SB2, aka the Oregon Equality Act, was not voted on by voters. Instead, a far-Left-wing state legislative body headed by openly-lesbian Oregon representatives Tina Kotek and Kate Brown .

The following is our Transcript of ROGER MARTIN representing the Portland Archdiocese:

Oregon SB-2 Public Hearing

Sexual Orientation added to several

anti-discrimination statutes

TESTIMONY of ROGER MARTIN

REPRESENTING The Archdiocese of Portland in Oregon

http://www.leg.state.or.us/listn/ Judiciary Committee, 03/12/07 1:00 and 5:00 Sessions

1:00 pm Session at approximately 1:04 hours into the hearing.

Roger Martin, Oregon Catholic Conference

His argument delves into past legislation which removed statute of limitations for sexual abuse of minors which led to Archdiocese claiming bankruptcy.

Madame Chair, um, my name is Roger Martin and I represent the Oregon Catholic Conference.

I’m listed, or you have got us, got me, listed as an ‘opponent.’ I’m here more to question and to explore further the religious (exemption) clause. I appreciate very much the committee and the governor’s committee that you, Madame Chair, that you put the religious exemption in the bill and I just want to make sure, and I appreciate the questions that Senator Beyer raised, and I just want to make sure that in fact it does give the exemption that we need

The Catholic Church does not believe in discrimination, does not practice discrimination, perhaps has in the past, but are trying very hard to correct those things in the past, uh…

The reason we’re very concerned about it is you are, you’re going to change with the passage of this legislation some major provisions in the employment and other laws in this state which often lead to litigation.

I just want to use one example. In 1991 this committee, the Senate Judiciary Committee, chaired then by Sen. Joyce Cohen, passed a bill that did away with the statute of limitations on crimes against young people, where, actually it was, uh, sexual crimes all together, based on a theory that interestingly was probably refuted within a couple of years, but that one passage, taking the statute of limitations off, ended up by the Catholic Church, the, uh, Portland Archdiocese going into bankruptcy over a myriad of law suits that were filed. Many of those law suits were probably very valid, some probably questionable.

But the end result was, based on an action [sic] and it was not intended for that purpose, [sic] the request to change the statute of limitations in 1991 was at the request of some women’s groups who wanted to protect women who had been sexually abused in the past and it had nothing to do with what it ended up, [sic] but it opened up a new avenue.

The Catholic Church does not want to be dictated as to who it can employ especially in sensitive areas like the schools where we teach around the state. We’re also very concerned that we be able to make decisions on who can attend various places like Mt. Angel Seminary and If this exemption covers that then we don’t have an argument with it. I just want to raise that question and I appreciate Sen. Beyer making those questions too just so we can find out for sure that we are protected which is something that we need and I appreciate that. Thank you Madam Chair.

end testimony

Transcribed by Fidelity and Action, an internet activism network