Civil Unions
Background Information

The Issue
Senate Bill 1000 is a comprehensive bill designed to address two areas of basic rights and discrimination in the State of Oregon. If passed, the bill would:

• Create civil unions for committed same-sex couples that provides them and their families with all of the benefits, protections and responsibilities generally afforded to opposite-sex couples through marriage.
• Enact a statewide non-discrimination bill that would prohibit discrimination in housing, employment, public accommodation, public services and education on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity in Oregon.

About the Bill
What Does Civil Union Legislation Do?
A civil union is a legal status conferred on committed, same-sex couples that provides these couples and their families with all of the benefits, protections and responsibilities generally afforded to opposite-sex couples through marriage.

What is SB 1000?
SB 1000 is a bill to allow committed same-sex couples to enter into civil unions, which provide them and their families the approximately 500 benefits, protections and responsibilities generally afforded through marriage to opposite-sex couples in the State of Oregon.

Why is SB 1000 Necessary?
In November 2004, Oregon voters approved a constitutional amendment that prohibits same-sex marriage. The passage of this measure removed from same-sex couples the possibility of legal marriage in Oregon. Click here to go to our Civil Unions action page to send your message >>

Background
Same-sex couples and their families—without the establishment of a legal relationship to one another—lack the critical protections that support married couples and their families in times of crisis, allowing them to care for one another and helping keep their children and families safe from harm.

While there are a limited number of protections that can be obtained through contracts and legal arrangements, these options are costly and fall short of the full spectrum of protections families require, including:

• The right to take bereavement or sick leave to care for a partner or a partner's child
• The right to choose a final resting place for a deceased partner
• The right to obtain wrongful death benefits for a surviving partner and children
• The right to transfer property and assets from partner to partner if she or he doesn't have a valid will
• The right to obtain joint health, home and auto insurance policies
• The right to enter joint rental agreements
• The right to get an equitable division of property in a divorce
• The right to have joint child custody, visitation, adoption and foster care
• The right to file joint tax returns

Oregonians Strongly Support Civil Unions
Oregonians demonstrate strong support for the comprehensive protections and legal recognition available through civil unions over the limited protections provided through a reciprocal beneficiary. In fact, polling of Oregon voters conducted in November 2004 by both Hart Research and Decision Research suggests that the Defense of Marriage Coalition, Oregon Family Council and others are wrong when they claim that the creation of civil unions violates the will of Oregon voters who approved Measure 36, therefore reciprocal benefits are the “reasonable compromise.”

Of those Oregon voters who supported Measure 36, a majority–57%–agree with allowing gays and lesbians to enter into civil unions, but not marriage. Measure 36 supporters were asked to clarify whether they were more supportive of:

A) Civil unions that provide ALL of the same protections and responsibilities of marriage to same-sex couples, or
B) A system that provides just SOME of the protections

In response, voters indicated, by a margin of nearly 10 points, that they more strongly support civil unions that provide ALL of the protections and responsibilities of marriage to same-sex couples.

Governments Across the Country are Addressing Basic Rights
Civil unions are already legal in Vermont and Connecticut. Additionally, the states of Hawaii, Montana, New York, and New Mexico are all considering civil union bills this legislative session. Click here to go to our Civil Unions action page to send your message >>

What alternatives are being offered by the opposition?

Reciprocal Benefits legislation
The Oregon Family Council, Defense of Marriage Coalition, and house conservatives have introduced a "Reciprocal Beneficiaries" bill in the Oregon house. This bill is an attempt by religious extremists to appear "moderate", to undermine any real chance at fairness for same-sex couples, and to dominate the terms of this debate by making civil unions look too extreme for Oregon. Supporters of Reciprocal Benefits say that their bill addresses "legitimate issues of fairness" for same-sex couples. However, the reciprocal beneficiary legislation differs significantly from civil unions:

• While civil unions provide roughly 500 rights and protections, the Reciprocal Benefits bill would provide only a handful of rights (most of which can already be achieved through contracts).
• While civil unions seek to recognize committed same-sex relationships and create a lasting family unit, reciprocal benefits legislation devalues these relationships by offering same-sex couples a status that would also be available to two siblings, roommates, parents and children, or two widows.

With the introduction of the Reciprocal Benefits bill in the Oregon house and the passage ofSenate Bill 1000 in the senate, pressure will mount to negotiate and compromise. A bill that provides all the benefits, protections and responsibilities of a civil union (Senate Bill 1000) is essential to ensuring that committed, same-sex couples have the ability to enter into a civil status that allows their families to be treated equally under the law.

The Medford Mail Tribune has published an interesting opinion piece on why reciprocal benefits are a poor substitute for civil unions.

How the Oregon Family Council has gone back on their word
The Oregon Family Council, while campaigning for Measure 36, told voters they would not oppose civil unions. But when an earlier version of SB 1000 was introduced to allow civil unions, the council sent out an email alert urging their supporters to oppose this bill as "extreme" legislation. The Oregon Family Council claimed (once again) that basic protections under the law for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered Oregonians would require schools to teach the "gay lifestyle," employers to hire based on quotas, religious institutions to go against their faith and employers to defend themselves from "frivolous" lawsuits that would leave them bankrupt. Contrary to what the polls show (see above), they even said that SB 1000 thwarts the will of the voters who approved Measure 36.

Click here to go to our Civil Unions action page to send your message >>

What They Said
Below are some statements made by leaders of the Oregon’s Defense of Marriage Coalition (DOMC) and Oregon Family Council while they were seeking a Yes vote from Oregon Voters on Measure 36. Back then DOMC leaders clearly stated that the vote was not about civil unions, and even suggested they would be open to civil union legislation to provide same-sex couples with the benefits of marriage.

Here is what they said then:

“Same-sex couples should seek marriage-like rights through another avenue, such as civil unions.”
Tim Nashif, Oregon Family Council Director and an organizer of the Measure 36 campaign, Bend Bulletin, 8/20/2004

“If same-sex couples need legal protection, they should consult their legislative representatives. If they need legislation to do that, no one is going to stand in their way.”
Defense of Marriage Coalition Executive Director Mike White, Lincoln City News Guard, 11/10/2004

“Gay and lesbian couples are free to pursue marriage-like rights via a different avenue, such as civil unions that have been approved in Vermont.”
Defense of Marriage Coalition Spokesperson Georgene Rice, Deschutes County Bulletin, 9/30/2004

“The Coalition’s amendment did not preclude the state of Oregon from creating civil unions, so that same-sex couples could have the same rights as married heterosexual couples.”
Defense of Marriage Coalition Spokesperson Georgene Rice, The Dalles Chronicle, 9/30/2004

“The notion that civil unions by definition would be unequal is without merit because civil unions become what you make them.”
Defense of Marriage Coalition Spokesperson Georgene Rice, Oregon Public Broadcasting, 10/2004

“The coalition set out to defend marriage, and now we have an amendment that does that.”
Tim Nashif, Oregon Family Council Director and an organizer of the Measure 36 campaign, AP, 11/22/2004

“Oregon’s measure was written specifically not to address civil unions.”
Tim Nashif, Oregon Family Council Director and an organizer of the Measure 36 campaign, Bend Bulletin, 11/6/2004

Now that measure 36 has passed, the same groups are saying something very different:

"We would be against any measure that takes all the benefits of marriage and then calls it something else. We don't think Oregonians had that in mind when they passed Measure 36."
Tim Nashif, Oregon Family Council Director and an organizer of the Measure 36 campaign, Bend Bulletin, 4/15 2005

"This is gay marriage in disguise. Kulongoski and his fellow Democrats trying to force their radical agenda on Oregonians."
Representative Jeff Kropf, Register Guard, 4/14/2005

“SB 1000 takes everything that marriage is and calls it civil unions."
Tim Nashif, Oregon Family Council Director and an organizer of the Measure 36 campaign, The Statesman Journal, 4/17/2005

"The provisions of SB 1000 are a direct affront to the vote of the people on Measure 36.”
Rep. Dennis Richardson, The Statesman Journal, 4/17/2005

“First, marriage was never intended as a means to access rights. I believe that degrades the institution. The rights and benefits associated with marriage are a byproduct, designed to recognize and encourage the contribution and strength traditional families make to society.”
Tim Nashif, Oregon Family Council Director and an organizer of the Measure 36 campaign, Oregonian, 4/17/2005

“If civil union status is granted, there will be no turning back. The liberals and homosexual-lesbian coalition will have won and the people’s vote in favor of traditional marriage will have been effectively nullified.”
Representative Dennis Richardson, in an e-mail to other House Republicans

“Please understand there is no greater threat to marriage right now than civil unions.”
Oregon Family Council Communications Director Nick Graham, in a letter to supporters 4/26/05

Click here to go to our Civil Unions action page to send your message >>

Links for Additional Information
For the latest news about SB1000, visit the Basic Rights Oregon website.

A smoke screen in the House: ‘Reciprocal benefits’ are a poor substitute for civil unions’ fairness, an opinion piece published in the Medford Mail Tribune on May 8, 2005, explains why reciprocal benefits are a poor substitute for civil unions.

A press release by Governor Ted Kulongoski introduced the first civil union bill (SB 1000). This bill also contained anti-discrimination legislation.

The Human Rights Campaign Marriage Center provides a variety of resources related to marriage equality for same-sex couples including answers to common questions and concerns such as: Why do same-sex couples want to marry?”; "Why aren't civil unions enough?"; "I believe God meant marriage for men and women. How can I support marriage for same-sex couples?"; "Can't same-sex couples go to a lawyer to secure all the rights they need?"

Take Action
Oregon legislators need to hear from you, in your own words, that you support the fairness that civil unions would bring. Click here to go to our Civil Unions action page to send your message >>