aprii 20.2001
4
Beautiful faeszs
permanent Cosmetics
Let’s b e ra tio n a l
lips, eyeliner, areolas
eyebrows, traditional tattoo
tree consultation
Shawna Holder 503/408-7779
pgr 503/301-7777
Restore Your Confidence!
O
10140 SE Pine, Ste. B
HASSON & W O N G
H AIR R E S T O R A T IO N S U R G E R Y
As Seen on Evening Magazine! FINANCING AVAILABLE
Why are so many people coming to
Hasson and Wong? They are finding
out they can get flawless results in
micrografting at a realistic price. Call
and learn the real story!
Prices starting at ('»'
"•O 7 *
Call today for a FREE consultation!
503
292-9097
www.hassonandwonq.net
-
Refill or Landfill?
And Again...
Use it Again...
p
si
M
, im
v*** i
%
#:v.
. *
is
Hv Ì
•K IN
: lAi i
m
JÌ
&
K
qn n.M
':*• i • ••
And Again...
And Again...
EVC 3 EN IAL
m?) lotions&oils
Refilling Bottles For 20 Years. 25<t OJf Each Refill,
3638 SE Hawthorne • 236-7976 V 710 NW 23rd Avenue
•
248-9748
“Unbelievable
Interest Rates ”
T riplex
T ownhome
Investor special: $195,8(X). 2 units,
Brownstone, Beaverton. $176,500.
2 bds/1 bath; 1 unit, 1 bd/1 bath.
Vacant * 2 bds, 1 bonus, 2 baths,
On a busline. Excellent condition.
fenced yd. garage.
T ownhouse - C lose - in SC
Colonial Hts, $259,900. lb die fori Gourmet
kitchen, marble, gas firepl. Must see inside.
2 beds, 2-1/2 baths, commons in back,
ext. yd. garage.
Call your "Power Team n
—CELIA LYON—
( 503 ) 260-6231
lit
See
—TERRI POPEJOY—
( 503 ) 330-0400
R E/M A X - EQ U ITY G R O U P
T o the E ditor :
ne of your readers takes Q ueer as Folk to
task for portraying and endorsing underage
sex (“Age of Innocence,” April 6]. This issue has
been fermenting in my mind for a very long time.
In the 1960s, in the middle of my 13th year, I
became friends with a man who was 31. It was so
long ago and I was so young, 1 did not realize that
he was gay— or that I was gay for that matter.
I sure knew what 1 wanted, though. I just
didn’t know it meant I was gay.
At the time there was no information about
gay matters for youngsters and precious little for
adults. There was no Internet, and there was no
gay pride movement.
To read newspapers and watch television, you
never would guess homosexuality existed. After
surreptitiously reading the paltry offerings at the
local county library, I was left with the impression
that there might be a few hundred people on the
planet who desired sex with their own gender.
Yes, this man and I had sex. It was tentative
and scary for both of us. In that era such things
would have shocked the community we lived in.
So this man was guilty of sex with a minor.
Did it hurt me? Not at all. In fact, it helped in
many ways.
He treated me with the greatest of respect.
He never pushed or coerced. In fact, if anyone
was aggressive, it was me.
But if I said no to something, he never
brought up the matter again. I haven’t met many
people in my life as kind and gentle as he was.
Now I’m certainly not suggesting that for an
adult to have sex with a child is acceptable.
What I am saying, however, is that each case is
unique. It is not always bad.
O f course, when there is coercion, whether
the pressure is physical or psychological, it is
rape. With apologies to Gertrude, abuse by any
other name would stink as bad.
The law in Oregon says under 18 is illegal for
those over 1 8 .1 have no argument with that point;
it is a fact that anyone can look up in the statutes.
But the age of consent is much younger in
other states and in other countries. In Washing
ton it is 16 years. Evidently, lawmakers there
think the Columbia is a mighty river if it can
impart two years of maturity and wisdom to any
youngster who merely crosses it.
Obviously, 18 is an arbitrary number. There
are probably 25-year-olds who shouldn’t be hav
ing sex, and there are no doubt a few 12-year-
olds for whom it is fine.
I just wish we could take a more rational
view of this issue. Instead of knee-jerk reactions
and slavish obeisance to arbitrary laws, we
should judge the issue on the merits of the indi
vidual case.
Underage sex is not necessarily abuse. And,
yes, I realize that is not realistic today. We live
in a world where everything must be reduced to
absolutes: black or white, gtxxl or had; no in-
betweens, no exceptions.
But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t strive for
a more reasoned approach to the matter. And I
applaud the fact that the gay media have
remained largely silent in this case.
The relationship between the 29-year-old
and the 17-year-old on Q ueer as Folk is caring
and decent. Were it otherwise, I’m sure the gay
media would speak out.
Oh, and before someone decides I must be a
pedo, I’ve never had sex with an underage person
nor am I interested in it. I just think I should be
tolerant toward those whose sexual orientation is
different. As far as I am concerned, if the rela
tionship is mutually gtxxl for the parties, then it
should be respected regardless of their ages.
CB
our other fin e listings in the Classified Ads.
J ohn J ordan
Portland
H ie fa c ts o f life
T o the E ditor :
his is in response to the letter from Charles
Ward regarding the Showtime television
show Q ueer as Folk.
One of the best things about this particular
program is that it depicts the realities of gay life
in a major city. As an almost 20-year-old gay
man, I definitely can relate to many of the situ
ations that have occurred since the show’s
inception in December.
Obviously, the activities that the characters
participate in and the actions that they take do
not represent the occurrences in every gay man’s
life, and they have that very disclaimer on every
episode. Older men sleeping with younger guys
is a fact of life in our community, and it proba
bly always will be.
Besides, it’s not like most television shows
don’t already show illegal activities. I realize it
doesn’t reflect very well on us, but it is a fact of
life, and I say just sit back and enjoy it!
T
M atthew T aylor
Carlton
BillSf b ills , b ills
T o the E ditor :
O tate Sen. Ryan Deckert’s Fair Schools A ct is
/ a waste o f people’s time, energy and
money— not because prohibiting discrimination
in public education on the basis of sexual orien
tation isn’t laudable but because it already is pro
hibited in Oregon (“Capitol Gains,” March 16].
In 1998’s Tanner v. Oregon Health Sciences
University, the Oregon Court of Appeals held
that O H SU ’s “denial of insurance benefits to
the unmarried domestic partners of its homosex
ual employees” violated Article I, Section 20 of
the Oregon Constitution. The ruling cited the
facts that “government entities” are prohibited
from “passage of laws granting citizens or classes
of citizens privileges or immunities on unequal
terms” and that the “courts have construed the
reference to ‘laws’ to include both legislative
enactments and the administration of laws
under delegated authority.”
Publicly funded “government entities” such
as Oregon’s public schools thus already are pro
hibited from discriminating on the basis of sex
ual orientation— and that includes “privileges”
such as the programs, activities and services that
Senate Bill 912 and House Bill 3247 seek to
address. Instead of supporting legislation that is
redundant in light of existing law, sexual minor
ity efforts should he directed toward enforcing
the Tanner decision— for example, by bringing
suit against any and all public schcxils that per
sist in violating the Oregon Constitution.
Then there’s Deckert’s introduction of Sen
ate Bill 728, which “would prohibit employment
discrimination based on sexual orientation." In
the past, Just Out has quoted David Fidanque,
American Civil Liberties Union of Oregon
executive director, as saying with regard to Tan
ner v. O H SU , “The Court of Appeals has also
made it clear that current Oregon law prohibits
any employer— whether public or private—
from discriminating in the workplace on the
basis of sexual orientation” (“Kudos to the
Court,” Dec. 18, 1998]. And as recently as last
spring, Just Out claimed Tanner v. O H SU was
responsible for "making it illegal for Oregon’s
private employers to discriminate (in the basis of
sexual orientation” (“Attorney Accolades,"
April 21,2000].
No wonder Deckcrt reports that “many of
my colleagues were at least surprised that you
still could he fired” just for being gay. According
to Just Out, the A CLU and others, the Oregon
Court of Appeals says you can’t.
Why is Deckert giving the Oregon Legisla-