The 'Defense of Marriage Coalition' lies? Could it be?!
Mary Wendy Roberts, former Oregon labor commissioner, chimes in on an ad placed in the Oregonian by the so-called 'Defense of Marriage Coalition'.
As Oregon labor commissioner for 16 years, I enforced the state's anti-discrimination laws. Because of my extensive experience I must speak out against the misrepresentations of civil rights laws made in a recent half-page ad in The Oregonian, paid for by the Defense of Marriage Coalition.
Four "reasons" were presented to oppose Senate Bill 1000, the civil unions legislation that has passed the Senate and stalled in the House. I want to address the terribly misleading second reason the ad offers - although it's not the only one I found misleading. The coalition's statement implies that civil rights laws are only for defined minorities who then have special rights under the law. The is just not correct.
The ad claimed that SB1000 would give gays "the same minority status as African Americans." But Oregon civil rights laws do not confer "minority status" on African Americans or any other group. The ad is simply wrong and misleading and betrays either a complete ignorance of the law or a willful desire to be divisive and distort the truth. Anyone can read the laws in the public library, by going to the state civil rights division Web site or by getting a civil rights handbook from the Bureau of Labor and Industries and see this for themselves.
Oregon civil rights laws protect all Oregonians based upon sex, race, color, national origin (or descent ) or religion. No special status is awarded any particular sex, race, color, origin or religion.
The Bureau of Labor and Industries Civil Rights Division has and will accept complaints filed by a person of either sex. Likewise, the laws protect all Oregonians based upon race or color or religion regardless of whether any particular race or color is a minority or majority in this state.
SB1000 would add sexual orientation to the list, but since everyone has a sexual orientation, all Oregonians would be covered by the law and would have equal access to file complaints of unfair discrimination.
A heterosexual job applicant, for example, could not be discriminated against by a homosexual employer solely because of the applicant's sexual orientation. Currently, there is no protection under state law against such discrimination aimed at either heterosexuals or homosexuals.
In my experience, discrimination can occur against both. It can also occur based upon the perception and judgment (often wrong) about someone's sexual orientation. This discrimination would also be combated by passing SB1000.
Additionally, the advertisement's reason number 3, which is that SB1000 "violates separation of church and state by giving the courts and government the power to determine the primary purpose of the church or religious institution" is absurd on several counts. First, it does not change the current law in that respect, and second, the reason for the language is to ensure separation of church and state, not the opposite.
Current law allows an exception to prohibitions against discrimination of various kinds under certain circumstances -- such as when it is related to the primary purpose of the church or religious institution. The current law was written that way to limit the scope of discrimination laws where it might conflict with the primary purpose (i.e., religion ) of a church, synagogue, mosque or religious institution.
The civil rights laws against discrimination cannot therefore interfere when, for example, a church is selecting a minister or teacher of religious doctrines or beliefs, or morals. The church obviously can select a minister who meets their religious criteria, such as being of a specific faith, sex, marital status, age or any other qualifier.
In contrast, a church may not discriminate against a person on the basis of religion or race or sex when hiring a carpenter to make repairs on the church building because that job is not related to its primary religious function.
As readers must know, it is the courts, the judicial branch of government, that has always had the ultimate power to resolve constitutional issues. SB1000 does not change that.
I would hope readers will carefully review the facts and apply common sense when being presented with political ads, especially those that misrepresent the law.
If the ad cannot get that straight, how can you trust it to say what a proposed law would do?
Mary Wendy Roberts of Portland is a former Oregon labor commissioner.
As Oregon labor commissioner for 16 years, I enforced the state's anti-discrimination laws. Because of my extensive experience I must speak out against the misrepresentations of civil rights laws made in a recent half-page ad in The Oregonian, paid for by the Defense of Marriage Coalition.
Four "reasons" were presented to oppose Senate Bill 1000, the civil unions legislation that has passed the Senate and stalled in the House. I want to address the terribly misleading second reason the ad offers - although it's not the only one I found misleading. The coalition's statement implies that civil rights laws are only for defined minorities who then have special rights under the law. The is just not correct.
The ad claimed that SB1000 would give gays "the same minority status as African Americans." But Oregon civil rights laws do not confer "minority status" on African Americans or any other group. The ad is simply wrong and misleading and betrays either a complete ignorance of the law or a willful desire to be divisive and distort the truth. Anyone can read the laws in the public library, by going to the state civil rights division Web site or by getting a civil rights handbook from the Bureau of Labor and Industries and see this for themselves.
Oregon civil rights laws protect all Oregonians based upon sex, race, color, national origin (or descent ) or religion. No special status is awarded any particular sex, race, color, origin or religion.
The Bureau of Labor and Industries Civil Rights Division has and will accept complaints filed by a person of either sex. Likewise, the laws protect all Oregonians based upon race or color or religion regardless of whether any particular race or color is a minority or majority in this state.
SB1000 would add sexual orientation to the list, but since everyone has a sexual orientation, all Oregonians would be covered by the law and would have equal access to file complaints of unfair discrimination.
A heterosexual job applicant, for example, could not be discriminated against by a homosexual employer solely because of the applicant's sexual orientation. Currently, there is no protection under state law against such discrimination aimed at either heterosexuals or homosexuals.
In my experience, discrimination can occur against both. It can also occur based upon the perception and judgment (often wrong) about someone's sexual orientation. This discrimination would also be combated by passing SB1000.
Additionally, the advertisement's reason number 3, which is that SB1000 "violates separation of church and state by giving the courts and government the power to determine the primary purpose of the church or religious institution" is absurd on several counts. First, it does not change the current law in that respect, and second, the reason for the language is to ensure separation of church and state, not the opposite.
Current law allows an exception to prohibitions against discrimination of various kinds under certain circumstances -- such as when it is related to the primary purpose of the church or religious institution. The current law was written that way to limit the scope of discrimination laws where it might conflict with the primary purpose (i.e., religion ) of a church, synagogue, mosque or religious institution.
The civil rights laws against discrimination cannot therefore interfere when, for example, a church is selecting a minister or teacher of religious doctrines or beliefs, or morals. The church obviously can select a minister who meets their religious criteria, such as being of a specific faith, sex, marital status, age or any other qualifier.
In contrast, a church may not discriminate against a person on the basis of religion or race or sex when hiring a carpenter to make repairs on the church building because that job is not related to its primary religious function.
As readers must know, it is the courts, the judicial branch of government, that has always had the ultimate power to resolve constitutional issues. SB1000 does not change that.
I would hope readers will carefully review the facts and apply common sense when being presented with political ads, especially those that misrepresent the law.
If the ad cannot get that straight, how can you trust it to say what a proposed law would do?
Mary Wendy Roberts of Portland is a former Oregon labor commissioner.
This entry was posted
on Monday, August 01, 2005 at 10:26 AM.
Want to discuss? Leave a comment below.
» Post a Comment