There's a sexual orientation anti-discrimination bill and a civil unions bill circulating in Salem at the moment. They're getting the usual flak from religious groups, of course, who would hate to have to share valuable rights with lesser people. And God forbid a church might have to hire a filthy homosexual to do clerical work or something. (Or, at least, one that isn't keeping it in the closet.)
I know I've gone on and on about this before, but -- why are so many gays willing to settle for civil unions? There's no reason for the state to legislate differences between people of different sexual orientation. They don't need their own set of special laws. There's not a special almost-marriage for the handicapped or something. If it all boils down to religious concerns, then why is it okay for the government to be involved in marriage in the first place?
Good points. But Did You Know: Oregon state regulations already say that an “employer may not refuse to hire or promote or bar or discharge from employment or discriminate in compensation, terms, conditions or privileges of employment because a person is transsexual when the person is otherwise qualified.” OR. ADMIN. R. 839-006-0206.
See my blog on the Oregon bill at the Transgender Workplace Diversity blog at http://jweissdiary.blogspot.com
There's also a bill circulating in Washington, and news today is they both passed. Advocates don't see "domestic partnership" or "civil union" bills as equal to marriage. They believe this is the first step to getting full rights, and sends a message to the federal government that the state supports civil rights for gay/lesbian/trangender people.
It's definitely a step in the right direction. I don't mean to be a total pessimist about it. As you've said to me privately, this has been a good week for gay rights.
They're settling for it because some rights are better than no rights. It's not as though if gay activists just held out for more they would soon get whatever they wanted. In most states, insisting on marriage or nothing would mean they get nothing. The principles at stake are obviously important, but there are practical considerations too. The right to inherit, the right to hospital visitation, these are hugely important immediate concerns for a lot of people. They shouldn't be accused of abandoning their principles for supporting civil union legislation.
Do you think that civil union legislation will cut the legs out from under future efforts for full marriage rights by taking some of the pressure off? In other words, is it a momentum builder (taking this step in the process makes it easier to make the next step), or a momentum stopper (legislating the same rights under a different name reduces it to a semantic argument that fewer people without a direct stake will care about)?
Ahhh, it's all true, get off my case. Like I said, it's a step in the right direction. I'm just not getting the impression that everyone's in it for total equality.
This might stem from an interview we did at KEZI with a homosexual community leader who promised that civil unions wouldn't infringe on good ol' straight marriage. I wanted to bust in and say "Hey, wait a second -- why are you okay with being a second class citizen? Why is segregation a good thing for your people?" But of course I'm only the director, I can't do that kind of thing.