Gay Rights Bill Passes Oregon House

FoxNews.com ^ | Wednesday, April 18, 2007 | A/P

[Salvation]

Gay Rights Bill Passes Oregon House

Wednesday, April 18, 2007

SALEM, Ore. —  Same-sex couples would receive the same benefits as married couples, and gays and lesbians would be protected against discrimination under bills approved Tuesday by the Oregon House.

The Senate is expected to pass the two bills and plans to sign both.

The first bill would enable same-sex couples to enter into contractual relationships that grant them the same benefits offered to married couples under state law. The bill refers to the relationships as "domestic partnerships."

Oregon would join Vermont, Connecticut, California and New Jersey in offering civil unions or domestic partnerships to same-sex couples. Massachusetts allows gay couples to marry. Hawaii extends certain spousal rights to same-sex couples, along with cohabitating heterosexual pairs. The Washington Legislature last week approved a limited domestic partnership bill that's expected to be signed into law soon.

-snio-

An opponent of the bill, state Rep. Dennis Richardson, said a fairer approach would be to allow a more limited range of marriage-style benefits to two people who live together.

The other bill that passed Tuesday would ban discrimination against gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgendered people in employment, housing and access to public accommodations. -snip-

[Salvation]

Where are the conservatives in Oregon?

[Wormwood]

Damn activist legislatures.

[Salvation]

**-snio-**

Oops — snip

[napscoordinator]

No marriage though!!!!!

[Salvation]

Catholic Discussion Ping!

Please notify me via FReepmail if you would like to be added to or taken off the Catholic Discussion Ping List.

Where are the Catholics in Oregon?

[Salvation]

Oregon Ping

Please notify me via FReepmail if you would like to be added to or taken off the Oregon Ping List.

Any thoughts or comments?

[Harrius Magnus]

“Where are the conservatives in Oregon?”

Um, I’m living in Charleston, South Carolina. I visit at holidays, though?

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

Amazing the lengths people on a pale blue dot will go to in order to deny reality. No one is born homosexual and no one is owed respect for this nasty behavior. “Because I want it to be true” doesn’t make it so. Pigeon legislatures and their flim-flam leaders do not change reality either. They may put pressure on those still in touch with reality, but they can’t change reality.

[Wormwood]

No one is born homosexual and no one is owed respect for this nasty behavior.

No one is born a member of any church, and yet we have laws against religious discrimination.

[CheyennePress]

Activist legislature is right. And it just shows that you pretty much have to amend the Constitution all the way to keep a bunch of activist Rats from taking matters in their own hands.

As you may remember, Oregon in 2004 used a voter initiative to amend the state constitution that marriage remained between a man and a woman. Leave it up to the legislature to scrum up whatever they could and act against that notion.

[Wormwood]

As you may remember, Oregon in 2004 used a voter initiative to amend the state constitution that marriage remained between a man and a woman.

Never really was a fan of direct democracy. Neither were the Founders, as I recall.

Something about mob rule.

[CheyennePress]

Granting someone state recognition for a sham marriage is hardly the same thing as a right.

I see no reason whatsoever to change the traditional meaning of marriage and rip the whole connotation of child-bearing and child-rearing aspect out of it to pacify a group of people who have proven over and over again that they don’t really want to marry anyway. See Sweden on that one. The vast majority of gays don’t marry. Those that do average 8 sexual partners outside of marriage, anyway.

On top of that, they don’t produce kids (and why then do they deserve tax credits?).

I say this as someone who has lived with gay roommates and who has been the only straight guy in the house. Who has been to gay bars/clubs/bookstores (until I finally just got to the point where I’d seen enough perversion, screwed up lives, and the like). Nothing against gays as people, but it’s a wholly unhealthy lifestyle the lead in that community. Doesn’t seem to matter where you are.

[Inspectorette]

This is a hoot - my brother-in-law, a life-long knee-jerk Democrat, is outraged by this. He's very conservative on social issues, but thinks he has to be a Dem because the Republicans "are only for the rich".

I have sweetly called to his attention that the Dems may have at one time been the party of the ordinary working man or woman, now they are the party of the radical gays, tree-huggers, PETA types, and every grievance group that comes down the pike. He's grudgingly starting to get the drift.

I had a lot of fun with him a few months back when the "OreGROANian" published an editorial proclaiming our small coastal city "gay-friendly".

[Salvation]

**As you may remember, Oregon in 2004 used a voter initiative to amend the state constitution that marriage remained between a man and a woman. Leave it up to the legislature to scrum up whatever they could and act against that notion.**

I remember — but obviously the Oregon house does not!

[Inspectorette]

Sheesh - I’ve got “double post-itis” this morning! Sorry about that!

[Theodore R.]

There are fifteen or twenty living along the ID border!

[the808bass]

No one is born a member of any church, and yet we have laws against religious discrimination.

Does a lack of provision for homosexual marriage qualify as "discrimination"?

[Theodore R.]

Nor would the voters of OR be able to remember either.

[Theodore R.]

I suspect that there is also a lot of “R” support for this in liberal OR.