Same-sex legislation

The continuing battle for gay marriage.... um... continues here in Oregon. In the wake of the Supreme Court decision that upheld the constitutional amendment voted for by Oregonians in November that defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman, the gay-rights movement has now gone the route of legislating some of the rights they want.
Which is how it should have been from the beginning. But instead of waiting for social conditions to change enough for national consensus to favor gay marriages, they pushed too hard, too fast, and now the best they'll be able to do here is civil unions.
So now we have Senate bill 1000 and House bill 3476.
Currently, Senate bill 1000 offers much more for the Gay Rights activist. As it is described in the article above, and in the summary of the bill, it grants all the same rights that married couples have, as well as adds anti-discriminatory language to the books.
The house bill only says that "certain" rights that married couples currently enjoy will be conferred to civil unions.
If you'll notice, I liked to the full text of the bills. You may read them at will, I don't have time to read all that legalese. However, from the summary, I'm not sure how comfortable I am with giving ALL rights to civil unions, not really having a full list in front of me. I would agree with most of the rights, but most of the rights of married couples can be arranged legally without this union anyway.
I definitely don't like that this bill is tied with an anti-discriminatory section. Civil unions are one thing, but I noticed that most of the language in the news article about people testifying in opposition to the bill were just as, or more, concerned about that aspect of it than the civil union part. I am too. As a Christian, I know that those of my faith, who believe as I do, are not going to want to hire a gay person if that job were in a church, Christian bookstore, or something like that. Don't think that we are being unreasonable. Christians have some pretty good foundational arguments based on Biblical text that argue against homosexuality. So if you think that it's an issue that can be argued either way using God's word, I wouldn't mind having that discussion. Secondly, you might argue that some Christians back in the day argued that the Bible said that Black people weren't equal to White people in God's eyes, I'd say that looking at the Biblical arguments they were using were reeeeaaaalllly flimsy. Also, we tend to forget that a great majority of the Evangelical movement in the 60s was pro-civil rights.
As for crimes against gays, I am assuming that hate-crime laws apply. I could be wrong.

I'm not sure that the House version is going to fly in the Senate, but I'm also not sure that the Sentate version stands a chance of passing the House. If that is the case, gays are out of luck for now. Status quo is not what they want.