Earlier this year, Governor Ted Kulongski formed the Task Force on Equality to study the need for civil unions and/or anti-discrimination protections for gay and lesbian Oregonians, and to recommend legislative answers. Not surprisingly, the task force has recommended that:

1. “It should be the public policy of the State of Oregon to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation.”

2. “The State of Oregon should recognize same-sex relationships in a manner that confers important rights, benefits and responsibilities on committed same-sex couples, within the limits of Measure 36.”

In essence, the task force has recommended a resurrection of Senate Bill 1000, which combined both of those elements into on package, but died without a hearing once it made it to the Oregon House of Representatives (thanks a bunch, Karen Minnis). But beyond the recommendations, the task force’s report lays out evidence that argues for the need of such a bill, attempting to preemptively sweep the legs out from under possible opposition.

Through four public meetings over seven months, the task force collected testimony from people who’ve been discriminated against, and from business owners and civic leaders who are supportive of non-discrimination bills. They heard very little opposition, despite the meetings being open to the public. The only real opposition came from the folks at the Oregon Family Council, who were invited to testify at the hearing in Portland, but instead opted to voice their opposition at a less public opportunity.

“The Oregon Family Council questioned whether homosexual members of our society are actually still being victimized by prejudice or are today being denied rights and benefits available to their fellow citizens because of their sexual orientation,” the report reads. “[T]he task force determined that the answer to each of these questions is, unfortunately, ‘yes’.”

The OFC’s testimony was delivered by Georgene Rice, who served as the spokesperson for the Defense of Marriage Coalition, and who once said during a Measure 36 debate, “I would be sad if I had a daughter who was gay, the same way I’d feel bad if she was obese.”

Rice trotted out the same argument the OFC and DOMC have been thumping for years—that anti-discrimination protections are unnecessary because homosexuals are wealthier and better educated than breeders, although she didn’t provide any sources for this argument. (Incidentally, my gay friends would be pretty shocked to hear that they’re wealthier than us hets.)

Rice and the OFC believe that gays and lesbians aren’t discriminated against (and if anyone is an expert on homophobic discrimination, it’s people like the OFC), but why oppose such a bill, especially one that has an exemption for religious institutions? For the sake of argument, let’s say it is unnecessary, why expend energy opposing it?

Oh, here’s why:

[W]e see little evidence of discrimination. Instead, one might honestly conclude that a community of people who are enjoying the “American Dream” at a level far above the national average are using their political clout and influence to place themselves at an even greater advantage.

In Rice’s mind—and in the minds of people like OFC head Tim Nashif—prohibiting employers, schools, and landlords from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation will finally bring about the “Gay Agenda” of dominating the country. Maybe that’s true; a ban on discrimination against religious beliefs has been on the books for a long, long time, and they’ve had an alarming amount of success pushing their agenda on the rest of us.

Curiously, Rice makes no mention of an opposition to civil unions. During the M36 campaign, the DOMC loudly said they’d support civil unions as long as Oregon voted to ban same-sex marriage. But, ha ha, as soon as SB1000 hit the legislature, they lobbied hard against it. And now they’re strangely quiet.

Without any allies in leadership positions, perhaps the DOMC has realized that they look to the rest of Oregon like a bunch of bigots and will step aside so that civil unions can get a fair shake. Yeah right. More likely is that they’re keeping their legislative strategy close to their chest.