ALTHOUGH THE 2012 election is over a year away, Oregon is already facing a decision point on a major measure: legalizing same-sex marriage. The numbers show support for gay marriage is increasing in Oregon, but LGBT campaigners aren’t sure whether the tables will have tipped enough by 2012.
According to a 2011 poll by political group Public Policy Polling, 48 percent of Oregonians are in support of gay marriage. That’s a massive turnaround from 2004, when 57 percent of Oregonians voted in support of Measure 36, a state constitutional amendment cementing marriage as “a union only between one man and one woman.” Additionally, 2010 Census numbers crunched last week by think tank the Williams Institute show that Oregon is the fifth gayest state in America, based on our per capita number of same-sex partnerships.
“My gut tells me that this is absolutely the right time to bring the issue to the table,” says State Representative Jules Bailey (D-Portland).
But statewide LGBT advocacy group Basic Rights Oregon (BRO) is taking it slow. They won’t announce until the end of October whether they’ll make the push for the 2012 ballot.
“We’re so close to having a strong majority of support,” says BRO Executive Director Jeana Frazzini. “But close just doesn’t cut it.”
BRO has been canvassing door to door to gauge support for gay marriage since 2009, but last week launched a series of Spanish radio ads targeted at Oregon’s increasing number of Latino voters.
The stakes are high. Thirty states have constitutional amendments like Oregon’s Measure 36, but none have passed amendments legalizing gay marriage. The one-man, one-woman definition in our state constitution rules out options for legalizing gay marriage through the courts, as Iowa did, or the legislature, as in New York’s recent victory.
Before BRO comes out in support of same-sex marriage on the ballot, they want to have 100,000 people they can bank on to support the new constitutional amendment. Losing at the ballot will push the campaign back further than they are now, says Frazzini.
Meanwhile, conservative organization the Oregon Family Council, is gearing up to fight any push for approving gay marriage in the state.
“Our country should be focusing on jobs and the economy, not this,” says the Family Council’s Teresa Lucas. “But if we have to fight, we’re going to fight hard.”
One of the other states considering a pro-gay marriage constitutional amendment is Maine. That state has roughly the same percent of voters supporting gay marriage, but their LGBT advocacy group, EqualityMaine, has already announced that they will definitely pursue a 2012 measure. Executive Director Betsy Smith has had conversations with BRO’s strategists and says she sees next year as the best time for getting the measure on the ballot, since presidential elections typically attract younger voters.
“Gay marriage is becoming a mainstream issue across the country,” says Smith. “Its time has come.”
Representative Bailey also sees the country becoming increasingly open to same-sex marriage, specifically right-wing debaters whose focus is elsewhere.
The only roadblock Bailey sees between now and a successful election day are the ever-looming economy woes. With their mind on their pocketbooks, many voters may not want to discuss anything that isn’t linked to the economy.
“But that’s why these one-on-one conversations are key,” he says. “People hear, ‘Hey this isn’t scary, this isn’t abstract, this is about real people. That’s it.'”
I say, if California’s Prop 8, and Oregon’s own Prop 36 got their place on the ballot already, then its our turn this time. We should be on every ballot imaginable until our rights are acknowledged and provided to us. The core issue when it comes to gay marriage rights lies within our nation’s constitution. Bill of Rights, Amendment 1 :”Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion:” So all of the religious nay-sayers need to back off because their negative perspectives regarding gay marriage, based on GOD’s wish for marriage to be solely between man and woman, has no legal grounds against the rights or freedoms of us homos. The 9th Amendment states that “just because a right is not specifically listed in the Constitution, does not mean that right should not be respected.”
So here is the main issue: The Government needs to decide one way or the other. If we have separation of church and state (as we should in order to run a fair and effective government), then it MUST be decided whether MARRIAGE, as an institution, is EITHER a legally-based, contractually-solidified, and financially beneficial UNION between 2 individuals of any walks of life, OR a strictly religious union with NO legal bearing whatsoever! I’m happy either way, as long as the boneheads can figure out that the same issues surrounded the Women’s Right to VOTE, and well as the Black Civil Rights Movement…. Come on America, do we EVER LEARN????? It seems pretty cut and dry to me, and we have bigger fish to fry, so if the government could simply approve of my individual rights and freedoms, maybe we could get somewhere as a country when it comes to our atrocious economy and horrendous decision-making practices.
I think it would be a lot easier — and cost a lot less money — to get the government out of marriage all together. That way gays, bi’s, straights and polyamorous adults could make whatever contracts they wish with one another. The government’s job would be to serve as a neutral contract enforcer, period. Licensing marriage was invented to stop blacks and whites from marrying, and most people historically never looked to government to approve their unions. If the gay community wants to keep spending millions on these campaigns, be my guest, but the libertarian path would get them there much more quickly and also allow people who want more than one partner the freedom to legally protect their arrangements without going through another decade or so of expensive lobbying.
Let’s not forget that polygamous marriages can get you thrown in JAIL! No matter how strange you may find that arrangement, it makes no sense that people can be prosecuted for it.
I like the way UrbanPirate breaks it down. It seems clear what the opposition is against. People of the same gender having sex. Like so many issues, there is a loud and constant beat of what is opposed. For clarity and contrast, what is it that is wanted? Is there a religious aspect of marriage that same-sex couples desire? If there is, then say so. If it is a matter of not having to cruise for sex, say that. Is it the tax advantages? I think it is easy to assume we all know motives of the players. We are being asked to vote on something that we may or may not have involvement with. It is irresponsible to allow the misinformed to decide. I have little or no skin in the game. I am religious but not the kind that would assume you would be like me. Let’s at least be honest and listen.
I have to disagree with jd_rocket and UrbanPirate. It is going to take years to achieve what they want and is not a simple issue, given its implications for everything from estate settlements to child custodial battles. However, it can take a few months to get a state to simply abandon regulating marriages and simply become an enforcer of contracts between consenting adults, a position many libertarians and Republicans would support. The only state interest I can see in this issue is prohibiting incest and sexual relations between people who are too closely related. However, if the gay rights community insists on getting approval from 51 percent of straight people in every freakin’ state so they, too, can enjoy wedded bliss, they’re going to need to spend millions of dollars and thousands of hours on something that may or may not succeed and, in the end, give any future right-wing police state in America, a real possibility in this always soft fascist country, a tidy little list of gay couples to keep under watch and possibly persecute. Remember — it was the U.S. census bureau that helped Roosevelt throws thousands of Japanese into camps. They had faith in their fellow citizens, too.
Wow, “smarter…” starts off really good, but gets really dumb at the end.
Persecution of gays… times have long changed where this is any real possibility.
Discrimination, sure.
Times have changed, really? So all those human rights abuses because of the Patriot Act and Guantanamo Bay never happened? And there’s not thousands of people in jail on nonviolent drug charges? And those are the things everyone knows about — we’re not even getting into cops and politicians who are complicit in the drug and slave trades operating here and overseas and could give a crap who gets hurt. If keeping my eyes wide open to the potential for overt fascism in America makes me “dumb” call me all the names you want! At least I’m not asleep like some clueless hipster who’s clearly never sat in the back of a police car because he’s been mistaken for someone else nor suffered any injustice under our legal system. Geez, what a naive fellow you are — you really think you can trust your fellow Americans with your private sexual life because a bunch of liberals told you so? Americans are under more surveillance now that at any time in our history, and it’s only going to get worse. Who do you think the rightists will scapegoat when the shit really goes down and fearful people look to a demagogue for reassurance? Will your precious conceits save you then? At least I’m ready. But really, stick with that “times have changed” mantra as much as you want, it’s always worked really well for people to give as much information about their personal lives to the government as possible.
“Persecution of gays… times have long changed where this is any real possibility.
Discrimination, sure.”
Again frankeib, you don’t know what the Hell you’re talking about. Persecution, as well as VIOLENT HATE CRIMES AGAINST QUEERS is very much still a real possibilty and threat. You can also look at the fact that even suspicion of being gay is a death sentence in some countries.
Take pending lesgislation in Uganda which would make homosexuality punishable by death. And before you bang off at the keyboard about how that’s a totally different country that has nothing to do with us – know that such legislation was in large part drafted by AMERICAN evangelicals.
I really don’t even understand why this is even up for a vote in this country. This is so plainly a Civil rights issue. And the last time i checked, Civil rights were MANDATED by local, state, and [especially] the federal government! So things just shouldn’t be left up for a vote.
If we have left equal rights for blacks up for a popular vote by whites in the 1960’s, how far along do you think we would’ve gotten on that front???
Key facts that seem to be left out of this debate are these: YOU DON’T NEED A GODDAMN CHURCH NOR A MINISTER TO GET MARRIED!!!!! A marriage license is an official govt. document. That means marriages are ONLY recognised as legal by the state and fed. So, we should just legalize marriage for gays across the board. And if any stupidass christians wanna get mad about it, well they all can properly FUCK OFF!
There are simply too many out of the closet gays in the US, and with polls showing increasingly an acceptance of the right of gays to marry – to allow anything of the sort like Uganda to happen here now in a broad based sytematic way.
Hate crimes and discrimination, yeah. Still a long ways to go, sure.
But stay here in reality in this fight. We don’t need kooky warnings of a fascist state to convulute the fight for gays right of marrige.
Frankly, i’m not sure what you’re even arguing over. Gays STILL get severely fucked with. Many people in the U.S. are still subject to assaults and homicide based on their sexual orientation. Many politicians and most christian/religious leaders in the U.S. still refer to queers as “demonic” and “a disease” and openly call for their extermination. That’s the text book definition of persecution. Must you be on the wrong side of EVERYTHING?