Gay Marraige a Big Subject this Legislative Session

Observers on both sides of the issue agree that with the political dynamic as it is, Oregon could very well become the fourth state in the nation to approve civil union legislation for same-sex couples.

(SALEM) - In a debate that will play out against a complex backdrop of politics and religion, Oregon lawmakers will delve into the emotionally explosive issue of gay rights this session. With no fanfare, legislation that would confer same-sex couples with some of the rights and protections afforded to married couples was introduced in the Oregon House of Representatives Monday, on the final day for lawmakers to introduce new bills this biennium.

Proponents say Oregon's political landscape has never looked better for bringing Vermont-style civil unions to the state. Critics, meanwhile, worry that with Democrats, now in control of both houses of the state Legislature, might try to sidestep Measure 36, which voters in 2004 overwhelmingly approved to limit marriage constitutionally to a union only between one man and one woman.

Outlined in House Bill 2007, the proposed civil union law is built on the recommendations of Gov. Ted Kulongoski's Task Force on Equality. The Democratic governor has made passage of a civil union bill one of his priorities this session, his spokesman said.

Among other things, the proposed law would require registered same-sex couples to be Oregon residents. Couples would simply enter into a contract recorded with the state to be recognized.

A similar bill passed the state Senate 19-10 in 2005, but former House Speaker Karen Minnis, R-Wood Village, after a protracted debate in the Senate, refused to allow a vote on the measure in the House.

This year, observers on both sides of the issue agree that with the political dynamic as it is, Oregon could very well become the fourth state in the nation to approve civil union legislation for same-sex couples, joining Vermont, Connecticut and New Jersey. Only one state, Massachusetts, allows gays to marry.

Nick Graham, communications director for the Oregon Family Council, said while there is a possibility that the Legislature could ultimately approve a civil unions bill this legislative session, it is too soon to speculate how expansive the bill might become.

Clearly, we are concerned, he conceded. We have a challenge ahead, but it's not one we think is insurmountable.

He added, Every legislator in Salem is going to weigh our concerns against those of everyone else in the discussion. Also introduced Monday was legislation that would prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity.

House Speaker Jeff Merkley of Portland is throwing his political muscle behind both of the gay rights bills, which Monday he said are essential to ending discrimination of gays and lesbians.

I will do everything I can to see that we pass these fundamental human rights," the Portland Democrat said. Even so, the politically powerful Oregon Family Council will fiercely oppose any legislation that would amend Oregon's marriage laws to give "special protections" to gays and lesbians, Graham warned.

"We just don't believe that sexual orientation should qualify as a minority class under Oregon law," he said. "We need to keep this (discussion) out of the realm of marriage." More palatable than civil unions, Graham said, would be the idea of extending reciprocal benefits, to couples who cannot legally marry, regardless of their sexual orientation. Under such a system, as is in Hawaii, registered couples have limited protections under the law, including hospital visitation rights and the ability to make medical decisions on behalf of an incapacitated partner.

Salem-News.com Top Stories

Two Wars with No Way Out

No One Owns the Future

The Ugly Origins of Trump's America First Policy

A One-State Solution Could Transform the World

rewilding LA: Matilija Dam History and Ecosystems

Comments Leave a comment on this story.

All comments and messages are approved by people and self promotional links or unacceptable comments are denied.

It's 2007 June 4, 2007 1:55 pm (Pacific time)

I feel there are to much prejudices in this world, people that judge others are wrong. I see nothing wrong with same sex marraige. People have the right to live thier lives they way they want. If two people love each others men n men, women n women then fine let them live, every one deserves to be happy. You know people are so quick to judge gays and lesbians, not knowing what happened to them in their life for them to turn to same sex relationshitps and even if nothing happened to some one so what. This is 2007, get out of the old days, it's time for change. Get use to it.

Dear Laura March 1, 2007 9:45 am (Pacific time)

The sickness ends when you get an education on human sexuality and stop introducing comparisons that have nothing to do with anything. You need to take about 20 college level courses on human sexuality and other psychology courses. Psychotherapy may help you also. In your emotional state I would suggest staying away from religion. "Thou Shalt Take Up Serpents" might put you over the edge.

Laura March 1, 2007 7:33 am (Pacific time)

What's next, the right to marry kin or offspring? Where does this sickness end.

To: Raven February 28, 2007 4:59 pm (Pacific time)

The issue is not a priority to YOU! If it is not such a big deal, let's get over it and move onto other issues. Just because the majority speaks does not mean that they have the right to disenfranchise a group of people. If the people of Oregon feel that child labor is ok, should it be permitted? The issue of separation of Church and State has nothing to do with gay marriage. As a matter of fact since we have separation of church and state, "god" must be kept out of public schools and "gay marriage" should not be influenced by religious organizations of any kind, despite the fact that many gay people are very religious. Get your thought process straight. I know people that are only married so that one spouse gets to keep the health or other financial benefits through the other spouse. Can we dispell this syrupy myth of the wonderful traditional family and get real? In the traditional family, women had no rights, children were frequently beaten, adultery by the male was accepted....that is your wonderful traditional family. Let's build a new definition on love, respect for children and common goals not to mention the emotional support that a group of more than one can bring. It does not matter if it is two men or two women. I have gone to a gym for years and you should hear how men and women really feel about their spouses in most cases....the whole concept is a sick joke from a past era.

Raven February 28, 2007 3:58 pm (Pacific time)

It is sad the our governor chooses to try and push through something the voters of Oregon has already spoke their mind on. This issue is a non priority in this state and country. We work hard to push gay marriage and yet you can't say the word "god" anywhere near a classroom or everyone goes nuts. We need to get our priorities straight as a society.

Great Idea February 28, 2007 11:18 am (Pacific time)

People should never be allowed to divorce. This way very few people will ever get married and the ones that hate each other can bump each other off or die from overdoses.

Albert Marnell February 28, 2007 11:11 am (Pacific time)

Defend marriage against what? The bottom legal line is that people are still living in the dark ages and want to use the trickery of technicalities in the legal system to oppress another group and keep the benefits for themselves. This is no different than slavery. Slavery was created by laws. Forget all of the technical stuff and get to the bottom line of backward non-scientific thinking, research and blockheadedness. What is so special about marriage? Half of my class from high school divorced. My parents only used each other for the financial benefits and social benefits of marriage and they had children only because everyone else was doing it. I am sure that they also had children so that when they got old they would have a back-up-valve of ombudsmen to take care of them. My disdain of religion comes from what my grandfather saw in the trenches of WWI plus my own intuition and observation of the page by page contradictions and conflicts among religious people. I will not debate this one. On this one there are two opinions, my opinion and the wrong opinion. Children historically were used to work the farms, that is why there is summer vacation. They were also used by the rich to pass on assets and names; all egocentric related things. The notion of having a child for emotional satisfaction did not begin until the 20th century. How satisfying was it? I am sure the responses would vary.

FactCheck February 28, 2007 2:08 am (Pacific time)

"Special protections." I wonder if that was Graham's term, or an editorial comment by the Salem News reporter? The reporter also included this inaccuracy in the article: Critics, meanwhile, worry that with Democrats, now in control of both houses of the state Legislature, might try to sidestep Measure 36, which voters in 2004 overwhelmingly approved to limit marriage constitutionally to a union only between one man and one woman. The problem with that is, of course, that those lobbying for Measure 36 expressly represented to the voters that they should view Measure 36 as a "fair" or "appropriate" prohibition against same-sex marriages because the legislature could always go back and pass civil union legislation. That little fact seems to have been conveniently forgotten by both Graham and the reporter. See this: http://www.basicrights.org/downloads/news/The Defense of Marriage Coalition on Civil Unions.pdf “Same-sex couples should seek marriage-like rights through another avenue, such as civil unions.” Tim Nashif, Oregon Family Council Director and an organizer of the Measure 36 campaign Bend Bulletin 8/20/2004 “If same-sex couples need legal protection, they should consult their legislative representatives. If they need legislation to do that, no one is going to stand in their way.” Defense of Marriage Coalition Executive Director Mike White Lincoln City News Guard 11/10/2004 “Gay and lesbian couples are free to pursue marriage-like rights via a different avenue, such as civil unions that have been approved in Vermont.” Defense of Marriage Coalition Spokesperson Georgene Rice Deschutes County Bulletin 9/30/2004 “The Coalition’s amendment did not preclude the state of Oregon from creating civil unions, so that same-sex couples could have the same rights as married heterosexual couples.” Defense of Marriage Coalition Spokesperson Georgene Rice The Dalles Chronicle 9/30/2004 “The notion that civil unions by definition would be unequal is without merit because civil unions become what you make them.” Defense of Marriage Coalition Spokesperson Georgene Rice Oregon Public Broadcasting 10/2004 “The coalition set out to defend marriage, and now we have an amendment that does that.” Tim Nashif, Oregon Family Council Director and an organizer of the Measure 36 campaign AP 11/22/2004 “Oregon’s measure was written specifically not to address civil unions.” Tim Nashif, Oregon Family Council Director and an organizer of the Measure 36 campaign Bend Bulletin. 11/6/2004

the Devil; February 28, 2007 2:05 am (Pacific time)

hmm, very interesting. They tried it with me too!,I saw the president of the Bible school I attended cross a double yellow line making an illegal left turn instead of procceding to the corner, in a white two door early 70's Buick Electra for God's sake! I was very impressionable., I started looking for a new line of work, and read the book on my own! They don't call me the Devil for nothin'!, we got to play our own rythem and blues! How are they doin' down in Colorado Springs?, there's one they can't blame on me! I hear he's going to publish anothe book, "Teddy Bears It All", and market them in his old palace bookstores, on DVD too! I already know what happened, so I can tell you it's pretty dull stuff., but don't believe me.,just read the news! oh,I'm terribly sorry to digress from the article.

Albert Marnell February 27, 2007 11:19 pm (Pacific time)

I know and have spoken to the heads of groups that use the word "Family" in their description of themselves. This is just a "cover-up-term" for a lack of basic knowledge of human sexuality, a subliminal propagation of conservative religious views and bottom line are just poorly informed hate groups. You can call yourself the "The Family Coalition of Christian Philanthropists" and be nothing more than a proselytizing "Hate Group". I always say, "Do not get fooled by euphemisms." People that get on these band wagons are frightened of the unknown or something in themselves. I have never met an emotionally healthy, bright or truly scientific "homophobe". No disrespect but I also have never met a truly bright (by my standards) religious person; gay or straight. I spent 12 years in private Christian schools. Despite the daily multiple attempts at brainwashing by 14 I started to strongly reject the fantasies and archaic beliefs of my early faith. A child should not be exposed to religion. If an adult wants to engage in Christ worship or Devil worship that is their business. It should be illegal to expose a child to religion. May Allah be with you! I do not believe in that stuff either. Get off it! Grow up; when you die the worms eat you. Most licensed Funeral Directors do not believe in God. I have asked enough of them; not one honest "yes" yet.

[Return to Top]