Home | Contact Us | Senate Bill 2 | House Bill 2007 | Signup To Circulate | Contribute Login


To view the full text of House Bill 2007 click here (html or pdf)

 

House Bill 2007

Ordered by the House April 11
Including House Amendments dated April 11

This legislation creates new Oregon law establishing requirements and procedures for entering into a domestic partnership contract between individuals of the same sex.

It notes, “The legislative Assembly found – among other things – that Section 20, Article 1 of the Oregon Constitution has always enshrined the principle that all citizens of this state are to be provided with equal privileges and immunities under the laws of the State.” P1: 7-10

            • While this is the broad justification for the legislation, the Oregon Legislature regularly passes legislation truncating equal privileges and immunities; e.g., Minors cannot consume alcoholic beverages, they cannot marry, cannot enter into contracts; felons in prison can’t vote, and on and on. So the provisions cited in the Constitution can no more justify this reach than they can justify permitting 6-year-olds to create contracts.

            • I might point out that men and women who have reached their majority already have the same rights to marriage – any man can convince any woman to marry him regardless of the sexual preferences of either, so in that sense we all have the same privilege. What the legislature is creating here are new privileges.

They state further, “Legal recognition of marriage by the state is the primary and, in a number of instances, the exclusive source of numerous rights, benefits and responsibilities available to married individuals under Oregon law. Marriage is limited to the union on one man and one woman by section 5a, Article XV of the Oregon Constitution.” P1: 20-23

            • Note that they say marriage is the “exclusive source of numerous rights, benefits and responsibilities…” It is a matter of record that the citizens of the state of Oregon altered the state constitution recently to prevent the legislature from granting all the rights, benefits and responsibilities of marriage to any other union than one man and one woman. The legislature fully intends to eviscerate the spoken will of the people of the state by granting those rights, benefits and responsibilities available to married couples to non-married couples in a new creation – a ‘domestic partnership.’

“Without the ability to obtain some form of legal status for their relationships, same-sex couples face numerous obstacles and hardships in attempting to secure rights, benefits and responsibilities for themselves and their children. Many of the rights, benefits and responsibilities that the families of married couples take for granted cannot be obtained in any way other than through state recognition of committed same-sex partnerships.” P1: 5-10

            • Clearly this legislation is designed to erase any distinction between marriage and domestic partnerships other than in name. It is interesting how the argument is placed. ‘Some people don’t have the same rights and privileges…’ But again I point out that anyone over the age of 18 who is not already married can get married. We have a situation where there are some people who do not wish to avail themselves of these rights and benefits through marriage and so have had the legislature create for them another set of rules.

“Any privilege, immunity, right or benefit granted by statute, administrative or court rule, policy, common law or any other law to an individual because the individual is or was married, or because the individual is or was an in-law in a specified way to another individual, is granted on equivalent terms, substantive and procedural, to an individual because the individual is or was in a domestic partnership or because the individual is or was, based on a domestic partnership, related in a specified way to another individual.” P4: 31-36

“Any responsibility imposed by statute, administrative or court rule, policy, common law of any other law on an individual because the individual is or was married, or because the individual is or was an in-law in a specified way to another individual, is imposed on equivalent terms, substantive and procedural, on an individual because the individual is or was in a domestic partnership or because the individual is or was, based on a domestic partnership, related in a specified way to another individual.” P4: 37-42

“Any privilege, immunity, right, benefit or responsibility granted or imposed by statute, administrative or court rule, policy, common law or any other law to or on a spouse with respect to a child of either of the spouses is granted or imposed on equivalent terms, substantive and procedural, to or on a partner with respect to a child of either of the partners.” P4: 43 – P5: 2

“Any privilege, immunity, right, benefit or responsibility granted or imposed by statute, administrative or court rule, policy, common law or any other law to or on a former or surviving spouse with respect to a child of either of the spouses is granted or imposed on equivalent terms, substantive and procedural, to or on a former or surviving partner with respect to a child of either of the partners.” P2: 3-7

            • Together, these four statements grant every right available throughout our history only to married couples to domestic partners. Again, the legislature is imposing by fiat what the citizens of the state of Oregon sought to prevent by amending the Constitution.

            • Every Oregonian should be alarmed by this action. We live in a democratic republic. Every state that joins the Union is required to have a republican form of government. “Government by consent of the governed” is the core of how our civilization is organized, yet the Oregon legislature seems to see itself as an elite institution where the will of the governed is irrelevant. The move on the part of the legislative bodies to trample underfoot the expressed and unmistakable will of the people should make every citizen angry regardless of their position opposed or in favor of domestic partnerships. When elites consider themselves to be the smartest people in the room, they may well trample your issue underfoot on another occasion.

            • Elites are people who don’t have to learn from history; they don’t even have to learn from the people who sent them into office. In one fell swoop, the Oregon legislature has thrown aside all of human history considering the accumulated lessons learned as trash and bigotry. Prior to rushing into an unknown future reversing accumulated lessons learned through human history, there should be long and considered debate. We should never be afraid to move forward, but we must never move forward without looking out for where we are going. The Oregon legislature has poked its finger in the eye of the voters, and at the same time - without debate as to the consequences – enacted this revolutionary piece of legislation.