(Updated) Come November, R.I.P. Same-Sex Marriage In Oregon
Anti-Marriage Forces Turn In Record Number Of Petition Signatures
Note: This post has been updated. Any and all updates appear at the end of the original post.
Not to be cynical or anything, but we've always sort of assumed that should the initiative to constitutionally outlaw same-sex marriage in Oregon get onto the November ballot, it was all over. Well, it seems that this afternoon anti-marriage forces submitted a record number of signatures:
Backers of a ban on gay marriage turned in more than 244,000 signatures Wednesday to place the issue before Oregon voters this fall. It was twice the number needed and the highest number of signatures ever submitted for an initiative measure in Oregon.
While there of course will be challenges to the initiative, the signature-gathering process, and the validity of signatures, the proposal needs only 100,840 valis signatures to qualify. That more than twice that number were submitted virtually guarantees that voters this Fall will have the option of enshrining discrimination and unequal protection into the Oregon Constitution.
As we said, perhaps were overly-cynical, but it would seem to us that it's not entirely unreasonable to call the outcome a foregone conclusion now. A done deal. When the votes are tallied on November 2, we fully expect (regardless of the margin) the voters of Oregon to outlaw the extension of the privilege of civil marriage to same-sex couples.
Update
Make of it what you will, but an opinion poll just reported on the KATU newscast showed 61% favoring the initiative, 33% opposing it, and 6% undecided.
Update
According to email from Basic Rights Oregon, supporters of same-sex marriage now have the job to "tell the voters how this measure will harm more than 3,000 of their neighbors, friends and family members so they will choose to vote 'no.'"
To this end, they say they are putting together a "dream team" to organize the opposition to this ballot initiative. Amongst those listed:
Campaign Manager Aisling Coghlan, who has been a key player in numerous ballot measure campaigns from bond measures to a successful defeat of two Sizemore measures and one McIntire measure.
Liz Kaufman, General Campaign Strategist, who was instrumental in successful defeats of Measures 13 and 9 among numerous other ballot measures.
Gwenn Baldwin, Communications Strategist, who formed winning communications strategy for Measure 13 among many other initiatives.
BRO also says that field staff are already in place, and during the next thirty days during which the State will be verifying petition signatures, they will be monitoring that process.
June 30, 2004 at 04:53 PM
Well, fuck. I genuinely and, it seems, naively, thought we were better than this.
June 30, 2004 at 05:05 PM
Agreed.
We're f**ked.
June 30, 2004 at 05:09 PM
Grr! (begins mentally rearranging schedule to find time to volunteer for anti-amendment campaign). I know it's futile, but I wouldn't feel right about not donating some time to at least trying to beat back this homophobic shit.
June 30, 2004 at 06:14 PM
This just bans marriage, right? Amendments in other states like Michigan and Georgia ban all benefits and are so vague that may even include wills and benefits from private companies.
That may be the reason this got so many signatures, if it only bans marriage. *
*I'm disappointed by this news, undoubtedly. I'm just trying to figure out how sweeping the measure is, because some states are really going all-out to ban everything they can.
June 30, 2004 at 06:17 PM
Indeed, it simply bans marriage. It does nothing to also outlaw any other "civil unions" construct.
June 30, 2004 at 08:56 PM
It's no surprise that 60% of people in our state would limit our civil rights. At least 70% of all gays and lesbians are still closeted. Until we as individuals have the courage to step gently out of our closets everywhere, meaning to our neighbors, friends, families and co-workers, no matter the perceived consequences, this issue will remain a battle.
Our commissioners put their lives and careers on the line for us. It is time we do the same for ourselves. I believe that if we do this enmasse, the measure will fail in November.
June 30, 2004 at 10:33 PM
There was very little opposition to the signature gathering process, much of which was done in tax-exempt church sanctuaries. A clear legal statement on this practice may have avoided thousands of signatures.
Regardless, the issue will be decided along with the Presidential election. This gives conservative groups even greater leverage in urging their members to go to the polls.
This is one of the reasons I felt this issue was poorly timed. Bad news all around.
July 01, 2004 at 05:27 AM
I think BRO's best bet would be to put all-American mothers (it's sexist, but stick with mothers) on television with their children and have them explain, "Unless you vote no, my son will no longer have me as a mother." This law destroys real families. It jeopardizes real children's lives, by robbing them of the security of a two-parent family. This measure is a terrible thing to do to people.
July 01, 2004 at 08:15 AM
You can thank Oregon Churches for this huge amount of signitures. Walking the streets of Portland, you just didn't see this Petition. If we want to defeat this, we have to start with those people preaching in the Churches around Oregon. Its another case of the civilized world required to drag the religous kicking and screaming into modern times. Comparing this effort to the effort to not allow interacial Marrage seems to be the best bet. For most, this is not a matter of hate, but of fear of the new and unknown. Couples who have just been married should start showing up at churches and making friends. Its the only way to show these people they have nothing to fear.
July 01, 2004 at 12:38 PM
I am at a loss for what to say.
gotta love the religious right. They keep me on my toes.
jj
July 01, 2004 at 12:53 PM
Things may look bad right now, but perhaps a history lesson is in order.
1992: OCA places measure 9 on the ballot with a rallying cry of "No special rights for Homos!". Measure fails.
1994: OCA tries a watered down version of 9, known as Measure 13. Measure fails.
2000: OCA, after failing to get abortion and anti-ESL measures onto ballot returns to it's cash cow. Places "Student Protection Act" on ballot. Mesaure is said to "prevent the promotion of homosexuality is schools" Fate has a sense of humor, and it gets assigned to ballot as measure #9. Measure fails.
2002: OCA tries for an SPA-2. Fails to reach ballot.
The people of Oregon have already spoken on these issues. BRO would do well to remind them of that.
July 01, 2004 at 01:29 PM
Have you seen the text of the measure? I still don't see how it addresses the section one equality provision:
"No law shall be passed granting to any citizen or class of citizens privileges or immunities, which, upon the same terms, shall not equally belong to all citizens."
In fact, what it appears to do is make unambiguous the part of the constitution Hardy Myers said already was unambiguous: that marriage is identified as one woman and one man. How is this any different? Or do they intend to strip the equality provision?
July 01, 2004 at 01:51 PM
Pliny: The DOMC is not going to have a difficult time, I don't believe, in distinguishing those measure from this one. It's going to be easier for them to cast this one as simply protecting a longstanding institution, especially since the amendment does not outlaw civil unions, which supports of the measure can argue demonstrates that this doesn't take away any rights. Obviously, I disagree with this, but it's going to be easier for them to make their case that this amendment is different that those other measures.
Jeff: I had thought I had read somewhere in the past several months that the Oregon Constition is permitted to technically contradict itself, but I can't recall offhand how that works, so it's possible I'm thinking of something else.
July 01, 2004 at 05:10 PM
b!X: I may well be in denial on this one. In the end though it doesn't really matter. This is only a battle in a much larger culture war. And the DOMC is *not* on the winning side. Defeating them at the polls would be nice, and would give gays and lesbians some much needed breathing room.
No matter which way the vote goes, Oregon will still be in the marriage business, and we *will* evetually have to deal with that.
July 01, 2004 at 08:00 PM
If anyone thinks my husband and I will be interested in contributing to the economic and social fabric of a state that won't recognize our marriage, they're sadly mistaken.
Hello, Canada!
July 01, 2004 at 09:03 PM
Pliny has it right. This is one small but significant skirmish in a much larger transaction. I suspect that this cultural shift will take around 100 years, and since it started about 50 or 60 years ago, we only have a couple of generations to go... small potatoes in the bigger picture.
If we're lucky, my husband and I will see equality for us in our lifetimes. If not, I've already seen enough progress to predict with absolute certainty where this is headed.
I was in the front row of the Eugene City Council Chambers in 1974 (in a sea of lesbians) when the state's first legal protections for gay and lesbian Oregonians were approved. (The Register Guard's headline the next day about the ordinance's approval put the word "gay" in quotes, as it was not yet fully in general usage.)
When this was repealed the following year by a subsequent ballot initiative brought about by the religious right I thought that we had lost for good, and I was devastated. I'm (a lot) older now, and I've come to see wins and losses (for both sides) as just steps along the larger journey.
My personal peace comes from seeing where this is headed, albeit years from now. As I said, I'm confident that equality will win out, maybe in my lifetime.
July 02, 2004 at 05:25 PM
Good post, Jim. I'm one with the long view, too, though I much wish that more people had been, rather than forcing the issue now in times already more than .... more than.
July 04, 2004 at 08:17 PM
In my 20's I was a conservative Christian, a patriot, and a homophobic. The first two haven't changed. It's taken decades to change the third.
I watched as the petitions were passed in the church. I declined to sign. I pass the word to any of my Christian brothers and sisters who will listen...regardless of our views, it's not our place to dictate or legislate something so deeply a part of another person as is whether they are left or right handed. And where does Jesus' second great commandment to love your neighbor as yourself fit into all this?
CAB is right. Peaceful education coupled with active legislation is the best route. It's easy for the church to watch a gay pride parade in San Francisco and shake their collective head over someone so different. It's much harder to vote "yes" to this kind of measure when it affects the happiness and well being of someone you have come to know and love. If this measure passes (and not all Christians will be voting for it) I will be the first in line to support a constitutional appeal.
Count this conservative Christian's vote a "no".
July 05, 2004 at 10:48 AM
You homosexual activists have gotten everything you ever wanted after Stonewall. Not being satisfied, you activists decided to go after marriage. You are bringing all this on yourself. If not for your pressure, there wouldn't be an amendment pending to ban same sex marriage. You brought on yourself, now let the voters decide.
July 05, 2004 at 12:34 PM
Of course, some of us can be "activists" on this issue without being homosexual.
"Not that there's anything wrong with that," to quote Seinfeld.