privacy

...now browsing by tag

 
 

Featured Gay Friendly Accommodations: Battlefield B&B, Gettsyburg, Pennsylvania

Sunday, July 26th, 2015

Battlefield Bed and Breakfast

Periodically we’ll feature one of our properties here to let our readers know about some great gay friendly places to stay.

Our Civil War theme bed and breakfast has an historic barn reception venue, beautiful wedding lawns and gardens for ceremonies, 10 guest rooms, and thirty acres of privacy. Carriage rides arranged. Weddings up to 140 guests. Appointments suggested for tours.

See the Battlefield B&B Expanded Listing on Purple Roofs Here

Gay Friendly Bed and Breakfasts, Hotels, and Vacation Rentals in Pennsylvania

Featured Gay Friendly Wedding Vendor: Mountaingate Country Club, Los Angeles, California

Sunday, May 3rd, 2015

Mountaingate Country Club

Periodically we’ll feature one of our vendors here to let our readers know about some great people who can help you plan the perfect wedding.

Nestled in the Santa Monica Mountains near the Getty Museum. Ceremony site- (outdoors) overlooking the Santa Monica Mountains under calming birch trees. Cocktail Hour – Outdoors with scenes of mountains and golf course -or- RBAR (indoor) our lounge surrounded in floor to ceilings windows with same scenery.

See the Mountaingate Country Club Expanded Listing on Purple Unions Here

Gay Friendly Wedding Vendors in California

“Privacy” Is the Right’s Latest Talking Point Against Transgender Rights

Friday, May 9th, 2014

Transgender FlagWith marriage equality at some point becoming the law of the land, and although conservative Christians and other social conservatives are aware that this is the case, they still rail against it even though the vigor is lost.

Time to change what social conservatives focus on in their culture wars. And, it’s trans people that they’re moving to. And, their new language in arguing against trans people isn’t just the “bathroom bill” meme; their relatively new talking point uses the term “privacy.”

The Privacy For All Students coalition which is still trying to get a recall of The School Success and Opportunity Act (AB 1266) states on their Web site “It’s an invasion of student privacy to open sensitive school facilities such as showers, restrooms and locker rooms to students of the opposite sex.”

Authored By Autumn Sandeen – See the Full Story at LGBT Weekly

Find more articles and gay wedding resources.

Supreme Court Referendum 71 Case to Have Nationwide Impact

Saturday, May 1st, 2010

The U.S. Supreme Court has heard oral arguments in a case that will decide whether voter petitions are a public or private document.

The case stems from a battle in Washington over petitions for Referendum 71, a measure that sought to nullify a gay domestic partnerships law in the state. A group, Protect Marriage Washington, is asking the justices to shield the names of the 138,000 people who signed Referendum 71 petitions in hopes of overturning the same-sex domestic partner law.

The case was brought on behalf of voters who signed Referendum 71 petitions last year. At issue is whether people who sign petitions give up their right to privacy. Washington Attorney General Rob McKenna told the high court the public’s right to scrutinize petitions for fraud or errors trumps the privacy of petition signers.

Full Story fromThe State Column

Click here for gay marriage resources.

To subscribe to this blog, use the rss feed on the right, or use the form at right to join our email list. You can also email us at info@purpleunions.com. Or find us on Facebook – just search for Gay Marriage Watch (you’ll see our b/w wedding pic overlooking the Ferry Building and Bay Bridge in SF). We’re also tweeting daily at http://www.twitter.com/gaymarriagewatc.

Justices Seem to Lean Toward Openness in Referendum 71 Signature Case

Thursday, April 29th, 2010

The Doe v. Reed transcript is out, and consensus is that the hearing went well for open government proponents. Attorney General Rob McKenna and Secretary of State Sam Reed emerged from the U.S. Supreme Court today optimistic that the high court will allow Washington and other states to treat initiative and referendum petitions as releasable public records.

McKenna, making his third appearance before the court, and Reed, the state’s chief elections officer, both said they counted a majority of the justices who seemed sympathetic to Washington’s argument that the vote-approved Public Records Act requires release of petitions to those who make a request and pay the duplication cost. They said the court didn’t seem inclined to pull down all disclosure laws.

“My team and I think it went well,” McKenna said in a joint news conference with Reed after the one-hour hearing before a packed court, including Justice John Paul Stevens hearing his last case. Reed concurred, saying McKenna did a persuasive job and that he’s optimistic of a win, which would be nationally significant.

Full Story from Pam’s House Blend

Click here for gay marriage resources.

To subscribe to this blog, use the rss feed on the right, or use the form at right to join our email list. You can also email us at info@purpleunions.com. Or find us on Facebook – just search for Gay Marriage Watch (you’ll see our b/w wedding pic overlooking the Ferry Building and Bay Bridge in SF). We’re also tweeting daily at http://www.twitter.com/gaymarriagewatc.

WA: Is State’s Referendum 71 Supreme Court Brief Poorly Written?

Saturday, April 24th, 2010

On Wednesday, the proponents of Referendum 71 ( the unsuccessful effort to repeal last year’s everything but marriage domestic partnership law) will face off against the State of Washington in the United States Supreme Court to determine whether the First Amendment protects against the release of the identity of initiative/referendum petition signers under the Washington Public Records Act. Though this dispute has been the subject of prior articles, I reviewed the briefs filed before the Supreme Court to see how the parties’ respective arguments developed.

The Briefs of the Referendum 71 proponents are very strong. They focus well on the notion that signing an initiative is political speech subject to the broadest protection of the first amendment against intimidation, arguing corruption and intimidation are the two biggest threats to a democracy. The biggest weaknesses of their argument are (1) the lack of a record of harassment in connection with referendum 71 and (2) the question whether signing a petition is an anonymous act.

The Proponents anticipated both these issues by arguing the record of harassment during the Proposition 8 campaign in California (the successful effort to constitutional the ban on gay and lesbian marriage) and constructing a multi-step analysis of anonymity suggesting that while signers agreed to disclose their identities to the petition signature gatherers and other signers who see their signatures and to the State to confirm the validity of the signatures, they did not agree to disclose their identities to the public through the public records act.

Full Story from Publicola

Click here for gay marriage resources.

To subscribe to this blog, use the rss feed on the right, or use the form at right to join our email list. You can also email us at info@purpleunions.com. Or find us on Facebook – just search for Gay Marriage Watch (you’ll see our b/w wedding pic overlooking the Ferry Building and Bay Bridge in SF). We’re also tweeting daily at http://www.twitter.com/gaymarriagewatc.

WA: All Amicus Briefs Filed in Referendum 71 Signature Case

Tuesday, April 6th, 2010

Doe v Reed, the case from Washington state over whether names and addresses of petition signers should be public, is being heard in the U.S. Supreme Court on April 28. The American Bar Association maintains an excellent web page that makes it possible for anyone to read any or all briefs, in any case about to be argued in the U.S. Supreme Court. Anyone may read the Doe v Reed briefs at this link. Scroll down to April 28.

Fourteen amicus briefs have been filed in support of privacy, and nine have been filed in support of the state of Washington, which wishes to release the names and addresses to groups so that the information may be put on a web page. One amicus on each side was submitted late, and each may or may not be accepted by the Court.

Some of the groups arguing on the side of the state say that the names and addresses should be released because that makes it possible to detect fraud. In order to buttress their position that fraud exists, two briefs attack Ralph Nader’s 2004 petition efforts. The brief of the National Conference of State Legislatures, footnote 8, refers the reader to a New York Times story of October 14, 2004, titled “Court Strikes Nader from Pennsylvania Ballot.”

Full Story from Ballot Access News

Click here for gay marriage resources.

To subscribe to this blog, use the rss feed on the right, or use the form at right to join our email list. You can also email us at info@purpleunions.com. Or find us on Facebook – just search for Gay Marriage Watch (you’ll see our b/w wedding pic overlooking the Ferry Building and Bay Bridge in SF). We’re also tweeting daily at http://www.twitter.com/gaymarriagewatc.