Although New Jersey civil unions are a "magnificent advance" for same-sex couples, they're not living up to their legislative mandate to be the equivalent of marriage, according to Frank Vespa-Papaleo, the state's civil rights director and the chair of a commission on the new law. "To me as a commissioner, the testimony revealed overwhelmingly that the civil union law has been a failure," he said.

Read the whole story over here.

Labels: civil union, new jersey

This morning, New Hampshire Governor John Lynch signed a civil unions bill into law that grants same-sex couples the same rights and benefits of marriage. When the bill goes into effect in January, New Hampshire will become the 10th state in the nation, along with the District of Columbia, to provide at least some form of state-level relationship recognition for same-sex couples. Last month, the New Hampshire state Legislature passed the civil unions bill through the Senate by a vote of 14 to 10 and in the House of Representatives by a bipartisan vote of 243 to 129.

Labels: civil union, new hampshire

So I'm sitting here at the Capitol waiting for the hearing on Senate Bill 2 and House Bill 2007 to begin. I got here pretty early and was lucky to witness the "Youth Morality". It was quite disgusting. If they were a "shining example" of youth morality--it's pretty damn sad. These 16, 17 and 18 year old kids had no clue why they were there other than to be used as pawns by the Oregon Family Council.

They came by the hundreds with stickers that read SB 2 & HB 2007 with a big "X" through it. Many of them are wearing about 5 of those all over their bodies and some had "One Man. One Woman. Yes on 36" bumper stickers on their backs. It is quite disgusting. I wanted to say to them, "That was so three years ago". But the humor would have been lost on them for a number of reasons. The main reason being that 95% of them only spoke Russian. Another funny observation was that many of these people were not even of voting age. Half of them didn't know why they were there and the other half would say "fag" or "dyke" as people on our side of the argument walked by them (which is a bit unavoidable as they are all out in the galleria).

Another funny thing that I noticed is that these boys are wearing these anti-gay stickers all over there body-yet sporting Dolce & Gabanna from head to toe. Did I mention Senate Bill 2 would cover perceived or real sexual orientation? 'Nuff said.

And finally the sad reality of the night was that you know there were plenty of closeted young adults there who are dragged out by their parents or by their Russian Orthodox youth group. I truly feel sorry for them.

-G.S.

Labels: anti gay, anti-discrimination, civil union, domestic partnership, gay rights, HB 2007, legislature, oregon, SB 2

Today, New Hampshire's House of Representatives voted overwhelming to give gay couples nearly the same rights as married couples by voting 243 to 129 on Wednesday to allow civil unions for gays and lesbians.

The speculation is that the NH Senate will vote to approve the civil unions bill as well, which must be signed by Gov. John Lynch, a Democrat who has publicly expressed opposition to gay marriage and has not indicated if he will sign it into law.

New Hampshire would become the 4th state in the U.S. to offer civil unions--unless of course Oregon can beat them to the punch.

Oregon's HB 2007 (civil union/domestic partnership type bill) is making it's way through the process right now. The first hearing for the Oregon Family Fairness Act will be help this Monday, April 9th. The House is expected to pass the bill and the Oregon Senate is expected to pass it as well.

-GS

Labels: basic rights oregon, civil union, gay rights, legislature, new hampshire

Just a quick update. This morning we heard news that Senate Bill 2 (statewide anti-discrimination) and HB 2007 (would legally recognize same-sex relationships) will get hearings on Monday, April 9th at 5:30pm in the Oregon House Elections, Ethics and Rules Committee.

For a refresher: Senate Bill 2, which would ban discrimination based on sexual orientaion (straight & queer) passed the Oregon Senate Judiciary Committee by a 3-1 vote. It later moved to the Oregon Senate and passed 21-7. Now it is moving to the House, and House Bill 2007 that would grant a number of rights similar to that afforded to staright couples on the state level via marriage, will get its first hearing, then will move on to the Senate for a yay or nay vote.

More to come on Monday.

-GS

Labels: basic rights oregon, civil union, discrimination, gay rights, HB 2007, legislature, oregon, SB 2

Since introduced in Oregon on February 26th, Senate Bill 2, The Oregon Equality Act--a bill that would outlaw discrimination based on sexual orientation is moving quickly. It had its Senate hearing just 15 days later on March 13th, passed through the Senate Judiciary Committee after 6 hours of public testimony, and now is looking to find its place on the Oregon Senate floor any day now.

In the other chamber, House Bill 2007 (Civil unions) are moving at a different pace. After talking to a few staffers in Salem this week it sounds as if HB 2007, the Oregon Family Fairness Act (civil unions) will get its first hearing in early April, the house will vote out SB 2 and then send Hb 2007 on to the Oregon House for a vote, then it's on the Governor Kulongoski for two big fat signatures.

Loves it.

-G.S.

Labels: civil union, discrimination, legislature, oregon, SB 2

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.

So it sounds as if the anti-discrimination will originate in the Oregon Senate and the "relationship recognition" will start off in the Oregon House.

Continued:

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.

So there you have it. It is offical. Senate Bill 2 and House Bill 2007.

Labels: basic rights oregon, civil union, discrimination, HB 2007, oregon, SB 2

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.

Read the rest over there.

Labels: basic rights oregon, civil union, discrimination, 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

Via 365gay.

Same-sex couples in New Jersey will be able to enter civil unions beginning Feb. 19 under legislation signed Thursday by Gov. Jon Corzine, but how many couples will take advantage of the new law remains unclear.

Many gay and lesbian couples in the state say the new law is only a step toward full marriage rights. Garden State Equality, New Jersey's largest LGBT civil rights organization says it believes marriage will be legalized within two years.

One couple, Donna Harrison and Kathy Ragauckas, of Asbury Park, have been together for nine years. They told the Associated Press on Thursday they're disappointed the legislature did not legalize marriage but say they will probably get a civil union certificate anyway.

"Although I think they provide some benefit, it is a different treatment of human beings," she said.

The legislation came about as a result of an October ruling by the New Jersey Supreme Court that same-sex couples should have access to the same rights and benefits as married couples. Whether to call those rights marriages, civil unions or something else was left up to lawmakers.

The legislature opted for civil unions. The bill passed the New Jersey Legislature last Thursday afternoon.

It offers couples who register most state benefits and protections currently available to opposite-sex couples, including the right to health insurance through a partner's employer.

But it does not provide any of the benefits of marriage under federal law, and it still could cost same-sex couples more than marriage couples for health insurance.

Corzine said he had some concerns about the new law.

Like laws involving marriage mayors are not obligated to conduct civil union ceremonies. Corzine said he is worried some mayors will use the provision to refuse to unite gay couples.

Already a number of mayors have warned they won't take part in civil unions. Legal experts have told the governor that although mayors can refuse to perform ceremonies if they conduct marriages but refuse civil unions they could be prosecuted under the state's human rights law.

The law contains a provision establishing a commission that will investigate how civil unions fall short of marriage and report back to the legislature in six months.

Lambda Legal, which represented same-sex couples in the legal battle that led to the new law, is also setting up a monitor on how the law is applied.

Lambda on Thursday announced it is launching 'Civil Union Watch'.

"The law isn't even in effect yet and already we're seeing news reports of mayors planning to discriminate against same-sex couples," said David Buckel, Senior Counsel at Lambda Legal and lead attorney on the lawsuit.

"In the two years that the domestic partnerships have been in place we've seen the hardships faced by some same-sex couples, and we're prepared to continue to help couples navigate the pitfalls of a government-sanctioned second-class status," he said.

Buckle also noted that for New Yorkers, it might be better to legally marry in Canada than cross the river to New Jersey for a civil union.

"Outside New Jersey, it might surprise same-sex couples in New York to know that they may be far better off taking a plane to Canada to get married than hopping a train to New Jersey for a civil union. In New York there has been widespread respect for same-sex couples' marriages entered in Canada, but far less respect for civil unions putting couples who are seeking protections at greater risk for hardship," Buckel said.

Same-sex marriage is legal only in the state of Massachusetts and is limited to residents of the state and of Rhode Island.

New Jersey is the third state to legalize civil unions after Vermont and Connecticut. California has a domestic partner registry which provides some of the state benefits of marriage. The California Supreme Court will hear arguments next year in a case involving same-sex marriage rights.

Labels: civil union, new jersey

After the New Jersey civil unions bill passed both chambers last Thursday, New Jersey's Governor, Gov. Jon Corzine, said today that he is concerned about some of the aspects of the new civil unions bill that was expected to be signed this week. He is concerned, but not in a negative way.

Some mayors have expressed that they will not recognize civil unions. Like laws involving marriage mayors are not obligated to conduct civil union ceremonies. Corzine said he is concerned some mayors will use the provision to refuse to unite gay couples.

Legal experts have told the governor that although mayors can refuse to perform ceremonies if they conduct marriages but refuse civil unions they could be prosecuted under the state's human rights law. Gov. Corzine Monday said he still has concerns.

Corzine said Monday he expected that review to be completed by Thursday. It offers couples who register most state benefits and protections currently available to opposite-sex couples, including the right to health insurance through a partner's employer. BUT it does not provide any of the benefits of marriage under federal law, and it still could cost same-sex couples more than marriage couples for health insurance.

The bill also contains a provision establishing a commission that will investigate how civil unions fall short of marriage and report back to the legislature in six months.

If the New Jersey Legislature would have passed marriage equality in the first place, the state wouldn't need to waste so much time and money "investigating" how civil unions fall short of marriage.

Labels: civil union, marriage, new jersey

The discriminatory bill is 63 pages long all to avoid the one word that does the job - marriage.

At the conclusion of the New Jersey Assembly Judiciary Committee hearing today on Assembly Bill A3787, a civil union bill, the members voted to send the measure to the full Assembly for a floor vote.

Lambda Legal, the organization representing plaintiffs in a lawsuit which resulted in the New Jersey Supreme Court decision in October, called the measure discriminatory.

"If passed, this huge civil union bill will become one of the largest forms of statutory discrimination ever created by the New Jersey Legislature," said David Buckel, Marriage Project Director at Lambda Legal and lead attorney on the New Jersey marriage lawsuit. "The discriminatory bill is 63 pages all to avoid the one word that does the job--marriage."

"There can only be one reason for this bill, and that is to say that same-sex couples' relationships are unworthy of marriage. The Court gave the legislature 180 days to do it right-let's not rush and do it wrong," added Buckel.

In its October decision the New Jersey Supreme Court unanimously found that same-sex couples in New Jersey must have equal protection under the law and be granted the rights and responsibilities of marriage, but gave the legislature the opportunity to correct the violation. If the legislature chose civil unions over marriage, the Court left open the question of whether or not that choice would be constitutional, reasoning that the legislature should have the chance to explain its decision. The Court's deadline expires on April 23, 2007. Garden State Equality organized an array of constituents to provide testimony at today's hearing.

via Lambda Legal

Labels: civil union, new jersey

Oregon House Democrats have been quoted a lot lately about the issue of granting civil unions to same-sex couples. On election night this year, Speaker-elect Jeff Merkley stated "This is an opportunity for us to present a wonderful agenda on healthcare, on prescription drugs, a full school year for children, biofuels, and a real conversation about civil rights and civil unions". Most recently in today's Oregonian, Dave Hunt, our new House Majority leader laid out a couple of the issues that will be their top priority in the 2007 legislative session. Brad Cain's article titled, "Civil unions, other issues, back on Ore. lawmakers' agenda", says it all. For a refresh on the 2005 bill that would have allowed for civil unions and an omnibus statewide anti-discrimination policy click here for prior extensive coverage by this blog.

Here it is:
But various interest groups, from gay rights organizations to environmental activists, worked to help the Democrats regain the majority in the House in the Nov. 7 election. They're ready for their issues to be high on the Legislature's agenda as well.
Chief among them will be a renewed push for civil unions legislation.

With strong backing from Democratic Gov. Ted Kulongoski, a civil unions measure to open up to same-sex couples hundreds of benefits available only to married couples won approval in the Democrat-run Senate in 2005.

But House Speaker Karen Minnis and other GOP leaders refused to bring the bill to a House vote, arguing that would thwart the will of Oregon voters who approved a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage in the November 2004 election.

With help from Basic Rights Oregon and other gay rights groups, Democratic challenger Rob Brading came close to knocking off Minnis in her own re-election campaign in the Nov. 7 election. But civil union backers succeeded in their next-best goal of helping Democrats win the majority in the House.

"We set out to help re-elect Gov. Kulongoski, to keep Karen Minnis from returning to the House speaker's office, and to create a pro-equality majority in the House - and we succeeded in all three things," said Basic Rights spokeswoman Rebekah Orr.

This past week, House Majority Leader-elect Dave Hunt said civil unions legislation will be brought to a vote in the House this time because he thinks most Oregonians support the idea.

"We are not talking about bringing up divisive issues," the Milwaukie Democrat said. "We're trying to follow positions that we think are very much supported by a majority of Oregonians on education, health care, public safety and civil rights."

Labels: civil union, oregon

A new poll sheds insight into the national opinion of gay unions and how there is a rising trend in support over the past two years.

Most adults in the United States believe same-sex partnerships should be legally acknowledged, according to a poll by Opinion Dynamics released by Fox News. 30 per cent of respondents think gays and lesbians should be allowed to legally marry, while 30 per cent support a similar legal partnership that should not be called marriage.

Conversely, 32 per cent of respondents believe there should be no legal recognition to gay and lesbian relationships.



In 2004, marriage certificates were issued to same-sex couples by local governments in the states of California, Oregon, New Mexico and New York. In May 2004, the state of Massachusetts allowed gay and lesbian partners to apply for marriage licenses, the first state-sanctioned homosexual weddings in the U.S.

Civil union and domestic partnership laws in Vermont, Connecticut and California grant same-sex couples all state-level rights and obligations of marriage—in areas such as inheritance, income tax, insurance and hospital visitation. There are more than 1,000 federal-level rights of marriage that cannot be granted by states.

On Jun. 7, a proposal to enact a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage failed in the Senate after a 49-48 vote. On Jul. 18, a House of Representatives effort to constitutionally prohibit any form of marriage other than one "between a man and a woman" fell 46 votes short of the 289 required to pass.

Over the past two years, 19 American states have enacted amendments to define marriage as the union between a man and a woman. Seven more approved similar measures after statewide ballots on Nov. 7.

On Nov. 8, Matt Foreman, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, expressed satisfaction with the victories of Deval Patrick and Eliot Spitzer, saying, "Massachusetts and New York voters have elected in overwhelming landslides the first two governors ever who support marriage equality for same-sex couples. These historic victories show that support for full equality for our families is not a negative but something voters are willing to embrace enthusiastically."

via Angus-Reid

Labels: civil union, marriage, poll