PORTLAND - Discrimination based on sexual orientation should be illegal under state law, a task force appointed by Democratic Gov. Ted Kulongoski recommended in a report released Thursday, after months of discussion.

The task force also called for some form of “legal recognition” for gay relationships, a tricky issue considering Oregonians voted in 2004 to restrict marriage to unions between a man and a woman.

Instead, task force members said Oregon should model its own system on Vermont-style civil unions, a plan that was proposed in the 2005 Legislative session, but never made it past the Republican-controlled House.

With Democrats now in control of both chambers, supporters of the task force's recommendations said they are feeling hopeful about their prospects.

“But we don't take it for granted that we have already won,” said Rebekah Orr, a spokeswoman for Basic Rights Oregon, the state's leading gay rights group. “There is lots of work to do. We also recognize that our opponents see the historic opportunity before us.”

Groups likely to oppose the bulk of the task force's proposals said they'd need time to go over the recommendations carefully, but warned that if legislators go too far, in their opinion, a ballot referral campaign could be in the works.

“If we felt it was bad public policy enough, extreme enough, then we would probably refer it,” said Tim Nashif, who heads the Oregon Family Council. “Then at least it puts the forum into the hands of the people.”

Both recommendations are familiar territory for legislators, who have taken up similar topics in the past. And anti-discrimination laws are already in place in a scattered patchwork of Oregon communities, from Lincoln City to Bend.

Under the recommendation, civil rights protections in employment, housing, and public schools would be extended to gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgendered people. The group, which was headed by former Nike manager Paul Kelly, has recommended an exemption for religious institutions, in accordance with state and federal freedom of religion laws.

But Nashif said his group and others would be scanning any proposed legislation for loopholes in the so-called “religious exemption.”

“If what you are saying is that a church is required to hire, in their Christian school, a gay math teacher because he teaches math and not religious studies, that would be a very serious concern,” Nashif said. “That would be a violation of many of their religious beliefs, to hire someone who didn't agree with their theology.”

The civil unions proposal outlined by the task force is somewhat more complex. Broadly speaking, though civil unions would not entitle gay couples to federal benefits of marriage, such as joint income tax filing, they would allow for rights extended to married couples in the state, including the right to spousal support in case of divorce.

Unlike in Vermont, though, the task force recommends limiting the civil union option to only Oregon residents. The group is also recommending that guidelines for civil unions in the state be spelled out in a separate chapter of Oregon law, instead of blanket amendments to current regulations on marriage.

Orr said it is bittersweet, in many ways, for Basic Rights Oregon to support civil unions, given how hard the group fought against the state's 2004 gay marriage ban.

“We know that a separate legal status is not the same as marriage,” she said. “You are symbolically separated out for different treatment, and it won't hold up in the long run under the scrutiny of our collective conscience. But the state has an obligation to do the best it can right now, to protect same-sex couples and their families.”