A YEAR AGO, LGBT advocacy group Basic Rights Oregon (BRO) took a look at their numbers and made a hard choice: They would be waiting for marriage.
The state’s pro-gay politicos decided to hold off until at least 2014 to push a constitutional amendment legalizing same-sex marriage, even though that meant depriving the state’s nearly 15,000 same-sex couples the full rights of citizenship for two more years.
Looking now at the extremely close and expensive race over Washington’s Referendum 74, it seems like BRO made the right choice. If Washington voters uphold the same-sex marriage law passed by their legislature in February, it will be by a hair: The latest Elway Poll shows the referendum ahead 49 percent to 45 percent, with a sliver of undecided voters who will likely fall into the “no” camp.
When it crunched the numbers a year ago, BRO found that only 48 percent of Oregon voters supported same-sex marriage (which would have to be legalized via a statewide constitutional amendment, thanks to a 2004 measure). They wanted larger support before launching and worried about raising what they estimated would be $10 million for the fight.
“I still feel absolutely confident in the decision we made to build an education campaign over the next two years,” says BRO Executive Director Jeana Frazzini. “There are four states where marriage is on the ballot and only in one of those places are we on the ballot on purpose—Maine.”
Just as BRO thought, the Washington campaign has required a mountain of money. Six pro-marriage political action committees have raised $13.3 million, pulling big-business donors (like Bill Gates, Nike, and chief executives at Starbucks, Alaska Airlines, and Microsoft) and small donors from all over the country. Fifteen percent of donations for the main pro-same-sex marriage group, Washington United for Marriage, have come from out of state.
The anti-marriage side, meanwhile, has $2.27 million in its war chest. Of that, $1.49 million comes from just three sources: conservative Seattleite Thomas Matthews, the Catholic Knights of Columbus, and the National Organization for Marriage. Overall, the anti-marriage campaign has received just 5,025 donations compared to the pro-gay groups’ 22,000.
Referendum 74 spokesman Zach Silk says the race would be close even if the issue hit the ballot in two years, but that there’s good momentum from the legislature, Washington’s governor, and President Barack Obama coming out to support the law. Washington is better positioned than Oregon for voting on same-sex marriage now, Silk says, because it has a more urban population and deeper pockets.
“You’re fighting for social change—that doesn’t come easy,” says Silk. “If we win, we’ll be glad we went. If we lose narrowly, we’ll have moved the needle significantly.”
For the past six weeks, BRO has turned its volunteer force over to the Referendum 74 campaign, filling 100 canvassing and phone banking shifts a week. No matter which way Washington votes, Oregon will continue to keep its eyes on 2014.
WAshingtonians, LISTEN UP:
If you fuck this up, don’t bother coming down to Oregon again, ok. Stay on YOUR side of the bridge. Stop taking OR jobs. And get use to paying sales tax on EVERY purchase. Especially you dirty filthy Vantuckians.
^or what??? You gonna go smash some innocent business owners windows???
Ha ha haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
Hello stalker. I see you follow EVERY post of mine now.
Yes, so glad we waited to ask for our rights. Because trying to win it in the 2012 election would have been expensive and not a sure thing. BRO is right. Winning your civil rights is supposed to be cheap and easy, just like it always has been. Successful civil rights movements have always sat on their hands and waited around for things to get easier. I say we wait as long as it takes! What a tragedy it would have been to try too soon! Because of course all worthwhile election victories are cheap and easily won.
People’s rights should not be up for public vote America was founded on religious freedom, we should instead ban people who want to ban things.
Everything both Michael and Erik said!!!!!
Kudos to Alaska Airlines for its support. For an airline with the strange Christian messages on its cocktail napkins, it’s cool to see they have an entire “gay travel” section of their site that includes their 74 endorsement prominently. Good business, sure, but also commendable.
My bad! I guess they stopped handing out the prayers on Alaska flights. Where have I been?
SUCK it Oregon. Washington rules. Yes. Vancouver sucks – I live there. But the rest of the state is amazing.
If same gender couples wish to gain privileges, then the solution is to sue under Equity Law. However, they must face the reality that United States law is based upon the proper use of English grammar. If you could change the law by re-writing the dictionary, there would be no need for the legislature. Laws are interpreted by the meaning of words at the time that the law is enacted If a legal term need be applied, try domestic partnership or civil union.
http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/word/marriage
1828 edition of Webster’s American Dictionary of the English Language
marriage
MAR’RIAGE, n. [L.mas, maris.] The act of uniting a man and woman for life; wedlock; the legal union of a man and woman for life. Marriage is a contract both civil and religious, by which the parties engage to live together in mutual affection and fidelity, till death shall separate them. Marriage was instituted by God himself for the purpose of preventing the promiscuous intercourse of the sexes, for promoting domestic felicity,and for securing the maintenance and education of children.
Marriage is honorable in all and the bed undefiled. Heb.13.
1. A feast made on the occasion of a marriage.
The kingdom of heaven is like a certain king, who made a marriage for his son. Matt.22.
2. In a scriptural sense, the union between Christ and his church by the covenant of grace. Rev.19.
Nobody but me is willing to explain, that the fatal flaw which gets any proposed measures nullified, is the improper use of the word, “marriage”. If a measure is written nonsensically, then it has to be tossed out. Gibberish could never be enforced. If couples want to call their domestic partnerships, marriage, after the fact, they are perfectly free to do so.