Guests include award-winning film-makers, writers and performers such as actors/writers Ova Saopeng and Leilani Chan of Refugee Nation, Catzie Vilayphonh of the spoken word duo Yellow Rage, actor KP Phagnasay, Saymoukda Vongsay, playwright and author of “No Regrets,” and the acclaimed poets Mali Phonpadith, Phayvanh Leukhamhan and Bryan Thao Worra, as well as Oscar-nominated director Thavisouk Phrasavath among many others.

This year’s Summit received funding and support from the Metropolitan Regional Arts Council, Asian American Press, the University of Minnesota Asian American Studies Department, the Lao Assistance Center, the Loft Literary Center and many others. For more information email: info@laowriters.org or visit the conference website at www.laowriters.org.

To help prepare community members for the announcement, the Coalition for a National AIDS Strategy has developed a document, which offers core concepts for communications about the Strategy and ideas on how to leverage its release to garner local and national attention to urgent issues in our communities.

PACHA Call-In Meeting Info:

CONFERENCE CALL: Domestic: 888-455-2653. International: 1-210-839-8485. Access code: 158777.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Melvin Joppy, Committee Manager, Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS, at melvin.joppy@hhs.gov.

NEWS & ANALYSIS: Members of the Prevention Justice Alliance will be blogging live about the meeting’s proceedings at www.preventionjustice.org.

Pursuant to decisions made by the Equality For All Campaign Committee in 2005, all remaining campaign assets will be provided to and managed by Equality California.

The State of California currently is in the midst of the audit required by law for all ballot measure campaign organizations. Once that audit is completed and paid for, it is not expected that any financial assets will remain. The assets that do remain are various data sets that were developed during the course of the campaign. Equality California will manage those data sets in accordance with the standards established by the Campaign Committee.

In the interests of transparency and furthering efforts to learn from the experiences of the No on 8 Campaign, the Equality For All Executive Committee has voted to take the unprecedented step of releasing extensive polling materials developed during the campaign. These materials can be obtained at http://www.eqca.org/efadata.

Beginning almost immediately after voters in the state of California passed Proposition 8, the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community and its allies have been working to build coalitions, develop public education campaigns, talk to voters and more in an effort to change enough hearts and minds so that one day soon Proposition 8 may be repealed and the freedom to marry restored to California same-sex couples. It is hoped that such work will continue and that this release of polling data will benefit those efforts.

In testimony submitted to HHS as part of their two-day hearing by the HHS Advisory Committee on Blood Safety and Availability, Kerry said there needs to be a thorough review of the justification behind this medically unwarranted ban.

“I join medical experts at the American Red Cross, the American Medical Association, and many others in asserting that this policy is simply not called for by the science,” Sen. Kerry said in his testimony. “This lingering policy is responsible for turning away thousands of healthy donors from blood clinics across the country, not because they have engaged in highly risky behavior, but because they are gay. This is blood that could save lives.”

On Wednesday Senator Kerry joined with Congressman Mike Quigley (D-Ill.) in spearheading a bi-cameral letter to HHS encouraging the revision of the blood donor policy. The letter is co-signed by nine senators and 34 representatives.

Senator Kerry has been a longtime advocate for updating this discriminatory policy. Last March he wrote two separate letters to the FDA urging them to abolish the policy, and also published an op-ed on the ban in Bay Windows, New England’s largest GLBT newspaper.

The current FDA policy forbids men from donating life-saving blood if they have engaged in even a single sexual act with another man since 1977. The same policy allows heterosexual men and women who have had sexual contact with an HIV-positive partner to give blood after only a one-year waiting period.

Among the many organizations calling for a revision of the discriminatory FDA policy are the American Red Cross, America’s Blood Centers, and AABB (formerly the American Association of Blood Banks). These organizations have stated that the exclusion of homosexuals from the national community of blood donors is “medically and scientifically unwarranted.” The American Medical Association has also called for the policy to be modified.

The Senator’s full testimony is below:

Chair Bracey and Members of the Advisory Committee, I thank you for convening this meeting to review the outdated policy that prohibits any man who has had sex with another man, even once, since 1977 from ever donating blood. With the American Red Cross, the American Medical Association, America’s Blood Centers, and AABB, among others, calling for this policy to be reformed, it is certainly past time to examine scientifically and medically sound alternative screening procedures to ensure the highest level of safety possible for the nation’s blood supply.

The discussion must focus on one question: is this blanket lifetime deferral for all MSM the best way to protect the blood supply, or are there alternatives that would maintain or even improve the safety of our nation’s blood supply that targets real high risk behavior as opposed to simply a broad group of people?

I realize that this is a discussion that has been ongoing for a number of years. The three largest blood banking organizations in the country have been calling this policy “medically and scientifically unwarranted” since at least as far back as 2006, and some medical experts called into question the medical justifications for this policy long before that.

This is a discussion with real social significance for gay men. They are clearly the target of this policy, which was initiated in the early 80’s when little was known about HIV / AIDS except that gay men seemed to be contracting it almost exclusively. Today, this lingering policy carries with it a social stigma for this population that is still engaged in battles for civil rights on a whole array of fronts.

But, as much significance as this carries for gay men, I absolutely believe that this discussion must begin and end with the integrity of the blood supply and the safety of the recipients of blood transfusion. They deserve the strongest protections the United States of America can muster from diseases like HIV spreading through the blood supply.

However, if this policy is not declared a necessity by the science of blood supply safety, then their safety will not be compromised were the policy appropriately modified, and the only leg the current policy would have left to stand on is unjustifiable discrimination. Today, I join with medical experts at the American Red Cross, the American Medical Association, and many others in asserting that this policy is simply not called for by the science. In order to ensure the safety of the American people, there are better alternatives.

To understand today’s alternatives, I found it helpful to consider the origins of the ban. As you know, this policy dates back to 1983.

Since that time, our knowledge of the causes of HIV and our ability to prevent and detect HIV has grown exponentially. In fact, I came across a couple of New York Times articles from 1983 that highlight just how far we have come. One article dated May 13 of that year called Prison’s Food Shunned after AIDS Victim’s Death, speculated that AIDS could be transmitted through prison food and utensils after an inmate was killed by the disease in Auburn, New York. In reference to AIDS, this Times article stated bluntly, “Its cause is not known…”

Another Times article from October 11, 1983, entitled In Pursuit of the Cause of AIDS, begins, “What if the cause of acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) were discovered tomorrow and a reliable diagnostic test developed?” These articles combined with my memories of simply living through that time are reminders that the only thing that was certain all those years ago was that homosexuals and intravenous drug users were contracting the tragically deadly disease and no one quite understood how or why.

This was the environment out of which the lifetime ban on MSM from donating blood was born. It was a time when HIV / AIDS was still believed by many to be a gay disease, when the science of contraction was not fully understood, and before highly accurate and duplicative tests were conducted on all of the donated blood across the nation. It was in fact a time when highly accurate detection tests were yet to even exist.

It is crystal clear that we have come a long, long way over the last three decades in our understanding of HIV / AIDS. The science regarding contraction of this disease has advanced dramatically, the detection methods have become more and more perfected, and our understanding of what constitutes high risk behavior has grown far beyond the ignorant idea that sexual orientation is an indicator in itself.

Condoms have become standard use for millions of Americans of all sexual orientations, and healthy gay men can today consummate a union with lifelong, monogamous partners in marriage in my home state of Massachusetts and in several others. Does anyone believe that these men are at high risk of contracting HIV?

And yet, with all of this change, this policy lingers on and is today responsible for turning away thousands of healthy donors from blood clinics across the country, not because they have engaged in highly risky behavior, but because they are gay. This is blood that could save lives.

As you know, all blood that enters the nation’s blood supply is tested for HIV by two separate, highly accurate tests. I understand there is a window period of up to three weeks following a person’s initial exposure to HIV during which the infection may be missed by these tests, and it is this window period that rightfully serves as the scientific basis for a deferral period for prospective donors who have engaged in high risk behavior. It is very clear that a lifetime deferral for all MSM does not correspond in any way with this window period, nor does it match the deferral periods imposed on heterosexuals who have engaged in behavior of similar or even greater risk.

In a March letter that I and 17 of my colleagues sent to Secretary Hamburg, and in subsequent letters, including one I sent to this Committee this week along with 42 other Members of Congress, I highlighted a number of the potential oversights and medically unjustified double standards.

People who pay heterosexual prostitutes for sex are deferred from donor pools for one year following the incident. Yet a gay man is deferred for life for even a single sexual encounter dating as far back as 1977, as if he may not yet be aware that he carries this disease 33 years later.

Men and women who routinely engage in unprotected sex with many partners are not deferred for even a second, while MSM who engage in protected, monogamous sex face a lifetime ban.

And perhaps the most glaring example of all of the double standards that exist as a result of this policy is that a woman who has had sexual relations with a male she knows to be HIV positive is deferred for one year while a gay man who has had sexual relations with a healthy, monogamous male partner is deferred for life.

Let me conclude my remarks by saying that I am optimistic that real change can come out of this meeting that will serve to strengthen both the safety and integrity of the blood supply. As you continue your review of blood donor screening policies and of the mechanics of the blood donation process, including the unacceptable potential for quarantine release errors, I encourage you again to consider all of the relevant up-to-date scientific and medical data at your disposal.

I also urge you to keep in mind that the scientific and medical data that led to the creation of this policy three decades ago was scarce. 1983 was a long time ago – President Reagan was in the middle of his first term in the White House. Michael Jackson had just unveiled the Moonwalk. And the Redskins won the Superbowl. How times have changed. Had we known then what we know today, with medical experts at the American Red Cross, the American Medical Association, and many others opposing this policy, I don’t believe we would reach the same conclusion that a lifetime ban on all MSM from donating blood is appropriate or justified by the science.

I trust that, as you move forward in this review process, you will keep on the table all of the alternatives to this policy that could help to make our blood supply even safer for all who depend on it.

“It’s a very positive step that HHS is meeting this week to reconsider the lifetime ban on gay Americans donating blood. The medical and scientific communities have been crystal clear that there is no longer any scientific evidence to warrant this policy,” said Senator Kerry. “I’ve been working closely with members from both chambers, and we look forward to hearing HHS’s recommendations and working with the Administration to ensure that an outdated policy is brought into line with the world we live in today.”

Senator Kerry has joined with Congressman Mike Quigley (D-Ill.) in spearheading a bi-cameral letter to HHS encouraging the revision of the blood donor policy. The letter is co-signed by nine senators and 33 representatives.

Senator Kerry has been a longtime advocate for updating this discriminatory policy. Last March he wrote two separate letters to the FDA urging them to abolish the policy, and also published an op-ed on the ban in Bay Windows, New England’s largest GLBT newspaper.

The current FDA policy forbids men from donating life-saving blood if they have engaged in even a single sexual act with another man since 1977. Hospitals expect blood shortages over the summer months, and blood advocacy groups have stressed the importance of adjusting the existing policy, which has been in place since 1985. The same policy allows heterosexual men and women who have had sexual contact with an HIV-positive partner to give blood after only a one-year waiting period.
Among the many organizations calling for a revision of the discriminatory FDA policy are the American Red Cross, America’s Blood Centers, and AABB (formerly the American Association of Blood Banks). These organizations have stated that the exclusion of homosexuals from the national community of blood donors is “medically and scientifically unwarranted.” The American Medical Association has also called for the policy to be modified.
The full text of the letter is below:

June 9, 2010

Mr. Arthur W. Bracey, M.D.
Chair
Advisory Committee on Blood Safety and Availability
Department of Health and Human Services
1101 Wootton Parkway, Suite 250
Rockville, Maryland 20852

Dear Dr. Bracey:

We are writing to express our support for your upcoming meeting of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Advisory Committee on Blood Safety and Availability on June 10th and 11th to review the Federal policy that prohibits men who have had sex with other men (MSM) from ever donating blood. We join with medical experts at the American Red Cross, America’s Blood Centers, AABB, and the American Medical Association, among others, in calling for a change in policy that better reflects the science of high risk behavior for HIV. The time has clearly come to review and modify this policy to strengthen the safety of the blood supply and remove any needless discriminatory rules from the process.

In the wake of the major blood donor organizations stating that the lifetime ban on MSM blood donors is “medically and scientifically unwarranted,” we urge you to utilize the most up to date and comprehensive medical and scientific data regarding high risk behaviors in your considerations. In order to improve the integrity of the blood supply, we believe it is imperative that all high risk behaviors be appropriately targeted in the screening process and that similar deferral periods are established for similar risks.

As the policy currently stands, a number of potential oversights and medically unjustifiable double standards seem apparent. For instance, there is no prescribed consideration of safer sex practices, individuals who routinely practice unsafe heterosexual sex face no deferral period at all while monogamous and married homosexual partners who practice safe sex are banned for life. In fact, a woman who has sexual relations with an HIV positive male is deferred for one year, while a man who has had sexual relations with another man, even a monogamous partner, is deferred for life. Even individuals who have paid prostitutes for heterosexual sex face a deferral period of one year while gay men face a lifetime ban. These do not strike us as scientifically sound conclusions.

The safety of our blood supply is of the utmost importance. With the advances in medicine over the course of the last three decades, we encourage you to look beyond blanket deferrals and consider screening based on real high risk behavior so we can update our blood donation policies from their early 1980’s origins. By keeping discriminatory policies on the books, and denying willing donors the opportunity to help others we put the integrity of the blood donation system at risk.

Thank you for your consideration of these concerns. We look forward to the Committee’s recommendations for modifying this policy.
Sincerely,
Sen. John F. Kerry
Sen. Jeff Bingaman
Sen. Roland W. Burris
Sen. Sherrod Brown
Sen. Maria Cantwell
Sen. Robert P. Casey
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand
Sen. Russ Feingold
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse

Rep. Mike Quigley
Rep. Tammy Baldwin
Rep. Shelley Berkley
Rep. Lois Capps
Rep. Michael Capuano
Rep. Judy Chu
Rep. Joseph Crowley
Rep. Susan Davis
Rep. Diana DeGette
Rep. Sam Farr
Rep. Barney Frank
Rep. John Garamendi
Rep. Raul Grijalva
Rep. Luis Gutierrez
Rep. Alcee Hastings
Rep. Maurice D. Hinchey
Rep. Rush Holt
Rep. Mike Honda
Rep. Hank Johnson
Rep. Barbara Lee
Rep. Carolyn B. Maloney
Rep. Ed Markey
Rep. Gwen Moore
Rep. Jim Moran
Rep. Jerrold Nadler
Rep. John Olver
Rep. Chellie Pingree
Rep. Steven Rothman
Rep. Jan Schakowsky
Rep. Jose E. Serrano
Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz
Rep. Anthony Weiner
Rep. Lynn Woolsey

A recent study conducted by the New England Journal of Medicine found that gay and lesbian patients were barred from participating in clinical trials, many dealing with sexual function. The Senators’ letter asks Secretary Sebelius to determine if there is any proven medical rational behind this exclusionary practice.

“The New England Journal of Medicine is the gold standard for the medical community, and their study set off alarm bells. This is more than an equality issue. It raises huge questions about the quality of medical information from flawed trails,” said Senator Kerry. “I can’t think of a medical or scientific reason so many clinical trials would discriminate based on sexual orientation, and I’m confident that Secretary Sebelius will get to the bottom of this.”

“For years, women were excluded from participating in clinical trials of medical treatments. This meant that American women were not represented in medical research of diseases and treatments that were prevalent among both men and women,” said Senator Merkley. “Today, this trend continues with individuals being excluded on the basis of sexual orientation. This is just wrong – it undermines rigorous scientific testing and it is morally reprehensible. Medical research should not be biased. We need to get to the bottom of any possible effort to exclude Americans from clinical trials.”

“We must eliminate this kind of unconscionable discrimination,” said Senator Gillibrand. “This is not only an issue of equality and fairness, it is also about allowing scientists to use every appropriate tool to advance medical research and save lives. These trials could result in safer, more effective medicines for participating patients and the general public. I am also concerned that such restrictions could result in flawed medical information and inaccurate trial results.”

“Clinical trials not only help advance medical care and improve our health system, but they can mean the difference between life and death for individuals and families,” said Senator Menendez. “Discrimination is wrong in any context, but discrimination in clinical trials is particularly troubling because it limits an entire community’s access to medical care. Getting answers on this will help us make sure that these trials are open to every member of our society.”

“We are deeply disturbed by the findings of the New England Journal of Medicine study that excluding lesbians and gay men from clinical trials is ‘not uncommon,’ particularly because we still have so little data on health needs of the LGBT community,” said Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese. “We applaud Senator Kerry for taking this important issue to Secretary Sebelius and urge HHS to investigate and ensure that this important part of medical research is conducted in a science-based, nondiscriminatory manner.”

The full text of the letter is below:

April 15, 2010

The Honorable Kathleen Sebelius

Secretary

Department of Health and Human Services
200 Independence Avenue, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20201

Dear Secretary Sebelius,

We write to you today in hopes of receiving greater understanding of a recent New England Journal of Medicine study that indicates a disturbing trend of clinical trials explicitly excluding gay and lesbian patients. The study found that gay and lesbian patients were barred from participating in clinical trials of drugs, mostly but not all dealing with sexual function. It was found that in some studies participants had to be in a “relationship with a person of the opposite sex” or the study contained explicit inclusion and exclusion criteria based on sexual orientation. We would like to ascertain if the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), National Institutes of Health (NIH) or any other federal health agency has any such restrictions on clinical trials and if so what medical rationale exists for such restrictions. We would also like to inquire to what extent restrictions such as these could result in inaccurate medical information and flawed trials.

The Journal studied a clinical trial database that had information on clinical trials sponsored by the National Institutes of Health, other government agencies, and private industry. Using keywords, their search resulted in 243 studies that had criteria excluding gay men and lesbian patients from participating. On closer examination of these 243 studies a troubling uptick in the incidence of exclusions can be seen. In studies conducted prior to 2000 only 2 studies were shown to absolutely exclude gay men or lesbians. However, from 2000-2004 that number grew to 9 and from 2005-2009 it almost tripled to 26. The Journal’s conclusion was that, “Exclusion of lesbians and gay men from clinical trials in the United States is not uncommon,” and that most likely these participants don’t know and aren’t notified that their sexual orientation is the reason they are excluded.

Obviously, we would all agree that absent a medical rationale for these exclusions, holding clinical trials that prohibit the use of gay and lesbian patients is discriminatory and unnecessary. Individuals that are willing to participate in these trials are supporting medical research and advancements – it doesn’t make sense and violates our values if any qualified potential participant is turned away solely based on their sexual orientation.

We look forward to your reply on this issue. Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

John Kerry Jeff Merkley Kirsten Gillibrand

U.S. Senator U.S. Senator U.S. Senator

Sherrod Brown Robert Menendez

U.S. Senator U.S. Senator

“CAPAC celebrates the confirmation of Judge Chin, a well-respected jurist who will be the sole Asian American appellate judge serving on the federal bench,” said Rep. Michael Honda (CA-15), Chair of CAPAC. “The Senate has acted upon President Obama’s commitment to building a federal judiciary with high caliber jurists, while increasing Asian American representation in our federal courts.”

Although only 54 years old, Judge Chin is currently the longest serving active Asian American judge, and for many years, served as one of only eight active AAPI Article III judges nationwide. He was nominated by President Clinton and confirmed in 1994 as a United States District Judge for the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. He was the first AAPI federal district court judge to sit outside of the Ninth Circuit.

During his almost fifteen years on the bench, Judge Chin has established a reputation as a fair-minded, intelligent, and hard-working judge. He has sat by designation on the Second Circuit numerous times, and is poised to contribute immediately to that court’s heavy workload. Lawyers who have appeared before him, even those against whom he has ruled, have commended him for his fairness and judicial temperament. Many of the traits that make Judge Chin an excellent jurist can be traced to his own background. Judge Chin was born in Hong Kong, and moved to the United States at age two. His father worked as a cook in Chinese restaurants, while his mother worked as a seamstress in the garment industry. His upbringing epitomizes the all-American story of families seeking to create a better life in the United States. To this day, one of Judge Chin’s favorite duties is swearing in new citizens of the United States.

“Judge Chin devotes much of his time to mentoring young lawyers and law students and, most recently, to several of the recently confirmed Asian American judges, both at the federal and state level,” said Honda. “He has been a tremendous asset to our community. Judge Chin’s confirmation to the Second Circuit is an important milestone not only for Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders, but is part of President Obama’s legacy to change the face of the federal bench to more accurately reflect the rich diversity of our country.”

Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders have been underrepresented in the federal judiciary, constituting less than 1% of the bench prior to President Obama’s Administration. In his first year and a half in office, President Obama has already doubled the federal presence of Asian American and Pacific Islander judges with the confirmations of Judges Chin, Dolly Gee, and Jacqueline Nguyen, and the judicial nominations of Judge Ed Chen, Professor Goodwin Liu, Prosecutor Edmond E. Chang, and Judge Leslie Kobayashi, and Judge Lucy Koh.

The Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus (CAPAC) is comprised of Members of Congress of Asian and Pacific Islander descent and members who have a strong dedication to promoting the well-being of the Asian American and Pacific Islander (AAPI) community. Since 1994, CAPAC has been addressing the needs of the AAPI community in all areas of American life. For more information on CAPAC, please call (202) 225-2631 or visit http://www.honda.house.gov/capac.

“This is a heartbreaking moment,” said John Henning, Executive Director of Love Honor Cherish. “Despite the dogged efforts of hundreds of volunteers across California, we did not get the signatures we needed within the 150-day window set by the state.”

Under California law, it is too late to mount a new effort to repeal Prop 8 in 2010. “Regrettably, Prop 8 will remain as a stain on our constitution until at least 2012, and perhaps later,” said Henning. He challenged activists statewide to rededicate themselves and unify behind a 2012 repeal effort.

Prop 8 passed by a margin of 52 to 48 percent. However, polls taken since the vote have shown that a majority of Californians now support the right of same-sex couples to marry, indicating that a new ballot proposition to repeal Prop 8 would be likely to pass in November 2010. In March, a poll by the Public Policy Institute of California showed a 6 percent increase in support for equal marriage rights in just the last year.

The proponents of the repeal initiative sought to seize the momentum unleashed by the passage of Prop 8 and parlay it into a victory at the polls. “This signature campaign was the right thing to do in the wake of Prop 8,” said Love Honor Cherish board member Lester Aponte. “We were determined to act affirmatively to achieve equality and we will continue to do that until Prop 8 has been finally repealed. We had hundreds of thousands of conversations with California voters about the right to marry and we know that we have moved hearts and minds. In the process, we have set the foundation for a future repeal effort and brought hope to thousands whose hearts were broken by the passage of Prop 8.”

Love Honor Cherish was one of more than 40 groups supporting the repeal of Prop 8 in November 2010, and was part of the Restore Equality 2010 coalition. The campaign utilized a unique web-based social networking tool, located at www.SignForEquality.com, which enabled volunteers to download the petition form, watch training videos and join teams.

Love Honor Cherish is a Los Angeles-based grassroots organization committed to repealing Prop 8 and to developing a new generation of leadership on this issue. Formed in May 2008 to defeat Prop 8, it raised over $500,000 for the No on 8 campaign and mounted its own outreach and media efforts. After the passage of Prop 8, Love Honor Cherish began working immediately to secure its repeal by means of a new ballot proposition. For more information, visit www.LoveHonorCherish.org.

Press Inquiries:

John Henning, Spokesperson
323-655-6171 (office)
323-252-4650 (mobile)
john.henning@lovehonorcherish.org.

—————————————————-

Love Honor Cherish will continue to meet and work to repeal Prop 8. If you’re in the Los Angeles area, join us this Tuesday for our general meeting, where we’ll discuss what we learned during the signature campaign and what’s next:

Tuesday, April 13
7:30 p.m.
Crescent Heights United Methodist Church
1296 N Fairfax Ave
(at Fountain)
West Hollywood 90046

Free parking on Fountain Ave or at St. Ambrose Catholic Church, across the street at 1281 Fairfax. Public parking lot ($3 fee) located on Orange Grove Ave – 1 block east of Fairfax and just north of Santa Monica Blvd.

This Sunday from 9 am until (done), throngs of grassroots activist will be taking to the streets once again, this time to demand equal benefits from the Social Security Administration.

Come on down to join this star-studded event complete with U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer Representatives Chu and Sanchez (three of my favorite peeps in Congress) and march shoulder to shoulder with these leaders in this historic event!

The Equal Roots Coalition sent a missive to its members. See below for more details:

This Sunday, April 11, is Rock for Equality! Meet in front of the L.A. Gay and Lesbian Center at 9:30am for some breakfast and sign-in then rally and march down Hollywood Blvd to the Social Security Building on Santa Monica and Vine to demand equal Social Security benefits for same-sex couples. Join a large crowd, Senator Barbara Boxer, Representatives Chu and Sanchez for this historic event!

Social Security discrimination is one of the most under recognized and harshest forms of injustice the LGBT Community faces. We all pay into the system equally but we don’t receive equal benefits. It’s time to end this discrimination. Join us!

See the Organizers’ brief video:

For more information or a FREE PARKING PASS please email Tanner (one of the organizers) at tannere@rockforequality.org or see www.rockforequality.org for the official event information!

Rally! March! Rock!

Rock for Equality is a national initiative and rally to demand economic fairness in Social Security benefits for America’s same-sex couples.

Together we will fight to eliminate the
UNFAIR and UNEQUAL Social Security policies and secure full recognition of same-sex relationships.

EQCA is sponsoring this bill to rid California’s codes of offensive language. Although, while nothing has been done under this section of the code in years, so long as it remains discrimination is still written into law in our state.

The SoCal Voice applauds EQCA for its tireless efforts in cleaning up the stain of hate left on our hearts, in our lives and on our law books.

The final vote of the committee was 4 votes in favor, and three abstentions.

Ammiano – Yes

Hagman –

Beall Jr. – Yes

Gilmore –

Hill – Yes

Portantino –

Skinner – Yes

Next, the bill will go to the full Assembly for consideration. Join us in becoming the voice of reason behind EQCA’s efforts to pass this bill repealing that draconian law (ABAB2199). Contact your local representatives and ask them to vote Yes once this bill comes to a full vote.

Stay tuned. The SoCal Voice will keep you apprised of developments and keep you informed as the bill moves forward!

-The SoCal Voice Team