05/09/2007
Oregon Governor Signs Historic Gay Rights Bills
Two bills, one that bans employer discrimination against gays and lesbians and another that offers same-sex partners some of the rights of married couples in the form of domestic partnerships, were signed into law by Oregon Governor Ted Kulongoski today.
Gay activists and supportive lawmakers have fought for 30 years to pass the laws, which go into effect on January 1st: "More than 100 people watched and applauded as the governor signed the bills on the west steps of the Capitol, including former governor Barbara Roberts, many legislators and dozens of gay rights activists."
Still not marriage, but a step in the right direction.
Posted 5:46 PM EST by Andy Towle in Discrimination, Gay Rights, News | Permalink
Like it?
Subscribe to FREE Towleroad daily headlines with our RSS feed!
RECENT STORIES:
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
All for the employment bill BUT the PArtnership Bill is an embarrasment...it does not even give STATE TAX BENEFITS and goes out of it's way to say how it in no way is a "union" let alone a marriage.
Posted by: MCnNYC | May 9, 2007 8:16:49 PM
The domestic partnerships are identical to civil unions. The name change is a strategy to help prevent it being repealed by a voter ballot measure. Any state sponsored benefits will help change minds and prejudices in the population. This country is not ready for same-sex marriage. The change is going to be gradual, but nothing will happen if we are too proud to settle for only everything at once.
It should also be noted that the domestic partnerships at least grant joint state tax filings.
Posted by: Oregon Student | May 9, 2007 8:58:20 PM
Let's try to be positive.
And hey, give Kulongoski some credit. He is totally for gay rights and has been trying since the beginning of his first term to get gay marriage passed in Oregon. Maybe this was a compromise, but it's still better than what Oregon had before, and it's better than a lot of states!
GO Ted!!
Signed,
A Proud Oregonian!
Posted by: devilgirl | May 9, 2007 10:49:20 PM
Actually, the Oregon bill does include joint state tax returns. This is similar to the situation in California, As far as retroactive tax breaks, that's for the judiciary to decide. In California, gay couples has generally won these court battles. For example, with regards to being shielded from tax reassessment if property is transfered from one partner to the other. Having DP in place as a means of verifying that a legally recognized relationship exists helps, it will be much easier for Oregonians to fight that battle than before.
It is the DP law in Washington State (which was enacted earlier this year) that does not allow joint filings.
But lets keep it positive. We can fix the remaining problems in the years to come. The West Coast (+ Hawaii) now recognizes same-sex unions. This creates another regional block, in addition to New England, that opposes the regressive social policies of the Bush administration. And that is worth celebrating...
Posted by: John | May 9, 2007 11:34:35 PM
Congratulations, but I don't buy the notion that domestic partnership is a more popular term than civil unions. In fact, polls indicate that civil unions have mainstream support and momentum, whereas the term domestic partnership has become antiquated, 1990's language. The trend is toward civil unions, not domestic partnerhips.
Posted by: Carlos | May 9, 2007 11:53:09 PM
Carlos,
There's a regional implication here that you do not appreciate. If you look at the map, most of the Civil Union states are in one area, and most of the Domestic Partnership states are in another (with the exception of Maine, which is an oddity).
Civil Unions is a Northeastern term, that was first devised by Vermont lawmakers, in response to a court ruling there. Whereas Domestic Partnership is a term that originated in the West. Arguing that Civil Unions are automatically "superior" (regardless of the actual benefits) only implies that lawmakers in western states must adopt New England terminology because they know what's best for everyone in America.
That sort of argument doesn't jive well with independent westerners. In fact, it's downright insulting. Until we get what we really want (one marriage law for everyone), we think the term Domestic Partnership works fine for our neglected "backwater", thank you very much.
Oh...and as two statewide Domestic Parntership laws (for 9.3 million folks) have been passed this year versus one Civil Union law (1.2 million folks), I'd say the "trend" bit is a bit premature.
Posted by: John | May 10, 2007 12:58:36 AM
Moreover, had the New Mexico legislature not blocked Gov. Richardson's proposal for (you guessed it ) domestic partnerships, that would be yet another Western state to opt out of using the term civil unions.
My point is not that civil unions are bad. Far from it. But there's an annoying tendency in the New York media (especially the AP and NYT) to make it seem like steadfast pro-gay allies like Ted Kulongoski are big weenies for not going for something higher in their imaginary hierarchy. In fact, the politics of Oregon are far more complicated than that, and the terminology they used is appropriate for the context. This is especially true in light of the fact that citizen-initiated referendums are far more common here than back east, and as I've pointed out above, the history of the words within this region.
Posted by: John | May 10, 2007 1:30:07 AM
Hey, we HAVE gay marriage already. You want to get married to someone of the same sex? Do it. You can have whatever ceremony you like... religious or non... Gay marriage is NOT up for straight people to decide... they can't stop it.
What IS up for debate are the rights that go with marriage... the CIVIL rights. Take the civil unions. In a few years, it will be called marriage, anyway. Americans are too lazy to deal with two different words for the same arrangement.
Posted by: Dean | May 10, 2007 3:21:12 AM
Once again, more good news for same sex couples. Domestic partnerships or civil unions provide more benefits and legal rights to those who are affected by this Oregon law.
'Oregon Student' (read above) provides excellent commentary regarding same sex unions and marriage.
Posted by: Stephen | May 10, 2007 7:18:20 AM
Sorry but according to the report on PBS News Hour the bill language includes SPECIFIC LANGUAGE on what it DOES NOT ALLOW.
OK so you can visit a "partner" and estate benefits but from the report it stated that state tax benefits were not covered.
Posted by: MCnNYC | May 10, 2007 10:34:01 AM
John, civil unions is just now an East Coast thing. In fact, even back in 2004, civil unions was the term used by Bush, Kerry, etc. to describe any recognition short of marriage. Journalists and politicians alike now commonly discuss non-marriage same-sex relationships as civil unions much more than domestic partnership. The term has credence in the West too. In fact, Hawaii's legislature discussed recognizing civil unions this past session.
Posted by: Jake | May 10, 2007 11:15:06 AM
John, civil unions is just now an East Coast thing. In fact, even back in 2004, civil unions was the term used by Bush, Kerry, etc. to describe any recognition short of marriage. Journalists and politicians alike now commonly discuss non-marriage same-sex relationships as civil unions much more than domestic partnership. The term has credence in the West too. In fact, Hawaii's legislature discussed recognizing civil unions this past session.
Posted by: Jake | May 10, 2007 11:19:08 AM
Wikipedia:
As used in the United States, the term civil union connotes a status similar to marriage for same-sex couples; domestic partnership, offered by some states and municipalities, generally connotes a lesser status with fewer benefits, though this may vary.
Posted by: Jake | May 10, 2007 11:22:04 AM