Source: Salem Statesman-Journal

by Todd Simmons
Oregon voters may well face two issues this fall that many people probably think were resolved some time ago: the state's new anti-discrimination and domestic-partner laws.

Although some are trying to characterize those potential ballot measures as solely "moral issues," both undoubtedly have economic implications that voters would be well advised to consider.

First, a little background.

During its 2007 session, the Oregon Legislature passed both pieces of legislation with relative ease and Gov. Ted Kulongoski quickly signed both into law. The anti-discrimination measure had been a long time coming, having been first introduced more than 30 years previously. The domestic-partner bill was a compromise resolution on a more recent public-policy issue — namely, how to provide protections for gay and lesbian couples, who routinely face discrimination in matters ranging from joint purchases of property to hospital visitation rights. Such protections are provided with the stroke of a pen when opposite-sex partners are married.

Though there was an unsuccessful, last-ditch effort to block enactment of the domestic-partner law, its success is undeniable: Thousands of same-sex couples already have registered throughout the state, and many more are doing so each day.

Likewise, tens of thousands of Oregonians who previously might have lost a job or been refused housing simply because of the status or perceived status of their sexual orientation now enjoy legal protection, thanks to the anti-discrimination statute.

Such policies are increasingly the law of the land. More than 90 percent of companies listed in the Fortune 500, for instance, ban discrimination based on sexual orientation, including such Oregon stalwarts at Nike and Intel.

Which brings us back to the matter at hand.

When anti-gay organizations failed in their efforts to block the domestic-partner law, a handful of Oregon legislators announced they'd pursue initiatives to put both laws on the fall ballot for repeal. This despite the fact that experienced organizers who had months to do so were unable to gather even the bare minimum of valid signatures to block the domestic-partner matter in the first place.

It's one thing not to have such laws in place; many states still do not. But it's another thing entirely to repeal them once they've been enacted. To do so would send a signal to the nation that Oregonians want the ability to discriminate, to treat neighbors and co-workers unfairly without repercussions.

Such a message would poison the environment in such areas as business relocations.

If either or both measure makes it to the ballot this fall, voters must understand that the future for gay Oregonians is not the only matter at stake; a repeal would have significant consequences for our economy that could take years to repair. For the sake of both fairness and economic good sense, the laws should stay as they are.

Full article: Business - StatesmanJournal.com