Domestic partnership in Oregon
| Legal recognition of same-sex relationships |
||
|---|---|---|
| Same-sex marriage | ||
|
|
||
| Recognized in some regions | ||
| United States(MA) |
||
| International recognition | ||
| Israel United States(NY) |
||
| Civil unions and domestic partnerships |
||
|
||
| Recognized in some regions | ||
|
Argentina ( |
||
| Unregistered co-habitation | ||
|
|
||
| Recognition debated | ||
|
||
| Civil unions legal, same-sex marriage debated |
||
|
|
||
| See also | ||
|
Same-sex marriage |
||
In April and May 2007, following a previous attempt in 2005, the Oregon state
legislature passed legislation to make virtually all of the rights afforded to married couples available to same-sex couples. The
new status will be referred to in Oregon law as a domestic partnership, avoiding the use of the terms marriage or
civil union. Governor Ted Kulongoski signed the bill on May 9, 2007, and it is
scheduled to take effect on January 1, 2008.
History
On July 8, 2005, Oregon state senators approved legislation to allow same-sex civil unions. As originally written, Oregon Senate Bill 1000 would create civil unions and prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation in housing, employment, public accommodations and public services. [1] The vote at the state capitol in Salem was 19-10 in favor of the measure.
The Republican Speaker of the Oregon House, Karen Minnis, announced that she would not let the bill be passed. On July 21, the House performed a series of moves where the bill was amended, removing most of its language and replacing it with different text (seen by some to be a "gut and stuff"[2] maneuver). The new text of Senate Bill 1000 no longer contained language about sexual orientation, prohibition of discrimination, nor civil unions. Instead, it reaffirmed the recent state constitutional prohibition of same-sex marriage and proposed to create "reciprocal beneficiary agreements" [3]. "Reciprocal beneficiaries" could be any two people prohibited by law from marrying each other, such as a "widowed mother and her unmarried son," and would not have the rights and obligations of married persons, specifically excluding employer-granted benefits such as health insurance or retirement benefits. Reciprocal beneficiaries would be granted inheritance rights, and the power to make medical or financial decisions if the reciprocal beneficiary was incapacitated.
The changes effectively killed momentum to pass the bill, which died in committee.
However, after the November 2006 mid-term elections Democrats won a majority of the formerly Republican-controlled house[4], and in early 2007, Democrats re-introduced a bill in the House similar to the 2005 legislation. The bill adopted the term "domestic partnership" to describe these unions; the terms "marriage" or "civil union" were absent. This bill enjoyed a relatively easy passage through the legislature, when compared to its 2005 predecessor. Passed by the House on April 17, 2007 (by a vote of 34-26) and by the Senate on May 2, 2007 (by a vote of 21-9), Governor Kulongiski signed the Oregon Family Fairness Act on May 9, 2007. The law is not scheduled to take effect until January 1, 2008.
Differences in the legislation
Given the use of the term "domestic partnerships," the Oregon legislation is more in line with California's recognition of same-sex relationships, as opposed to the civil union legislation created in Vermont, Connecticut, New Jersey, and New Hampshire (Massachusetts is currently the only US state which sanctions same-sex marriage).
Like California, Oregon's legislation has no ceremony requirement. All marriage and civil union legislation require a ceremony, whether religious or civil, to be considered valid. In California and Oregon couples are only required to register their domestic partnerships through the submission of a paper form. Additionally, the Oregon statute contemplates that the domestic partnerships are only valid in the state of Oregon. All other marriage and civil union laws assume the validity of such relationships in every other jurisdiction. These changes may have been placed to avoid any conflict with the Oregon constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.
Failed attempt at a delay
Recently, an attempt to repeal these laws before they take effect failed to gather enough signatures. Such an effort, accomplished by a petition putting the laws to voter approval via a ballot question, would have delayed enforcement of the law to January 1, 2009.[5] [6] As of September 2007, groups challenging the amendment submitted approximately 63,000 signatures in favor of repealing the legislation; the minimum number of signatures required for a ballot question is 55,179. The Secretary of State's office has determined that less than 55, 079 of the signatures are submittable. [7]
See also
- Same-sex marriage in the United States
- Same-sex marriage legislation in the United States
- Same-sex marriage in the United States by state
- Same-sex marriage in the United States public opinion
- Same-sex marriage status in the United States by state
- List of benefits of marriage in the United States
- Defense of Marriage Act
- Marriage Protection Act
- Defense of marriage amendment
- Federal Marriage Amendment
- Domestic partnerships in the United States
- Freedom to Marry Coalition
- History of civil marriage in the U.S.
External links
- Concerned Oregonians, a group seeking to prevent Oregon House Bill 2007 (2007) and Oregon Senate Bill 2 (2007) from becoming law
- Basic Rights Oregon, a group committed to ending discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity in Oregon
This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-contributed encyclopedia. It may not have been reviewed by professional editors (see full disclaimer)
