(EDIT, 1:33pm—SB 2, the anti-discrimination measure, passes (35-25 says BRO)! It’s headed back to the senate because of some amendments…)

(EDIT, 11:18am, and bumped to the top!—HB 2007 passes! According to Brandon Berg of Basic Rights Oregon, the count was 34-26-2. It’s on to the Senate for domestic partnerships. More details below!)

(Check out the extended entry below, for live updates from Salem’s House of Representatives, as they vote on the gay rights and domestic partnership bills.)

I’m in Salem again, listening to the Oregon State University men’s choir warm up their pipes with some Do Re Mi—they’ll apparently be kicking off today’s House of Representatives session with a song or two.

After that, the reps will be voting on two bills—Senate Bill 2, which would expand the state’s non-discrimination act to protect sexual orientation and gender identity, and House Bill 2007. HB 2007, formerly known as the civil unions bill, was amended last week to become the “domestic partnership” bill—sorry, I was out domestically partnering actually getting married in Canada, so I didn’t cover that House committee hearing. As far as I know, the domestic partnership bill (which I’ll be shorthanding as DP) extends marriage’s benefits to same sex couples—benefits in important areas like inheritance, property, medical decisions and care. (Would it make it free and easy to change your name to your partner’s upon “domestic partnering,” like it is for straights who marry? Or would us second class gays still have to shell out $101 bucks at the courthouse, like I did last month? In other words, it’s unclear to me if the DP bill essentially extends civil marriage in everything but name, or if it’s a smaller set of rights, a la the bill that just passed in Washington State last week. I’ll be digging into that question today.)

(EDIT: Basic Rights Oregon (BRO)’s Bryan Boyd tells me that yes, the DP bill would extend all of the state benefits of marriage to same sex couples who—but they aren’t portable, don’t apply to federal taxes, etc. It really is just another name for a state civil union. So we’ll be like Vermont, only we’ll call it something else.)

Boyd is handing out blue stickers that say “IT’S TIME”to supporters packing the House gallery, and he gave me the thumbs up when I asked if he thought both bills would pass. If they do, SB2 hits the governor’s desk, and HB2007 heads to the state senate.

I’ll be liveblogging in the jump as soon as this all gets started! BRO is also liveblogging. I’m not sure what the dozen young Christians having a prayer circle out in the hallway plan to do…

10:06am—Sweet. The guy sitting next to me has a "No On" HB2007 and SB2 sticker on his lapel. He's sandwiched between me, and a guy decked out in BRO's blue t-shirt.

10:09am—The OSU Choir's singing something about "roguish chaps" who could not sing. There's a beaver mascot in a too-tight orange t-shirt sitting on the sidelines. It's quite surreal to watch a giant beaver do the pledge of allegiance in the House chambers. Apparently it's "OSU day."

10:17am—One rep (I didn't catch his name) asked his colleagues to wish his aide a happy birthday. She's 21 today. I bet she's going to need a drink pretty badly after listening to what could be hours of speeches on these bills.

10:22am—Boyd just emailed me BRO's list of the top 100 rights denied to same sex couples under current Oregon law. The whole list is here, but the top five are:

1. No automatic right to make health care decisions for partner
2. No automatic right to visit partner in the hospital
3. No right to sue for wrongful death if partner negligently killed
4. No right to consent or refuse consent to an autopsy of partner’s body
5. No vested right to be buried in cemetery plot with partner

10:25am—Rep. Tina Kotek asked her colleagues to see her today not just as a state rep, but as "Tina Kotek, who has a loving partner named Amy," Kotek just said, introducing the DP bill. "I experience life as a second class citizen nearly every day."

She's outlining the rights she and her partner don't have access to. "This is unbelievably unfair, and many days, it is downright scary. No matter how many hundreds of dollars we might spend to assemble legal paperwork... the blunt truth is that Amy and I are strangers in the eyes of the law."

Kotek says that "on the best days," the legislature gets to pass legislation that makes families stronger and makes life better for Oregonians. "Please, make today one of those days," Kotek urged. "I ask for your yes vote for the sake of my family, and for other loving couples across the state of Oregon."

10:30am—Rep. Diane Rosenbaum is up, also introducing HB 2007—the "Oregon Family Fairness Act." "There are people in our state who need a piece of legislation to be in the room when their spouse draws their last breath," she says.

10:33am—Rep. Dennis Richardson wonders if "two sisters" who never married but lived together, or a mother who takes in an adult daughter who left an abusive relationship with her kids (what a hyper specific hypothetical!) could be covered by the bill. It seems like Richardson—a Republican—would like more than just same sex couples covered by this bill. "Why should they be deprived of those benefits?"

"The intention of this bill is to allow for those domestic partners who currently under the law aren't allowed any legal relationship or legal benefits..." to be covered, Rosenbaum replied. The situations Richardson describes all include people who do have a legal relationship (a familial one), she added.

Richardson follows up: Same sex couples do have legal partnerships through wills and things... so HB 2007 creates "special rights" for same sex couples, but doesn't extend those rights to other "loving partnerships." He wants "reciprocal rights" that extends these benefits to all couples unable to marry.

HB 2007 is in fact marriage by another name, Richardson says. It discriminates against "other couples" like sisters, mothers and abused daughters, and mothers and disabled sons.

10:41am—Rep. Greg Smith, a Republican from Heppner, Oregon, is on the verge of tears. "There is no place in this state for discrimination. We need kindness, we need compassion, we need love for every citizen in Oregon."

"To some of you, these may be words. Actions speak louder than words." Smith employs someone who's spouse is a transgendered individual. "I've had employees who are homosexual, who show up every day and do their job." I'm not able to justify or rationalize what I believe is an immoral act. If my son or daughter came home today and said I want to share with you that I'm a homosexual or a lesbian, I would not love them any less. I'd wrap my arms around them and embrace them as a son or a daughter."

BUT. "I believe there is a difference between what one is and what one does. While my son might deserve unlimited love and tolerance and compassion...." and Smith trailed off. "I believe that all men and women are children of god, and that god's first commandment was to multiply and populate the earth." Procreation is sacred... within the bonds of matrimony... husbands and wives... children... sacred duty... husbands and wives are held accountable for the way they raise their children...the family is the foundation of society... marriage is an essential part...

"To those of you who would ask me to change what I believe in, who'd ask me to concur with HB 2007, to agree with HB 2007, there are some of us in this chamber who view homosexuality in all of its forms as a sin. As a sin."

Um, I think he'll be voting no.

10:46am—Rep. Peter Buckley, a Democrat from Ashland, referenced his years "in theater" working with all kinds of gays. I kid you not. He's got a lot of gay and lesbian friends...

"The same rights [Buckley and his wife] take for granted," do not apply to his friends. Ashland has a directory, but it doesn't grant any rights or benefits—and yet couples signed up, eager to demonstrate their relationships.

Why should we pass this bill? "The answer is, why shouldn't we? In the interest of fairness. Why wouldn't we do all that we can to ensure that children in our state have a legal relationship to the parents that planned for them, and care for them?"

This bill would extend "all of the benefits that my wife and I enjoy" in Oregon. "Every Oregon family deserves protection, and the same civil rights. I'm voting to celebrate and honor the friendship and honor and care of my dear friends."

10:54am—Rep. Chip Shields, Northeast Portland's Democrat, says this moment "is bittersweet."

"Let's be clear. This is not equality. Not even close." Oregon couples would still be denied "over 1200 rights" afforded by federal law. The DPs aren't portable. And couples would be denied "access to full equality that is marriage itself."

Looking back, he thinks the legislators will be "pained by our ignorance." It upsets him to vote for this bill, but he will—because it's an advance on the road to equality. "I will continue to advocate for full equality under the law."

10:58am—Democratic Rep. Brian Clem "rises today in support of HB 2007." He comes right after a Republican rep whose name I didn't catch, but who said "5,000 years of history, five major world religions," and his constituents were against this bill, and so was he.

Clem's telling a sad story about two moms who took their five year old to an emergency room for stitches, and the nurses would only allow "one mom" to accompany the boy. "This is just one of many stories told and untold out there about the painful discriminations faced by Oregon's families every day," Clem says.

11:01am—Democratic Rep. Sara Gelser, a "married mother of four, a Christian, a youth pastor," is standing up to support this bill.

Her daughter's godmother was in a car wreck—the woman's partner had to call their attorney before she could head to the hospital to make medical decisions, then she called Gelser. Doctors told them everyone had to leave except for family. Then they told her partner and Gelser to take the woman home—her arms were still filled with glass, she was in pain, she was in no shape to leave. "If I had been laying in that hospital room, my husband would have been there, able to say 'we're not taking her home.'"

"These are the protections that people who are in committed, loving, gay and lesbian relationships need," Gelser says. "We aren't legislating families or creating new families. Families exist. Soccer games happen, bills are paid... these families will continue regardless of this law. Our families operate on a power greater than the law... What we are doing today is protecting the abilities of families that already exist to be next to each other in the times that matter most."

11:10am—One rep—Rep. Tom Butler—is asking Rep. Rosenbaum about the "fiscal impact" of allowing same sex couples to file a joint state tax return. Rosenbaum says there will be a "slight positive or slight negative" impact on state revenue. Butler is also curious as to whether the domestic partnerships cover couples when they "travel to Idaho." Nope, says Rosenbaum—that's one of the biggest differences between DP and "contractual marriage."

Butler is now quoting John Adams, about how the constitution was written for "moral people." I'm unclear on how Butler plans to vote.

11:13am—Kotek's closing up! Vote soon...

"The vote today will have a tremendous impact on my life, and the lives of others."

This bill is about caring for all Oregon families. Our goal today as it is every day is to ensure that Oregon's families are secure, Oregon's children are protected, and all Oregon's families have the opportunity to thrive. The world will be different—more fair, more just, more equal—because we take action today."

"This vote is about the families that have asked, begged, pleaded, and demanded for the rights and responsibilities of domestic partnerships—they're holding their breath colleagues, waiting for us to do what is right. Let's not disappoint them. I urge your aye vote."

HB 2007 passes—without a roll call, so I'm not really sure how they tallied that up, and so quickly. But on to the Senate!

***

11:21am—Now, Rosenbaum is introducing Senate Bill 2, which would outlaw discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. Strangely, this bill is almost more controversial than the domestic partnership one, because of the religious exemption—religious opponents argue that the exemption isn't clear enough.

11:28am—Kotek is talking about discrimination she's faced. She's been told to "take her money elsewhere" when she tried to open up a joint bank account with a partner. Luckily, she hasn't been fired or denied housing because she's gay. "Our state laws should protect all of our citizens from this discrimination."

11:32am—Hey Catherine Cole and Casey Rohter! Tina Kotek's telling the whole House about you guys. Casey's dad, Brian Rohter, testified earlier about a trip they tried to take a few years ago, to an inn in rural Oregon. When they got to the front desk, the clerk suddenly didn't have any space. Things like that make Brian Rohter worry for his daughter and her partner (who happen to be friends of mine; Cole used to be the Mercury's promo gal). "Surely we do not want other Oregon fathers, like Mr. Rohter, to worry about their lesbian daughters," Kotek says.

11:44am—Democratic Rep. Ben Cannon is asking for clarification—whether the bill "requires" public schools to teach homosexuality. I believe Cannon's for the bill, and he nearly smirked while asking the question—I think he's making a point, that the "sky will fall" arguments against this bill are unfounded. Rosenbaum said no, the 'gay agenda' won't be taught in the schools. Well, that's essentially what she said.

Cannon follows up: "I think that that response from the good Represenative makes it clear that SB 2 does not mean homosexuality will be taught in the schools.... If this passes, a school will violate the law if it denies access to a class, a program, or a sport solely because a student is gay."

"But I believe SB 2 will have a more profound effect in the schools than prohibiting discrimination." The bill will foster a safer environment for gay students. It "sends a powerful message to schools, to principals, to students, that Oregon doesn't tolerate discrimination."

11:50am—D Rep. Brian Witt is speaking in support of the bill. He's shocked at the venom that's been spewed against gays and lesbians in opposition to this bill. "In essence the victims bear the responsibility for whatever levels of intolerance they experience," he says he's heard, incredulously—opposition to the bill has pretty much made the case FOR the bill.

"Rational human beings do not choose to endure lifetimes of intolerance and discrimination, the likes of which I have only tasted." Not wanted to experience the rhetoric at hearings on this bill again, Witt urges an aye vote.

11:54am—Rep. Shields again makes the case that a bill doesn't go far enough—he's saddened that SB2 lets churches discriminate. "Why on earth would we let so many employers fire workers just because they're gay?" (Shields is a member of Ainsworth United Church of Christ.)

11:56am—"Over time, we have redefined our understanding of the words we have started with," says Rep. Dave Hunt, speaking to how equality used to apply to white men who owned property. "Broadening our definition of fairness... need not compromise other Oregonians." This bill, he argues, both extends fairness to gays and lesbians, and protects those whose religious faith has them disagreeing, by exempting them from the law (the exemption was clarified to include specific places like religious bookstores, religious radio stations, religious thrift shops, etc).

"The expansion of religion, the expansion of fairness, the expansion of freedom" does not harm each other," he said.

12:17pm—"This bill is about equal treatment," explains bill sponsor Rep. Greg Macpherson, not affirmative action. He's responding to questions from Rep. Linda Flores, an R from Corbett, who's wondering how people will identify the gays so that they don't accidentally discriminate against them.

"Some of us believe that founding fundamental principles were not etched in clay, they were etched in stone," Flores says, after saying she was one of the reps from "the community of faith."

"Those things that we're talking about today cannot be legislated." Discrimination is in the heart, not the ORS. She talked about two constituents—an elderly couple, whom she made out to be against the bill—who attended earlier testimony, but there wasn't enough room in the hearing space, so they were in the hall—amongst, apparently, Basic Rights Oregon supporters (who don blue shirts whenever they're in Salem). "As some people in a certain colored shirt stood by, they gave them a certain salute, a middle man standing tall. I suggest that's intolerance! They were in fact discriminated against! That's wrong too."

12:22pm—Rep. Gene Whisnant: "Does this bill encourage tolerance, or require acceptance?" The bill doesn't specifically do either, says Rosenbaum, but both might be a byproduct.

12:26pm—Rep. Dave Edwards (D-Hillsboro) is speaking in favor of the bill. He's quite literally preaching about "restoring the social covenant." (Edwards is "the founder and CEO of a thriving market research-based consulting firm" according to his bio, but he speaks like a pastor.)

"Justice demands we pass this measure now. Everyone should count with the same weight," Edwards says. "I am compelled to own up to god's love. After all, it owns me. This hour demands the hold of our attention. We have a truly historic opportunity in front of us."

12:31pm—Rep. whose name I didn't catch (might be Bruce Hanna, an R) is worried about public restrooms and gender identity. It's the "what would stop a guy from putting on a dress and walking into the women's restroom" fear-based argument that was trotted out when this bill was in a senate committee.

"Cross dressing is one thing, and that is not protected under this bill at all," Macpherson responds. "Transgender is something different." If someone born male is living as a female, using the ladies room would be appropriate and protected under this bill.

Rep. might-be-Hanna continues: "Many times we work on legislation that purports to do something good, when it hasn't been fully vetted to understand all of it's ramifications." This bill "leaves open more questions and creates more questions than it solves."

12:48pm—"Does adopting SB 2 mean that a Catholic hospital could refuse employment to a baptist or a Muslim, but not refuse employment to a gay or lesbian citizen?" Rep. Brian Boquist (R-Dallas) asks. (Religious hospitals are exempt from the non-discrimination bill when it comes to hiring a chaplin, for example, but not when treating patients.) Macpherson explains that churches and religious groups can still give preference to those from their own membership.

12:52pm—Rep. Kim Thatcher (R-Keizer) has questions about the definition of transgender and gender identity and sexual orientation. She's getting nitpicky over the bill's language. "Would SB 2 make it illegal for a man using the public restroom to ask a transgendered person who looks like a man to leave until he is finished?"

"My personal view is that those cases will rarely be pursued, because people as a matter of common practice or courtesy will resolve those issues," Macpherson says.

"This is kind of a confusing bill," Thatcher says in a monotone. "The definition is vague and will be developed over time, and will be interpreted by the courts. I can't wait."

"You can have a community swimming pool being forced to allow people who look different than their gender to use their locker rooms, and if they question them, they can be open to a complaint or a lawsuit. In real estate, it's current law where you're able to restrict property from an opposite sex if you have to share a bedroom or bathroom facility," but she says this bill doesn't make the same allowance if you don't want to share a bedroom or bathroom facility with someone who's transgendered ("or whatever we're calling it fluidly now," she added wryly). Is she talking about a law related to roommates when you've posted a room on craigslist or something? Again, I love when people trot out the hyper specific hypotheticals to make their fear-based case against something.

"I believe this law will have an impact on our schools." Schools will have to hire gays, her logic seems to be, and "students look up to their teachers as role models." Yep, kids might see their schools not discriminating, and that will be the example those kids learn to follow. Horrors!

Ooo, she wants permission to use a visual aid! She's holding up a thin little green folder that hold the emails in favor of the bill—there are only a few. She's got a three-inch thick red file folder of emails in opposition of the bill. (Um, Thatcher? You live in Keizer. No one's surprised that your constituents are opposed to SB2...).

1:06pm—From Rep. Andy Olson (R-Albany), a letter from a constituent who's former husband left her because he was transgendered. It pained her and their son, she wrote. But she's opposed to SB2, because "it really frightens me that it would make me a criminal for telling the truth about my experience and my pain," she wrote.

"Absolutely not," Macpherson says. "The fact is, this is not a criminal statute. Point number two, this bill protects against discrimination. If she were the employer of this person, that would be actionable. It has nothing to do with her feelings toward her former spouse." Regardless, the rep will be voting against SB2.

1:10pm—David Crowe of Restore America—"founded in 1999 to call all Bible believing, voter eligible Christians in America to REGISTER and VOTE in every election"—is reportedly here, in the gallery opposite me. Word is, he "gave out about 15 reps home phone numbers over the weekend," presumably to lobby against the bills. Lucky them!

1:20pm—Rep. Richardson, a lawyer, is talking about how he opted not to hire an otherwise well qualified heavy smoker as a legal assistant. He wouldn't hire a drunk, or someone "loaded on drugs," even though scientists may say "those folks have no control over those addictions." That sort of discrimination is allowed, though, because smoking, drinking and drug use are behaviors.

I'm guessing he's gearing up to equate drinking and drug use with "homosexual behavior," call it a choice, and declare that it can be discriminated against.

Rep. Tina Kotek just got permission to interrupt: "I would ask that the good representative from Southern Oregon would be careful about making statements about my personal character in his remarks."

Rep. Richardson would encourage a vote against the bill, which "enshrines civil rights on a behavior based orientation."

Rep. Rosenbaum is now wrapping up—vote soon. "It has been 34 years since this legislation was first introduced."

"Colleagues, it is time."

Rosenbaum has asked for a call of the house.

1:33pm—SB 2 passes! It's headed back to the senate because of some amendments...