Landmark Anti-Discrimination Bills Clear the House
On votes of 35-25 and 34-26, the Oregon House today approved historic bills that will prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and establish domestic partnerships. From Speaker Merkley's office:
The Oregon Family Fairness Act, HB 2007, grants legal rights to same-sex couples who register their partnerships with the state. In Oregon there are nearly 500 rights afforded to opposite-sex spouses that same-sex couples either cannot obtain, or can only obtain through costly legal contractual agreements. The Oregon Family Fairness Act eliminates the need for expensive attorneys in favor of one simple contractual agreement....
The Oregon Equality Act, SB 2, prohibits discrimination against Oregonians on the basis of real or perceived sexual orientation. Under current law, gays and lesbians can be denied housing, employment and other public accommodations because of their sexual orientation. This bill strictly prohibits that practice except in certain closely defined religious circumstances. With this bill, gays and lesbians will enjoy the same level of protection afforded to all Oregonians.
Over the last three decades, attempts have been made to ban discrimination based on sexual orientation in Oregon . The first attempt, in 1973, failed in the House on a tie vote. More than two decades later in 1997, a similar bill passed the House by a two-thirds majority, but it died in the Senate. Last session, SB 1000 easily cleared the Senate but was never allowed a vote in the House.
“Today we took two great strides toward equality for all in Oregon ,” Merkley said. “We have made it clear that discrimination of any kind goes against what we as Oregonians stand for.”
The two bills now go to the Senate and then to Governor Kulongoski, who has said he will sign them.
|
April 17, 2007
Posted in in the news 2007. |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
2:45 p.m.
Apr 17, '07
When is the Senate taking this up?
I thought SB2 was a Senate bill and already cleared the Senate, or am I confusing it with just the Senate judiciary committee vote?
Apr 17, '07
From what I've heard, SB2 got modified a bit in the House and therefore must go back to the Senate for another vote.
Apr 17, '07
I am grateful that this has passed the Oregon House. I am also impressed that it passed by 35-25. It is not marriage, but it is a formidable step in the right direction.
However, this will not be the end. Expect to see religious zealots back again to overturn this in the next several election cycles. It is how they make their money, afterall.
3:40 p.m.
Apr 17, '07
Beyond the obvious (actual victims of said discrimination), this one is gratifying to all true civil libertarians.
It's long overdue, and provides a rare opportunity to be unreservedly proud of our progressive legislators.....
As Liberalincarnate sez, the vote wasn't even close.
Thanks gang.
4:07 p.m.
Apr 17, '07
It's a good day to be an Oregonian.
Apr 17, '07
To the wingnuts who are going to refer these bills to the ballot, or at least try to, I say one thing, "Go ahead, waste your money, seriously." The only delay might be if they sue on the basis of HB 2007 (the domestic partnership/civil unions bill) somehow violating Measure 36 but since Measure 36 only referred to marriage I doubt that argument will carry much, if any, legal weight.
For those of you who don't know, the process for getting a bill referred to the ballot, is spelled out in Article 4, Sec. 1 of the Oregon Constitution, which states "A referendum on an Act or part thereof may be ordered by a petition signed by a number of qualified voters equal to four percent of the total number of votes cast for all candidates for Governor at the election at which a Governor was elected for a term of four years next preceding the filing of the petition. A referendum petition shall be filed not more than 90 days after the end of the session at which the Act is passed." Source: http://www.leg.state.or.us/orcons/orcons.html. 4% of the total number of voters from last November is about 55-60,000 and they would likely have until the end of September to file a petition.
Apr 17, '07
Under current law, gays and lesbians can be denied housing, employment and other public accommodations because of their sexual orientation. This bill strictly prohibits that practice except in certain closely defined religious circumstances.
"Religious circumstances?" I dont understand. Doesnt that interfere with the "separation of church and state?"
And where are gays and lesbians being denied housing or employment? In today's society, you would think that would be front-page news. Besides, never once have I been asked my sexual preference on a job app, in an interview, or on a rental agreement. So how would they know?
4:54 p.m.
Apr 17, '07
Your post makes me chuckle at the thought of simply not calling the session to a close until next summer. Finish the work, but don't offically call for adjournment until the end og August 2008. (evil grin)
4:59 p.m.
Apr 17, '07
No, it means that a church organization can refuse to hire someone of another religious affiliation or is a non-heterosexual or someone renting a room in their house can refuse to rent their room to a lesbian. Just like a woman renting a room in her home can say no males in the ad.
This isn't a violation of church state separation.
But that won't stop the wing-nuts from screaming that this is an attack on religion, and the end of civilization... cats and dogs.. living together.. MASS hysteria!
5:03 p.m.
Apr 17, '07
Doesnt that interfere with the "separation of church and state?"
No. Had they not had those exemptions, they likely could have seen a suit about the separation of church and state. It was funny hearing that brought up by Republicans when I was down in Salem recently. I thought it didn't exist -- that's what we were told by the same sort of people when we went after prayer in schools.
Besides, never once have I been asked my sexual preference on a job app, in an interview, or on a rental agreement. So how would they know?
Many ways. It could be perceived from your attitude, speech, body movement, etc. My best friend was quite obvious once he was out of the closet both in his dress as well as his hand motions when talking.
It could be that you say something, in the case of the two lesbians who went on a vacation for their anniversary. And they happened to mention it was their anniversary (as anyone would do in such a happy occasion).
But it can be a perceived sexual orientation -- you may be straight as a highway in Texas, yet be perceived as gay by someone and discriminated against for it.
Apr 17, '07
Finally they ban discrimination in Oregon. Even if they wingnuts try to take it to the November election instead, they will probably have trouble getting it on the ballot. It happened up in Washington, they could not get enough signatures to put a repeal measure on the ballot and their anti-discrimination law was not challenged. Hopefully the same will happen here.
Apr 17, '07
If these bills were successfully referred to the ballot, when would that vote take place? Not November of this year, I would imagine.
Apr 17, '07
I would guess, based on the last precedent, Measure 30, that it would take place in January or so. I think the rule is that it must be held within 90 days after the signatures are verified, so if you give the SOS office two weeks from the end of September to do so, the election would have to be held sometime in mid-January.
Apr 17, '07
It is indeed a good day to be an Oregonian. I have cast over 4,000 votes on bills and resolutions in my brief service in the Oregon House. I hope to cast many thousand more over the next few years. Candidly, I don't remember most of them. But I will remember -- and celebrate -- these two votes today for as long as I live. It is a privilege to serve in this position -- and today it was a joy! BTW, if either of these bills is referred to the voters by initiative, the election to ratify (or overturn) the bill would be held at the next general election (ie Nov. '08) unless the legislature were to set a different date by law.
Apr 17, '07
One of the most important elements of this bill I feel is that it protects discrimination on the basis of real or perceived sexual orientation. This truly is a law that protects all Oregonians.
I have several friends have at times been perceived as gay simply because they exhibit some stereotypical characteristics of gay men in some situations. While none of my friends have experienced discrimination on this incorrect perception, I'm happy that protection exists for them.
Apr 17, '07
RE: The Referendum
In an email (found here) tonight from the Lake Oswego based "Restore America" they made a very candid statement to their supporters and claimed that THEY would be bringing this to the ballot--because the Oregon Family Council has not publicly announced that they would bring it to the ballot. Although I do remember when Nick Graham, Communications Director of the Oregon Family Council told reporters (after the House Committee vote on SB 2 last week) that "if they were going to bring one to the ballot, why not bring two?!"
Here is what "Restore America" said:
Apr 18, '07
Had they not had those exemptions, they likely could have seen a suit about the separation of church and state. It was funny hearing that brought up by Republicans when I was down in Salem recently. I thought it didn't exist -- that's what we were told by the same sort of people when we went after prayer in schools.
That was my point (it doesnt exist). Progressives are the ones that usually throw that argument out when it comes to religion and the government. Then all the sudden they are including religious exemptions in their legislation. Just struck me as odd, thats all.
Apr 18, '07
"From what I've heard, SB2 got modified a bit in the House and therefore must go back to the Senate for another vote."
That 'modification' was changing the term to Domestic Partnership from the former 'Civil Union' was it not?
10:29 a.m.
Apr 18, '07
No Keith, that's HB 2007. SB2 is non-discrimination. Not sure exactly what the change was, but the word is the Senate will pass it, whatever it was.
Apr 18, '07
I wish the domestic partner bill included opposite sex partnerships.
As someone in an opposite-sex relationship who doesn't want to take civil privlidges that same-sex relationships can't have, my partner and I haven't married. We were hoping to get a domestic partnership. Looks like we're left out.
If we get married, we get more rights than our gay friends and we have made a conscious decision not to do that.
11:54 a.m.
Apr 18, '07
The people of Oregon deserve people in office who respect their wishes, not those of a small minority who wish to impose their morality upon others...
One wonders if irony of that statement, coming as it does from the executive director of a group whose sole purpose is to codify it's own morality into Federal and State law, is completely lost on its author.
12:38 p.m.
Apr 18, '07
Actually, I wasn't saying the separation of church and state doesn't exist. I was being sarcastic -- the same people who told us that it didn't exist back when we were fighting prayer in school in the late 90s are the same using it as an excuse now.
12:44 p.m.
Apr 18, '07
And as I pointed out -- had they not included those exemptions, they could have been sued on the separation of church and state. The government can't tell churches how they can apply their beliefs. This is why they were careful in how they worded their religious exemption.
Religious exemptions are routinely made when something like this would tell a religious entity to do the opposite of their beliefs. It's the flip side of the separation of church and state.
Green Peas said:
If we get married, we get more rights than our gay friends and we have made a conscious decision not to do that.
That's wonderful you did that. Did you contact your state legislators and tell them this? I think right now their focus is on trying to provide rights to a group of people who have been denied those rights for so long. They may not even be thinking about people like you who have chosen not to participate in a legal union that discriminates against same-sex couples.
3:20 p.m.
Apr 18, '07
Then all the sudden they are including religious exemptions in their legislation. Just struck me as odd, thats all.
Religious exemptions are not being included "all of a sudden" in civil rights bills nor are they limited to gay rights. The landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964 also included religious exemptions.
Religion is one of the things that legislation protects. If you didn't include an exemption you could be in the position of requiring that your local synagogue give equal consideration to a Catholic the next time they want to hire a rabbi or your local MCC give equal consideration to a James Dobson acolyte the next time they look to hire a pastor.
Apr 18, '07
I was once fired from a job the Monday morning after my boss saw me with my wife at a weekend event.
I was once told I couldn't rent an apartment because I was not married to my male roommate and the landlord made an assumption about our heterosexuality.
I am not old enough for these things to have happened in a misty past.
8:04 a.m.
Apr 19, '07
And where are gays and lesbians being denied housing or employment? In today's society, you would think that would be front-page news. Besides, never once have I been asked my sexual preference on a job app, in an interview, or on a rental agreement. So how would they know?
Those who believe anti-LGBT housing and employment discrimination doesn't exist, simply because they haven't seen it in the news, could learn a lot starting here:
HRC Workplace Discrimination Project
Apr 19, '07
Mary Nolan: But I will remember -- and celebrate -- these two votes today for as long as I live. It is a privilege to serve in this position -- and today it was a joy!
I will remember and celebrate these two votes! I will because they effect me personally and profoundly. I thank you,all of your collegues, and the Governor. The Democrats of the House and Senate withstood an onslaught of opposition, standing up for all Oregonians.
I applaud the members of the House and Senate and I am truly proud to be a Democrat.
Beyond the truly significant importance of these bills to GLBT citizens who are truly a part of every thread of every fabric of our society, the passage of these bills sends a very clear positive message.
The message is that we need to continue move towards a brighter future. Oregon has taken an important step to move out of the darkenss and into the light. With so many urgent issues confronting us, we can now go forward to focus more clearly on the business of the people rather than focusing people's personal business.
8:58 a.m.
Apr 19, '07
And where are gays and lesbians being denied housing or employment? In today's society, you would think that would be front-page news. Besides, never once have I been asked my sexual preference on a job app, in an interview, or on a rental agreement. So how would they know?
There are a lot of Oregonians like Jon who don't have the slightest clue how being gay works in the real world and who aren't here on BlueOregon enlightening themselves. I think it's important that we don't forget that basic educational piece when we defend these laws against repeal.
Jon, are you married? Is your wife on your health insurance plan? Is she listed as your beneficiary on your work life insurance or 401k plan? Do any of your coworkers know her name? Have you ever mentioned her in a conversation at work or in a job interview? Do you go grocery shopping together, out to dinner or the movies together?
Of course, this antidiscrimination law will not prevent discrimination against gay people. Susan's employer didn't announce she was being fired for being gay. We've had laws against discrimination based on race for decades and yet that still happens. But at least we've gone on record that it's wrong and in the most egregiously obvious cases some remedies will be available.