Gay rights measures on the ballot in three states
09.28.2009 8:23am EDT
(Olympia, Wash.) Nearly a year after California voters overturned same-sex marriage, voters in three other states will weigh in this fall on whether to reverse gay rights initiatives ranging from anti-discrimination measures to marriage benefits.
In Maine, voters will decide whether or not to uphold the state’s legalization of same-sex marriage. In Washington state, a so-called “everything but marriage” law that expands the state’s current domestic partnership law will be on the ballot. And in Kalamazoo, Mich., voters will decide on an ordinance that prohibits discrimination against gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgender individuals.“In off-year elections, ballot measures gain much more attention, regardless of the topic,” said University of Washington political science professor Matt Barreto. But California’s battle over Proposition 8 is “certainly an important backdrop.”
Under a California Supreme Court decision, California had allowed same-sex marriages for five months before 52 percent of voters reversed the ruling in the contentious $83 million Prop. 8 battle last November. The state’s Supreme Court upheld the vote earlier this year.
Gay rights supporters see one silver lining in the loss in California.
“It has sparked a greater public conversation about gay people,” said Dan Hawes, a field director with the Washington, D.C.-based National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. “While we have lost in previous ballot measures, because the margin of loss continues to shrink, it does indicate that there is growing acceptance.”
Barreto said that the money involved in this year’s ballot measures won’t come close to Prop. 8 – California is a much more expensive market to run TV ads in, and the Prop. 8 ads came during a high profile presidential election year, driving the cost astronomically higher, he said.
In Maine, opponents of gay marriage had raised more than $343,000 through the end of the last quarterly reporting period in July, with $160,000 from the National Organization for Marriage, one of the groups that backed Prop. 8. Supporters of gay marriage raised $143,290 in that same period.
In addition to the loss in California, gay-rights supporters suffered setbacks elsewhere last fall, with amendments banning gay marriage being approved in Arizona and Florida. Arkansas voters approved a measure banning unmarried couples from serving as adoptive or foster parents.
“When the people have voted, they have voted to defend marriage,” said Carrie Gordon Earll, senior director of public policy for Colorado Springs-based Focus on the Family.
Thirty states have voter-approved gay marriage bans in their constitutions. Several other states, including Washington, have bans that were passed by state lawmakers.
The 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act, known as DOMA, bars federal recognition of gay unions and denies gay couples access to federal pensions, health insurance and other government benefits.
Since then, six states have enacted laws or issued court rulings that permit same-sex marriage, including Massachusetts, Maine, Vermont, Connecticut and Iowa. New Hampshire’s law takes effect Jan. 1.
Maine’s gay marriage law was scheduled to go into effect on Sept. 12, but it was put on hold once opponents got enough signatures to force a public vote.
“There’s going to be victories and there’s going to be reversals,” said Washington state Sen. Ed Murray, one of the Legislature’s six gay lawmakers, who successfully spearheaded a gay rights law and three domestic partnership laws. “There is an impression that somehow because we elected a Democratic president and Democratic Congress, this is all solved. It isn’t.”
Lawmakers in Washington state have taken an incremental approach to increasing gay rights without actually taking on the state’s marriage ban, which was upheld by the state Supreme Court in 2006. The following year, lawmakers passed the state’s first domestic partnership law granting a handful of rights, like hospital visitation, to gay and lesbian couples.
In 2008, that law was expanded to add more rights, and this year the latest law added such partnerships to all remaining areas of state law where currently only married couples are mentioned. The statutes range from labor and employment rights to pensions and other public employee benefits.
Nearly 12,000 people in Washington state are registered as domestic partners, and while the underlying law that was passed in 2007 allows some older heterosexual couples to register as domestic partners, most of the couples are gay.
Conservative Christians rallied to get Referendum 71 on the November ballot, arguing that Washington state’s latest move is the last step before full civil marriage for gay and lesbian couples in the state.
Opponents of the state’s law are also fighting in court to try to continue shielding the names of people who signed petitions to force a public vote.
Attorneys for Protect Marriage Washington say that referendum signers’ names and addresses should be exempt from the state’s public records disclosure law because release of the information would put them at risk of harassment, amounting to an unconstitutional infringement of free speech rights.
A federal judge in Tacoma granted the sponsors’ request earlier this month. But the state is appealing, citing the state’s open-government laws. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals will hold a hearing on the case in Pasadena, Calif. next month.
The constitutional argument is similar to that made by the National Organization for Marriage and other groups that sponsored Prop. 8. Those groups had sought to block their campaign finance records from public view, saying previous reports led to the harassment of donors. A federal judge in that case ruled earlier this year the names had to be disclosed. A lawsuit on the case is moving forward.
“No one should have to suffer vandalism and death threats just because they support government protection of traditional marriage,” attorney James Bopp Jr., representing Protect Marriage, said in a recent press release. Bopp was also involved in the effort to shield California donors.
If R-71 is rejected, only the most recent law would be rolled back; the two prior domestic partnership laws would not be affected.
Washington state, along with California, Oregon, New Jersey, and the District of Columbia, have laws that either recognize civil unions or domestic partnerships that afford same-sex couples similar rights to marriage.
While Maine and Washington state will get most of the focus in November’s election, a gay rights ordinance in the southwestern Michigan city of Kalamazoo is getting national attention from groups on both sides as well.
The city’s ordinance, which outlaws employment, housing and public-accommodation discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identification, took effect July 9 but was suspended once opponents turned in enough signed petitions to force a public vote.




UH DUH!!!! Are you all Rip van Winkles??? We have been working these all Spring and Summer!!
Third last paragraph ther needs to be a correction: “Washington state, along with California, Oregon, New Jersey, and the District of Columbia, have laws that either recognize civil unions or domestic partnerships that afford same-sex couples similar rights to marriage”.
Please add “Nevada” to the list – they also have domestic partnerships based on the Oregon/California model. It will become effective in about 40 hours.
The population voter turnout and dominant bicamerimaral political party in the Maine state Government are also factors as well.
JUST FOUND OUT: 1.7 million people live in Maine – so I am assuming that only 15 percent vote or are registered voters (245,575 people).
The reason I predict that we will lose marriage equality in Maine is because back in 1990’s people keeped on vetoeing anti-discrimination statutes that added “sexual orientation” to those statutes. After the 5th turn in 2005 it FINALLY got passed into law out-lawing discrimination on the basis of “sexual orientation or gender idenity”.
Learn from experience as they say!!!!!
So bigots get to vote at the ballot AGAIN. When do I get to vote on marriages for bigots?????
What part of “ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL” don’t bigots and redneck facist thugs do not understand!!!!!!!
MY PREDICTIONS AS A GAY ACTIVIST OF GAY RIGHTS ON THE BALLOTS IN NOVEMBER 2009:
GAINS:
* I know we will just win in Washington state on domestic partnership 3rd stage (53 for, 47 against).
* I know we will just win in the southwestern Michigan city of Kalamazoo for the LGBT ordinance against discrimination (51 for, 49 against).
LOSSES:
* I know we will lose marriage equality in Maine (54 aginst, 46 for).
Why the hell are people given the right to VOTE on my civil rights. Constitution of the United States of America…Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness… Can’t they read.
It is for every person!
I wish it didn’t take the loss of such a large and important state such as California to spark a more heated discussion on this topic. But thank goodness for the closing loss margin. I’m glad this issue is being forced.
“In Washington state, a so-called “everything but marriage” law that expands the state’s current domestic partnership law will be on the ballot.”
I’m interesting in seeing how many other states follow in Washington’s footsteps. This seems like the best “compromise” if you will, but I don’t see it changing what we need to have changed. This would keep the LGBTQ community as separate but equal, which is inherently discriminatory. I hope it isn’t all we can hope for.
Attorney James Bopp Jr., representing RESTRICT Marriage Washington, says, “No one should have to suffer vandalism and death threats just because they support government protection of traditional marriage.” Mr. Bopp and his group need to recognize that extending marriage equality rights to same sex couples does not endanger or threaten “traditional” opposite sex marriage. In fact, THE TRUTH is that supporters of marriage equality want real measures taken that will protect and support ALL marriages. These include better marriage preparation and support programs.
It is imperative that those who support marriage equality must get the message through to all voters in Maine, Washington, California and everywhere that we SUPPORT traditional marriage, want ALL marriages protected, believe in the value of ALL families and believe ALL children should be safe in their families.
Since opponents of marriage equality also spread the lie (one that causes fear and alarm) that same-sex marriage could endanger religious freedom, we must also stress that there are churches that support marriage equality and those who oppose marriage equality are, in fact, the ones whom are attacking freedom of religion in the United States.
The need to support marriage equality shows one more reason to get out of the bars and stay home from the parties long enough to do something on October 11th to support Equality for LGBT people everywhere. WE CAN’T ALL BE IN WASHINGTON, BUT WE CAN ALL DO SOMETHING!
vickif: People don’t get vote on other people’s civil rights, just ours. We’re not human enough to be protected from that. Theoretically, it’s blatant tyranny of the majority, but the problem with going through the courts is that we may run up against Antonin Scalia types (or Antonin Scalia himself) who see it as perfectly acceptable to let the public vote away our dignity because it allows the community to set “moral standards” or whatever.
canoebum: I get your point, but I’m a little tired of waiting for “eventually” when our counterparts in Canada and even South Africa have 10 times the rights that we have. The hypocrisy of this country is sickening.
Actually vickif, it’s the Declaration of Independence that states, “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” As nice an idea as that is, it has no force of law in our country. The Constitution uses “life, liberty and property.” Either way, our population is certainly being denied liberty, as well as Equal Protection of the Law, Due Process and Full Faith and Credit of the Federal government, all defined in the 14th Amendment. The only way we get the recognition we are entitled to is through the courts. Politicians don’t read the Constitution, even though they swear an oath to uphold it. Most voters are completely clueless as to what it contains…hell, a recent survey found 77% of high school kids in Oklahoma could not name the first President of the US! But your point is well made. Our civil rights should not be put to a vote. The Constitution was designed to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. Eventually we will win.
This is why we need an extremely large turn out next month in D.C. Then we need to take the momentum from that to our home states and fight this garbage with all our might.
Bob
I will never understand how everyone gets to vote on other people’s civil rights. The Constitution already states that everyone is entitled to LIFE, LIBERTY AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS. It does not say unless you are gay.