MYTH:SB 1000 requires Oregon schools to teach on the subject of homosexuality
FACT:SB 1000 does not compel or recommend any sort of “gay” curriculum related to Oregon schoolsThis was never an accurate claim by opponents of the bill. However, in the interest of clarifying that point, all references to public education at the elementary and secondary level have been eliminated from the bill and amendments were made (see section 12) to explicitly state that “advisory agencies and councils may not recommend programs of education of elementary or secondary students relating to discrimination based on sexual orientation.”
MYTH:SB 1000 could force churches, religious schools or institutions to hire gay employees
FACT:SB 1000 does not infringe on the religious independence of Oregon’s faith community nor does it require churches, etc. to hire gay employees SB 1000 was amended twice, based specifically on the testimony provided to the Senate Rules committee by religious organizations and institutions, to address the concerns of some in Oregon’s religious community.SB 1000 provides churches and religious institutions in Oregon with the maximum amount of flexibility to discriminate based on sexual orientation in areas including, but not limited to: the ability to discriminate related to the employment of any employee of the church, even if a person’s job is not directly related to the mission of the church (such as a janitor), as well as settings such as religious camps, religious bookstores, religious thrift shops, religious day care centers, religious radio stations or religious shelters or any other religious activities other than commercial activities with no necessary relationship to a church or religious institution.
MYTH:SB 1000 creates “gay” affirmative action or “hiring quotas”
FACT:SB 1000 does not, nor was it ever intended to, require hiring quotas of gay employeesNevertheless, clarifying amendments have been made to remove all references to state affirmative action statues.
SB 1000 prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation in employment decisions, meaning that a qualified, competent employee can not be denied a job or promotion or be dismissed from employment solely because he or she is gay.
MYTH:SB 1000 violates Measure 36 by creating “marriage by another name”
FACT:Civil unions like those created by SB 1000 are not marriage and do not violate Measure 36.SB 1000 does not provide same-gender couples with access to the institution of marriage or all of its legal, social and cultural import. If SB 1000 becomes the law, partners in a civil union will continue to receive substantially fewer protections and responsibilities from their fellow Oregonians who are in a marriage, including a lack of portability, application of federal law relating to spouses and certain limitations in state law where federal and state statues overlap or interact.
State courts are increasingly finding that “domestic partner” and “civil union” laws DO NOT violate state “defense of marriage” statutes or amendments. California’s Supreme Court just held that a California law with a similar construction to SB 1000 did not violate its “Defense of Marriage” ballot measure approved by California voters several years ago.
In addition, proponents of Measure 36 claimed during the campaign that Civil Unions like those in Senate Bill 1000, which had existed for nearly five years at the time in Vermont and provided same-sex couples with similar protections and responsibilities to marriage, would be an option available even if the measure passed.
The Defense of Marriage Coalition’s own attorney, Kelly Clark, argued before the Oregon Supreme Court and testified before the Senate Rules Committee that Measure 36 did not preclude civil unions like in SB 1000, nor was it intended to preclude the legislature from enacting them.
MYTH:SB 1000 would harm the Oregon economy by making businesses vulnerable to “frivolous lawsuits” and forcing the state and private employers to benefits to partners of gay employeesFACT:SB 1000 has virtually no impact on Oregon businessA 2002 report by the General Accounting Office examined existing state non-discrimination laws related to sexual orientation and determined that anti-discrimination statutes like SB 1000 DO NOT lead to an increase in litigation and that “overall, the states’ data showed that relatively few complaints of discrimination in employment on the basis of sexual orientation were filed annually, whether measured in absolute numbers or as a percentage of all employment discrimination complaints under state law” says the report.
Cementing the point, several Oregon municipalities have had nondiscrimination ordinances in place for a number of years without any significant increase in litigation or hardship to business.
In addition, the vast majority of the private sector will not be impacted by SB 1000 with regard to health or pension benefits because those businesses are self-insured and governed by ERISA, which is federal law, and controlled by the Federal Defense of Marriage Act or because they offer no health benefits at all.
Many employers already choose to have a cost sharing arrangement with employees for their spouses and dependents and SB 1000 would not create a higher standard for the domestic partners of same-sex couples, also creating no additional cost.
Furthermore, common sense dictates that few companies that could be required to provide benefits employ such a large number of gay employees as to “overwhelm” the benefit system of the company itself as a result of the passage of this bill.
QUESTIONS? COMMENTS?Info via
BROPost by
Bryan Harding
