Mike Gravel, is unfortunately about as stable as H. Ross Perot.

On the upside, Edwards did say that he doesn’t support the enforcement of one set of religious values over another. If he were president, he would not let his Southern Baptist upbringing influence his political decisions.

Yeah, and I’ve got a bridge in New York City I want to sell you.

el jo