Oregon's Senate Bill 2, The Oregon Equality Act, Passes in Senate Concurrence Vote

A law to ban discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity passes final hurdle in the Oregon Legislature by a vote of 19-7.

(SALEM) - The Oregon Equality Act, Senate Bill 2, passed the Oregon Senate 19-7 today at 11:00 AM. Today's vote was a concurrence vote based on an amendment to the religious exemption that simply clarified the exemption.

Senate Bill 2 had previously passed the Senate by a vote of 21-7. All Senators present for today's vote that had previously voted yes, maintained their support.

"It's a proud day for the Oregon Senate and for all Oregonians. Senate Bill 2, which will end legal discrimination based on sexual orientation, is finally on its way to the Governor's desk for his signature. We look forward to addressing House Bill 2007 in the coming weeks, which will grant important rights and responsibilities to same-sex couples and their families through Domestic Partnerships," said Senate Majority Leader Kate Brown (D - Portland).

Immediately following the vote, Senator Brad Avakian (D - Beaverton) said, "Today, after 34 years, the Oregon Senate put an end to a great injustice. The Oregon Equality Act is good public policy that will protect all Oregonians from needless discrimination. I am gratified to have been a part of this historic effort."

Governor Kulongoski has expressed unequivocal support for SB 2, and is expected to sign it.

The second part of the Basic Fairness legislation, The Oregon Family Fairness Act (HB 2007) is expected to have its hearing in the Oregon Senate shortly. The Oregon Family Fairness Act would create Domestic Partnership for same-sex couples and would grant important rights, responsibilities and protections to same-sex couples and their families--similar to those that are currently only available through a marriage contract in Oregon.

Salem-News.com Top Stories

2025: Hope for the Best, Prepare for the Worst

Two Wars with No Way Out

No One Owns the Future

The Ugly Origins of Trump's America First Policy

A One-State Solution Could Transform the World

Comments Leave a comment on this story.

All comments and messages are approved by people and self promotional links or unacceptable comments are denied.

Albert Marnell April 22, 2007 8:12 pm (Pacific time)

Oregon Voter, Go to a leather SandM club and get it over with. Thou doth protest too much.

Oregon Voter April 22, 2007 1:42 pm (Pacific time)

and others realize that the only way the effeminate long-haired hippies on the loony left can debate when losing is to censor. The day will come when that may come back to haunt those who engage in that behavior...

Hank Ruark April 22, 2007 6:04 am (Pacific time)

To all: Can recommend for yr viewing the new-design ECONOMIST Magazine, produced in London with broad perspectives over whole world. Beats parochical view for those confined mostly to U.S. media, reflecting loss of our once-proud world leadership on so many key issues...ever since the Reagan rascals began open attack on or true American principles, for which we now paying painful price.

Hank Ruark April 22, 2007 5:43 am (Pacific time)

To all: For record, I read Voter same as Al does...disturbing deal to find such arrogance in direct conflict with solid vote of state representation. But that's because their cogitation leaves no room for 21st Century progress...see ongoing status of many major issues, on most of which that level of assumed stance is being exploded and destroyed on onrushing history.

Albert Marnell April 21, 2007 6:41 pm (Pacific time)

Oregon Voter, Do you have a better term for the assumption that Jews in Oregon are all well healed? Limit your tenant or employee pool, you only hurt yourself. I do not call hatred and ignorance of simple things like human sexuality "values". You are not concerned about legislative process, you are just phobic. May I suggest a book by Amy Bloom, called "NORMAL".

Oregon Voter April 21, 2007 6:07 pm (Pacific time)

was not stereotyping any group, actually you are the one doing that. SMAME ON YOU! And as far as your mother living with a man outside of marriage, well, so what. My purpose of posting on this matter dealt with how our legislators did an end run around the voters. If the vote in 2008 does not overturn this horible piece of legislation, I still will not rent or hire anyone who violates my values.

Albert Marnell April 21, 2007 2:24 pm (Pacific time)

Oregon Voter, I do not have a boyfriend. This is about domestic partners, which I also do not have. I would not mind a second income no matter how I get it. Two can live cheaper than one and the emotional support of another person, male or female can be beneficial to a general sense of monetary and emotional security.... not always, nothing is written in stone like the ideas in your head. My deceased mother lived with a man after my father died. They were able to work out and had access to laws that they could "customize" to their advantage. They could have gotten married if they wanted all financial and legal benefits of marriage. My mother did not want to remarry because she wanted control of her assets. Everyone is different. When I asked her if she secretly remarried, her exact response was, "I had one old a**hole tell me what to do my whole life, I do not need another." Also "You" have just harmed Jewish people with your statement which propagates the stereotype that all Jews are well off. I had the statistics years ago about who was what in the city of New York. The stats showed hundreds of thousands of low income Jews.

Hank Ruark April 21, 2007 1:14 pm (Pacific time)

O-V: Standard practice: 3-Shot Replies, then invite to private dialog-direct. Consider that done for you, ready to so engage as needed but off-channel, preserving all space-time-readings for others with something worth discussion. Goodby Please ! - unless you have guts enough to engage directly re word to Editor. Proof of dialog is in depth to which one can go...how deep you wanna dig ??

Oregon voters April 21, 2007 12:27 pm (Pacific time)

easily ignore those who decry racism or some other canard when all that is desired is a straight up and down vote. Which by the way has been done before here in Oregon on this recently passed legislation via an end run. November, 2008, the will of the people will prevail. As usual interlopers out of ballpark.

Hank Ruark April 21, 2007 9:00 am (Pacific time)

O-V: Yr obviously inane reaction expectable, but with 4 sons, 1 daughter, 60 yrs. "normal" (!) marriage, long family record, need only share some hundreds of family photos to disarm yr mean remarks completely. Re yr racist comment on what presumably is OREGONIAN impact that reflects its own light right back on your true face. IF you wish to ID-self and strip off that mask, we can continue this light (very !!) conversation directly - just send it to Editor.

Oregon voters April 21, 2007 7:21 am (Pacific time)

will have an opprotunity to vote on both these bills that discriminate on the majority. Perhaps the poster can offer some evidence where the jewish Oregonian has been harmed here in Oregon on an economic level? Maybe you should stay home with your boyfriend and rationalize whatever it is those like you rationalize. Obviously you do not care for the "true" democratic process: The citizen voting process!

Hank Ruark April 21, 2007 6:01 am (Pacific time)

To all: Speaks ill of our society when ANY vocal minority, ill-disposed towards others by well-recognized prejudice of ANY kind, must be coerced by our laws into the vital equal protections all are guaranteed via our famous Constitution. Byt that's why government exists --by full acceptance of all governed-- to make sure that equal protection is fully provided for all despite desperate aberration. Took a Civil War to set one such aberration right...and for some another one may be needed, yet, since some seem unable to accept principle of government by citizen-elected representatives.

Albert Marnell April 21, 2007 12:54 am (Pacific time)

Oregon Voter, as in One. Not anymore you can't. Smoke your own pole, get over it. What you are saying is that you think that you have a right not to rent to a person of color or hire someone because they are Jewish. You can try to do whatever you want but I do not know why even your wife would want to be around you. If you have an ax to grind, stay home and argue with her.

Oregon Voters April 20, 2007 5:43 pm (Pacific time)

Will have a vote on this matter in 11/08. Count onit. We do not need any laws that dicriminate on anyone, period. And yes, I rent only to those that I want to...and hire only those I want to. That is my right!

Sue April 20, 2007 2:20 pm (Pacific time)

Public Vote--because of narrow minded views like yours, we need legislation like this. Everyone needs to be protected...who knows which group will be attacked next? Maybe yours?

Hank Ruark April 20, 2007 10:47 am (Pacific time)

Al, P-C, et al: Yr right, guessin' is easy simply by using 19th Century content-and-tone clues left inevitably -- don't even have to whomp up "content analysis" methods from unmentionable working assignment. But if he gets jollies from that, better that than some other self-occupations, Al !

Albert Marnell April 20, 2007 10:31 am (Pacific time)

Public Vote, You really should use one nom de plume. I could easily guess your other names but do not want to get one of them wrong, but I for the most part, know who you are. Until legislation is specific, it historically has been legal to dismiss someone from a job, deny housing, call names (similar to the N-word) and so on, etc. You do not know what in the hell you are talking about and are certainly scared of change. No one really likes change unless they win a lottery ticket. I suspect that on almost all issues, you are stodgy. Enjoy "your" world, Archie Bunker!

Hank Ruark April 20, 2007 10:05 am (Pacific time)

P-Vote: Don't you find yourself just a bit uncomfortable behind that "anon"-name ? It assumes a level of sensibility perhaps offensive to many dissenters. IF you wish credibility, ID-self by name, as in any realistic face-to-face dialog, since that shapes up statement simply by fact of courage here enough to be known. Without that, you could be another voice of irrational, nonreasoning provocateurs now seeking only to prevent this wholesome decision by rest of us in Oregon.

Public Vote April 20, 2007 8:53 am (Pacific time)

The Oregon voter's will put an end to this completely unneccesary legislation that actually discriminates against the majority via another state (and final) vote. There are plenty of laws on the books to protect everyone as it is! This was nothing but an end run around previous votes and court decisions by weak and unethical legislators.

Albert Marnell April 19, 2007 9:46 pm (Pacific time)

The reality of the commonness of same sex attraction has to be made visible to the general public. This is one way of not only raising visibility but allowing people to work and live "unencumbered". This is a right which most people never even give a second thought. Maybe women understand better because historically many of them have been harassed in the workplace or elsewhere. Before the women's movement it was "tough luck" or some stupid remark might come from a dumb insensitive putz. Only people insecure about their own sexual orientation are threatened by that of others. Homophobia is listed as an unhealthy, irrational, defense mechanism.

[Return to Top]

Oregon's Senate Bill 2, The Oregon Equality Act, Passes in Senate Concurrence Vote

Quick Links

DINING

MUST SEE SALEM

AUCTIONS - APPRAISALS

CONSTRUCTION SERVICES

ONLINE SHOPPING

Advertise with Salem-News