I know, I know: It seems like we just went through this.
But we haven’t seen anything yet.
On September 19, Strategies 360 released a statewide poll that found Washington State voters think gay marriage should be legal by a 54–35 margin. Men, women, white people, racial minorities, Democrats, independents, and voters both over 55 and under 55 years old all showed majority support. Another poll, conducted by Alison Peters Consulting in July and sponsored by Equal Rights Washington, was “completely consistent” with the Strategies 360 findings, says Josh Friedes, ERW’s marriage equality director. He couldn’t release the exact numbers because it was conducted in concert with coalition partners, but he said, “For the first time in Washington State, marriage equality is winnable if it’s on the ballot.”
The last time this was a state issue, on Election Day in 2009, the dispute wasn’t same-sex marriage but
domestic-partnership rights. A bill passed in Olympia, despite religious protest, and then an organization that was trying to overturn those rights, Protect Marriage Washington, put a referendum on the ballot. That campaign was run by extreme fundie Gary Randall, the Faith and Freedom Network pastor, and cohort Larry Stickney, who together raised only about $460,000. Big-time religious players on the national stage sat it out, sending their money elsewhere.
For example, the National Organization for Marriage (NOM)—the financially bloated bigotry machine run by the bloated bigotry Pez dispenser named Maggie Gallagher—spent $7.4 million across the United States in 2009, according to tax filings with the IRS. But NOM spent only $10,000 in this state, according to the Washington State Public Disclosure Commission. The largest chunk of that $7.4 million funded “a series of advertisements promoting traditional marriage” in Maine, including the now-infamous “Gathering Storm” commercial depicting boiling clouds, lightning bolts, and actors warning that gay couples “want to change the way I live.” If you thought it sounded paranoid and delusional, you probably weren’t the person they were trying to reach. But those ads, along with $1.6 million the group contributed to Stand for Marriage Maine, led to a successful repeal of same-sex marriage in the nation’s upper-right state.
Likewise, the various archdioceses of the Roman Catholic Church that plopped down over half a million dollars in Maine ignored the battle in Washington State, as did the Mormon Church, which dropped an estimated $20 million in California the previous year to pass Proposition 8, banning gay marriage.
Now that marriage is at stake in Washington State, we’re likely to be the bull’s-eye for a multimillion-dollar torrent of local and national anti-gay advertising. After all, the amount NOM gave Protect Marriage Washington in 2009 was only 0.6 percent of its Maine budget.
“Our opponents are clearly wigging out over what is happening,” says Friedes. “We are seeing an extraordinary number of alarming e-mails coming from them, particularly on raising money.”
For years, the Washington State Legislature has considered, and ultimately pushed aside, a bill that would allow same-sex marriage. Part of the problem was that the bill introduced by state senator Ed Murray (D-43) would be difficult to pass in the moderate senate. But a bigger problem, as the Democratic LGBT caucus knew, was that even if lawmakers hustled for the votes, evangelicals would run a referendum to send whatever same-sex marriage legislation they’d passed to the ballot—where poll after poll said voters would reject it. No sense in passing a bill in Olympia, the thinking went, only to lose on Election Day.
This milestone of Washington voters now approving of same-sex marriage rights 54–35 fits within the trajectory of other polling. For instance, the Elway Poll found that support jumped from 37 to 43 percent from 2005 to 2009; the UW’s Washington Poll showed combined support for marriage and domestic partnerships rights growing from 59 to 66 percent in the years 2006 to 2008.
“Like the public, legislators are moving our direction,” says state representative Laurie Jinkins (D-27), speculating on her colleagues at the Capitol. State senator Murray says that 2012 is the right year for such a bill, and adds that the vote will be “very close” and will likely require moderate Republicans “who have indicated various level of support.” He expects an added push from Governor Chris Gregoire.
“There is no reason this governor and this legislature can’t get this done,” says David Rolf, president of SEIU Healthcare 775NW, a powerful player and funder in state politics. He points to the New York legislature passing gay marriage despite anti-gay constituencies like the Catholic Church. If it passes, Rolf, Murray, and everyone else interviewed for this article agrees that evangelicals will put it on the ballot.
Owing to the exposure of Referendum 71, the domestic-
partnership-rights battle from 2009, Murray says, “I don’t think the issue is as radioactive as it once was, but I think the far, far right will throw everything they have at it.”
Of course, there’s no better year for a referendum on gay marriage than 2012. Presidential and gubernatorial elections draw more voters—younger, more diverse, more liberal—and a marijuana legalization initiative also looks poised for the ballot, another appeal to progressives.
“In this state, in this year, in this climate, I would see same-sex marriage as more of a motivator for progressive votes than for far right votes,” says Rolf. Whereas in the recent past Republicans have used gay marriage as a wedge issue, most notably in 2004 for the Bush reelection campaign—an attempt to drive conservative turnout in swing states—now it could work against them. Gay marriage on the ballot energizes the left.
Rolf compares this issue to the rise of the Tea Party, which used a buzz of activism in 2009 to incubate a sweep of the House and the election of hard-liners like Rand Paul to the Senate in 2010. Gay-marriage advocates are in the same place now, he says. Repealing DADT, winning gay marriage in New York, and a federal lawsuit to restore same-sex marriage in California are signals for momentum for gay rights legislation in 2012. “Once you are at the tipping point, these things tend to happen really fast,” he says. “People may face personal bigotry or discrimination in some parts of the country, but the legal facts will be increasingly uncontested.”
Of course, this new constellation of political realities—the push for a bill in a Democratically ruled legislature, these latest polls, and a progressive electorate in a presidential election year—terrifies anti-gay pastor Randall. “If the bill should pass, we will take an appropriate initiative action to repeal it,” Randall wrote on his evangelical blog on September 19 about a marriage bill. “Homosexual activists are demanding that you redefine marriage to accommodate their sexual behavior.”
Even religious leaders who ignored the domestic-partnership fight in 2009 say marriage is a different ball game. Joe Fuiten, pastor of the Cedar Park Assembly of God in Bothell, says he would get involved because marriage is “a biblically defined idea.”
Randall indicated that organizing has already begun: “Faith and Freedom is incurring expenses in preparation for the gathering storm. We are surveying citizens across the state at this time. We are working with others of like mind to not only stand but prevail in the coming assault on society’s most fundamental cornerstone—marriage.”
Randall’s choice of words here—”the gathering storm”—implies exactly what gay-rights advocates fear most. The “Gathering Storm” ads exhibited NOM’s ability to sweep into states and trigger irrational fears that gay marriage would rob Christians of their way of life. Focus on the Family, a Colorado-based group opposing gay rights, did not respond to requests for comment on this article, and NOM spokeswoman Monica Schleicher would only say, “We don’t talk future spending plans.” 
Dominic, you are incorrect about the impact of NOM’s ads on the Maine vote. The fact remains that ERW in 2009 with the Referendum 71 vote and Maine’s allegedly pro-gay marriage state organization followed Equality California’s Prop 8 playbook exactly. They dumbed the message down, hid behind euphemisms, refused to say “gay”. I attended the Referendum 71 campaign kick off at which Josh Friedes delivered ERW’s “here’s what we decided you folks get to do” campaign. I sat there in the audience when Josh went over the list of reasons to support domestic partnerships and “protects gay couples” was about 12th down on the list… and this was to an audience of predominantly GAY people on Capitol Hill. There are any number of studies and reports detailing exactly how “our side” fucks our campaigns up. I’d be happy to forward them to you.
And what about that paper coalition of 150 or so organizations around the state? It seems like when you have that many groups backing you, you shouldn’t just wait for the bigots to attack before you respond. Hell, with that kind of coalition, the smart bet would be to push for marriage equality then and there. And while you’re at it, tax the rich, end the tax loopholes for corporations, and stop cutting budgets. Otherwise, what good is a majority?
We queers sit on our asses and allow the professional corporate gay activists of groups like EQCA and ERW run the show, no matter how many times they fuck up. Keep in mind, it was ERW’s decision to take marriage equality to the state Supreme Court. We all know how that ended up. Was there any call to accountability or did we all just fall into the trap of “those mean and nasty bigots are to blame”? I would argue that Referendum 71 passed in 2009, NOT because of ERW (who tried to keep the campaign in the closet), but because Washington queers were smart enough to recognize why Prop 8 lost. The final tally on the Prop 8 and Referendum 71 votes were nearly the same. We were able to push to victory not because ERW spent thousands of our dollars on wishy washy ads that refused to say “gay,” but because individuals took it upon themselves to reject corporate tactics and engage in activist tactics. ERW had no plans to engage the queers on Capitol Hill. Instead they chose to focus on that imaginary “moveable middle”, you know, the 70 year old ladies in Central Washington who happened to be at home when they received a robocall asking how they felt about gay marriage. I learned this directly from an employee of ERW. ERW’s corporate strategy, the same strategy Democrats use whether the issue is liquor privatization or civil rights, is restricted to phone banking, writing checks, and door belling. Activist tactics included tabling and sign waving downtown and on freeway overpasses, hanging the Seattle Gay News’s Referendum 71 signs across Washington, calling into to Seattle radio stations that ran antigay ads, and that little march of a few thousand people or so that your paper trashed. Visibility was the key, not any corporate-designed “plan”. When the TV news reported on the pro-Ref 71 rally in Everett and the No on 71 march in Seattle, no serious activist can argue that folks throughout the state weren’t inspired, energized, and encouraged by the site of pro-gay rights folks outnumbering the bigots by more than 10 to 1. That’s how you mobilize people. Not by smiling in front of an audience of angry queers telling them that “According to our polling [which we spent tens of thousands of dollars on], the people of Washington don’t like conflict…”
We are correct in criticizing the antigay folks as the bigots they are, but we can’t continue to let “our” side off the hook when they fuck up. You reported following the Referendum 71 victory that ERW has a shitload of donated cash. Where did that money go? Why is 2012 suddenly the time to push for gay marriage? Does it have anything to do with how shitty Obama’s doing and are the Democrats using gay marriage in a similar way to the Republicans use of gay marriage in previous elections, ie as a wedge issue to “get out the vote”? Is this strategy connected to the Congressional Democrats strategy of “suddenly” giving a shit about DOMA now that the Republicans have control of the House, instead of during the first two years of the Obama administration when the Democrats had supermajorities in both houses? And how did ERW’s decision to speak on behalf of 300,000 Washington queers in endorsing and throwing a party for corporate Democrat of the month Jay Inslee advance our equality? And why was ERW’s only participation in the campaign to repeal DADT an email asking supporters to donate (of course) and send a thank you email to the Democratic politicians who voted in favor and not one of the local veterans who actually fought for repeal?
When queers finally win equality in this country, it won’t be because of the Democrats or their front groups like ERW, it will be in spite of them.
I think a law should be passed that outlaws these wack job Church’s of nothing but bull shit and the total evil crap they spread? A church that has that much money to spend on making life as miserable possible for minority’s is not exactly what I would call a temple of God? These are the freaks who have spread war and prejudiced through out the entire world and who every time want to stand shoulder to shoulder with some twisted Bible passage and some twisted Law and some twisted political group?
The Jewish leaders insisted, “We have a law, and according to that law he must die, because he claimed to be the Son of God.”
“Shall I crucify your king?” Pilate asked.
“We have no king but Caesar,” the chief priests answered.
I get sick of watching John:19 real life reruns?
more pies in the face of the politipiggys who entertain this crapy lack of humanity?
if it helps to know, our state and Maine have little to do with each other mind-set wise. I think this will have an easier time here than in Maine. Not that it will be easy.
The simplest and cheapest solution is to get the state out of the marriage business. Simply replace the word “marriage” with “civil contract” in the RCW. Then remove preachers et alia as officers of the state.
@4: That might seem tempting, but the truth is that marriage does involve the state in ways that cannot be replicated by a civil contract between the two people getting married. The state is involved in determining next-of-kin for legal purposes; for upholding hospital visitation rights (and not leaving it up to individual hospitals to decide); for offering tax breaks to married couples; and (at a federal level) conferring immigration privileges to spouses.
If you think that none of these things are necessary, then congratulations: you have indeed found a simple and cheap solution to the problem. However, many people (including myself) regard these as important protections and privileges, and a substantial part of what we are fighting for. The state is very much involved.
Christians already sold out by tying their marriage into marriage laws. When you sell out like that, you expect to lose your control over it.