During last year's heated campaign over an initiative banning gay marriage, there seemed to be a fall-back position that both sides agreed on: civil unions.

The legal arrangements, pioneered five years ago in Vermont, allow same-sex couples to claim the benefits and privileges of marriage without a marriage license. Gay-marriage opponents regarded civil unions as a viable alternative to marriage, while supporters grudgingly acknowledged them as a better-than-nothing Plan B should the Measure 36 same-sex marriage ban pass - which it did.

Politicians - averse to alienating any constituent group - saw civil unions as a way to extend certain rights to gays and lesbians without offending the cultural and religious sensibilities of others.

But this week promises to expose just how polarized activist groups and some politicians remain regarding gay rights and same-sex couples. The Senate Rules Committee has scheduled a hearing Wednesday evening on Senate Bill 1000, Gov. Ted Kulongoski's bill that bans discrimination based on sexual orientation and extends the rights and benefits of marriage - but not the institution itself - to same-sex couples through the creation of civil unions. The bill was sponsored by two Republican and two Democratic senators.

By the time the hearing convenes, conservative Republicans in the House hope to have a bill of their own in circulation, which offers an alternative to civil unions. The proposal, which could be in bill form by Tuesday, would allow any two unmarried adults who cannot marry - sisters, a gay couple or a grown man caring for his aging mother - to arrange for "reciprocal benefits."

The proposal's chief architect, Rep. Dennis Richardson, R-Central Point, said he hopes to have the bill ready for a hearing the second week in May.

The two bills' treatment of rights and benefits for nonmarried adults differ starkly.

The reciprocal-benefits proposal is limited to 18 benefits, according to a draft document provided by Richardson. Among them would be preferential hospital visitation privileges, protection from eviction from a shared home upon the death of a partner, the right to inherit a deceased partner's assets if a will was not drawn up, and the right to make medical and end-of-life decisions on a partner's behalf. To view the differences between reciprocal-benefits and civil unions please click here.

The civil union legislation extends hundreds of benefits, rights and privileges - all of which Oregon law currently affords to married couples - to same-sex couples. Beyond those in the reciprocal-benefits proposal are entitlements to such financial benefits as worker's compensation if a partner is disabled or killed on the job and pension benefits. Legal rights include immunity from testifying against a partner, and counseling and mediation services, which are offered by circuit courts upon dissolution of a marriage.

For Kathy Flynn and Becky Hanson, a Cottage Grove-area lesbian couple, there is little question that they'd rather have stayed married in the eyes of the court. They've been partners for 15 years and formalized their union last March with a marriage license from Multnomah County, which briefly issued such licenses to about 3,000 same-sex couples before a court ordered it to stop.

Then in November, voters passed a constitutional ban on same-sex marriages with a 57 percent majority, and the state Supreme Court ruled last month that those Multnomah County marriage licenses were never legally valid.

Like many lesbian and gay couples, Flynn and Hanson said it's difficult to be enthusiastic about civil unions in the wake of Oregon's brief period of allowing same-sex marriage.

"The civil union doesn't really embrace or address the social and religious community connotation that goes along with the word `marriage,' " Flynn said. "We were laughing about it earlier. We can say, `We're married.' But how do you say, `We're civil-unioned?' "

Social and religious connotations aside, though, Hanson and Flynn see civil unions as a practical solution to legal inequality.

Hanson retired as a captain after 27 years with the Eugene Police Department and Flynn is a sergeant on the force.

The lack of marriage or civil union rights put Flynn and Hanson on unequal footing with married cops and their opposite-sex spouses.

"I often thought about that when I was working. If I should die, Kathy would have had to sue the state in order to inherit my spousal benefits from a memorial fund, and now I'm in the same predicament if she were to die," Hanson said. "And it really doesn't seem fair, particularly when we're out there risking our lives every day for the community."

The right to spousal survivor benefits would be extended under the Legislature's civil unions bill, but not the reciprocal beneficiaries legislation being drafted.

Richardson said it was important not only to limit benefits to avoid granting to same-sex couples "marriage by another name," but also that beneficiary rights be limited mainly to legal issues, such as end-of-life decisions and how to pass on assets if one person dies without a will.

Allowing partners to file a joint tax return or receive a deceased partner's pension benefits are intentionally left out, he said.

"What we have with reciprocal benefits is a list of specific issues of fairness that would apply to any couple that's not married regardless of sexual orientation," he said, later adding, "but if it's going to start costing the government or employers, the House is not willing to go that far."

Senate Democratic Leader Kate Brown of Portland sharply disagrees with the notion that civil unions amount to "marriage by another name" for gays and lesbians.

She cites documented statements during the Measure 36 campaign by gay-marriage foes, such as a quote in the Bend Bulletin newspaper of Oregon Family Council official Tim Nashif saying, "Same-sex couples should seek marriage-like rights through another avenue, such as civil unions."

"We're going to hold Mr. Nashif's feet to the fire," Brown said. "He said he didn't oppose civil unions and it's my understanding that Measure 36 did not prohibit civil unions."

Brown said she suspects Measure 36 was specifically written to allow civil unions because backers worried it would fail to win a majority if it banned both marriage and civil unions, as more far-reaching initiatives such as one passed in Kansas did.

Nashif could not be reached for comment. Oregon Family Council Executive Director Mike White said that while Measure 36 didn't ban civil unions, Kulongoski's bill goes beyond what the initiative's supporters had in mind, and amounts to gay marriage.

"The term `civil unions' didn't have a framework. Nobody actually knew what we were talking about," White said. "The things that they brought up during the campaign were like visitation rights in hospitals, property rights, those types of issues. And we were saying, `OK, we agree that there's fairness for those families to have access to some of those benefits.' Reciprocal benefits actually provide that."

But that's not how Flynn and Hanson see it as they wait for Salem to decide what, if any, rights and privileges same-sex couples are entitled to.

To Hanson, the push for reciprocal benefits instead of civil unions "feels like a betrayal from conservative groups. They want to shut the door completely on any recognition or acknowledgement of a same-sex relationship."

As reported by: By David Steves, The Register-Guard

This entry was posted on Monday, May 02, 2005 at 3:35 PM. Want to discuss? Leave a comment below.