Labels: entertainment, ragan fox
Basic Rights Oregon officially announced that today the Oregon Legislature introduced two pieces of legislation. One would be a civil union/domestic partnership bill. The other would be a statewide anti-discrimination law that would outlaw discrimination in employment, housing, public acommodations etc.
From BRO:
Two pieces of vital legislation were introduced today, together aimed at ending discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity in Oregon. These bills, HB 2007 and SB 2, implement the recommendations of the Governor's Task Force on Equality – a diverse committee of business, clergy and civil rights advocates from across Oregon. The Task Force invested seven months in assessing current Oregon law, analyzing applicable legal precedent, and listening to public testimony at open meetings across the state. Based on this process, the Task Force recommended action on both anti-discrimination and relationship recognition legislation this legislative session.
House Bill 2007, the Oregon Family Fairness Act, would:
Create a new Oregon law to legally recognize the committed relationships of same-sex couples and their families. While this legal recognition is not the same as marriage, it would confer on same-sex couples certain legal protections, rights and responsibilities similar to those generally afforded to opposite couples through marriage.
Senate Bill 2, The Oregon Equality Act, would:
Amend Oregon's existing non-discrimination laws to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation in housing, employment, public accommodation, education and public services statewide.
Currently, there is nothing in state statute making it illegal to evict a good tenant, deny a patron service at a restaurant or refuse to hire a qualified candidate just because of a person's real or perceived sexual orientation. While non-discrimination ordinances have been successfully implemented in a handful of Oregon cities and counties, this has resulted in an inconsistent patchwork of laws across Oregon.
Labels: basic rights oregon, civil union, discrimination, HB 2007, oregon, SB 2
Now that the U.S. Congress is in a much better state, a state in which it actually serves its citizens, anti-gay hate crimes in addition to emplyment non-discrimination are likely to pass in 2007. A major step forward for fairness for the nation. This would be the first major pro-equality bill in a long while to pass through Congress.Labels: bush, discrimination, gay rights, hate crimes
A great editorial from today's Oregonian set off by Portland City Commishioner Sam Adams' lawsuit file in conunction wiith Basic Rights Oregon. The Oregonian calls for civil unions and anti-discrimination legislation in '07.
From OregonLive.com:
Gay? Breaking up is harder to do
A lawsuit filed by City Commissioner Sam Adams showcases the need for civil unions and basic fairness
For obvious reasons, the push for equal treatment of gays and lesbians has mainly highlighted happy-ever-after stories. Almost from the beginning, though, reality has protruded through the shimmer of the fairy tale.
Just last summer, in fact, Julie and Hillary Goodridge split up. The seemingly storybook-perfect couple, who won the right to marry in Massachusetts after 20 years of living together, changed their minds after only two years of wedded nonbliss. Sadly, their lawsuit against the state proved more successful than their marriage.
What does that say about same-sex marriage? The same thing your neighbor's divorce says about opposite-sex marriage: Nothing. No grand conclusions can be drawn from any family's breakup. What may surprise many people, however, are the added burdens gays and lesbians in Oregon face when their romantic partnerships do dissolve.
Labels: basic rights oregon, civil union, discrimination, gay rights, lawsuit, oregon
Yesterday, Basic Rights Oregon with Portland City Commissioner Sam Adams and his former partner, Greg Eddie filed a lawsuit.At a press conference this morning, Basic Rights Oregon announced the next step in its effort to advance basic fairness through Oregon's courts.
Former Domestic Partners Greg Eddie and Portland City Commissioner Sam Adams joined Basic Rights Oregon Co-Chair Jim Morris, along with legal advisor Mark Johnson, to announce the filing of the fourth in a series of lawsuits based on the 1998 Oregon Court of Appeals Tanner v. OHSU decision.
This suit, together with the three previous cases, are necessary to address the discrimination faced by gay and lesbian Oregonians as a result of the state's failure to come into compliance with Tanner. "Bringing a lawsuit is never a first choice," said Adams. "But we both feel strongly that basic fairness is a cause worth fighting for – not just for ourselves but for all gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Oregonians who face discrimination each and every day."
In Tanner, the court ruled that the protections of Oregon's constitution extend to gay and lesbian families and that the state could not disfavor them based on their inability to marry. Under the statutes that govern Oregon's Public Employee Retirement System, when a married PERS employee divorces, a court has the clear right to order PERS to divide the retirement account between the divorcing parties. Such divisions are in fact common between divorcing couples.
"Because Adams and Eddie are unable to divorce - having been barred from marrying - their right to divide Adams' PERS account is denied. Their suit therefore contends that the PERS statutes are unconstitutional, and asks the Multnomah County Circuit Court to grant the litigants the same protections that the law grants couples who were allowed to marry," said Johnson.
"Divorce is an unfortunate but crucial legal protection for many Americans," remarked Eddie. "Whether straight and married, or same-sex partners, the process of dissolving a long-term relationship is always difficult. And we believe that the state has an interest in assisting all divorcing couples to do so as equally and fairly as possible. At the end of our 11-year partnership, we went through the arduous process of dividing all of our joint assets 50/50. But with Sam's retirement - we hit a brick wall."
Labels: basic rights oregon, gay rights, lawsuit, oregon
Legislation that would replace Vermont's landmark civil union law with same-sex marriage was introduced Wednesday at the State House.
The bill is sponsored by Rep. Mark Larson (D) and has 32 house members and 10 senators as co-sponsors.
"After seven years of civil unions, this is simply the right thing to do," Larson said in introducing the legislation.
The measure is similar to one Larson put forward last year but failed to gain support.
The legislation, Larson said, would do three things. First, it would give same-sex couples the right to marry. Secondly, it would allow clergy to refuse to perform a same-sex marriage if it violated their religious beliefs. Thirdly it would convert civil unions already performed into marriages.
In 2000 the Vermont Supreme Court ordered the legislature to recognize the rights of same-sex couples. The debate over civil unions opened up major rifts across the state, but sponsors of the gay marriage bill said the proposal is expected to move much more slowly.
If the measure passes and if Gov. Jim Douglas signs it, Vermont would become the second state to permit same-sex marriage. Connecticut and New Jersey allow civil unions.
Connecticut is also going for full marriage equality-as is California for the second year in a row. California's Legislature passed AB 849 last session but the Governor vetoed the historic legislation.
Labels: california, civil union, legislature, marriage, vermont
Wow. A very strange way of going about social change.
An initiative filed by proponents of same-sex marriage would require heterosexual couples to have kids within three years or else have their marriage annulled.
Initiative 957 was filed last month by Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance. That group was formed last summer after the state supreme court upheld Washington's ban on same-sex marriage.
Under the measure, marriage would be limited to men and women who are able to have children. Couples would be required to prove they can have children in order to get a marriage license, and if they did not have children within three years, their marriage would be subject to annulment.
All other marriages would be defined as "unrecognized" and people in those marriages would be ineligible to receive any marriage benefits.
Supporters must gather more than 224,000 valid signatures by July 6 to put the initiative on the November ballot.
According to the group's Web site, organizers hope that the supreme court will strike down the initiatives as unconstitutional, weakening the basis for the same-sex marriage ban.
"And at the very least, it should be good fun to see the social conservatives who have long screamed that marriage exists for the sole purpose of procreation be forced to choke on their own rhetoric," it says.
Labels: ballot measure, constitutional amendment, washington
Labels: discrimination, heroes
"If you're looking for the straight scoop on gay rights, this is the site for you. With grace and compassion, this relentlessly up-to-date blog examines the gay rights news of the day and looks at how it impacts the real lives of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender Americans--with minimal fluff, minimal frills, and no apologies." - About.com
"With determined young men and women like the ones of Gay Rights Watch working hard to inform themselves and others, the future of our community looks bright, particularly in their home state of Oregon."
-The Human Rights Campaign
