ref74_gaymarriage_ap980.jpg
Nine states - New York, Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, Maine, Maryland, Washington - and the District of Columbia now allow same-sex couples to wed. (AP Photo)

Gay marriage reaches a 'turning point,' what next?

BY Brandi Kruse  on November 13, 2012 @ 7:41 am (Updated: 8:57 am - 11/13/12 )

On election night, as gay marriage supporters gathered at the Westin in downtown Seattle to await news of a victory, Washington Governor Christine Gregoire took the stage.

Fighting to hold back tears, she called marriage equality the "defining civil rights issue" of a generation.

Just moments before she spoke, voters in Maine and Maryland passed ballot measures legalizing same-sex unions. A constitutional ban on the ballot in Minnesota had failed.

Days later, as ballots continued to be counted, Washington state's Referendum 74 would pass, making voters here among the first in the country to give gay and lesbian couples the right to wed.

"I think it is hard to say 'Why does culture switch in the period of a couple years?' said Jennifer Self, director of the Q Center at the University of Washington. "One day 50 percent of the people are saying 'No, no, no,' and then you go over that edge..."

She believes support for gay marriage has reached a critical turning point.

"I really think that there has been, over the last 20 years, a shift in people's understandings of gay and lesbian people," Self said. "And, honestly, there's been a whole lot of money poured into this campaign, at the national level and at local levels."

Supporters of gay marriage raised roughly $13.6 million for the R-74 campaign, compared to the $2.7 million brought in by their opponents, Preserve Marriage Washington.

"If you have enough money to put into a campaign you can sway public opinion and actually shift culture," Self said. "It's a combination of very successful campaigns, that needed to happen or these wouldn't have passed, along with decades of cultural shifting."

Joseph Backholm, who chaired the campaign against R-74, said the outcome would have been different had the financial numbers been different. He rejects the idea that there has been a cultural shift in how Americans view same-sex marriage.

"We were outspent by $10 million in a really blue state and it was a really close election," he said. "For my four children, I am specifically necessary in their lives and their mother, who is my wife, is specifically necessary in their lives. That was true 1,000 years ago, it is true today and it will be true 1,000 years from now."

Nine states - New York, Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, Maine, Maryland, Washington - and the District of Columbia now allow same-sex couples to wed.

Self predicts many more will follow as a result of this year's election, and it won't be long, she argues, until the federal government's Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, will fall.

Brandi Kruse, KIRO Radio Reporter
Brandi Kruse is a reporter for KIRO Radio who is as spontaneous and adventurous in her free time as she is on the job. Brandi arrived at KIRO Radio in March 2011 and has already collected three regional Edward R. Murrow awards for her reporting.
More Local News
Top Stories

  • I-5 Bridge Collapse
    Three people were pulled from the water after I-5 bridge collapses over Skagit River

  • Ban Lifted
    Washington state leaders hail vote to allow openly gay Boy Scouts

  • There's a Zone for That
    Mapping out a plan for marijuana growers and sellers
MyNorthwest.com - Purpose of Comments statement
Bonneville Media encourages site users to express their opinions by posting comments. Our goal is to maintain a civil dialogue in which readers feel comfortable. At times, the comments can descend to personal attacks. Please do not engage in such behavior. We encourage your thoughtful comments which: have a positive and constructive tone, are on topic, are respectful toward others and their opinions. Bonneville reserves the right to remove comments which do not conform to these criteria.

Comments (68)


  • Add A Comment

  • It's me! Ha ha! wrote...
    Are Homosexual unions
    November 13, 2012 8:18 am
    now called "Marriage" in the US Constitution? Did the Dear Leader write that in? What Amendment # is it?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • gaymarriedchristianfromhollywood wrote...
    Neither is heterosexual marriage.
    November 13, 2012 10:23 am
    In the absence of amendments to the US Constitution, marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution at any point.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • DonVigo wrote...
    As it should be.
    November 13, 2012 10:35 am
    Funny how conservatives are supposed to be all about less government in our lives yet many are now turning to the constitution to "protect" marriage. Here's hoping this is the dawning of the era of a TRUE seperation of church and state.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • maplefish wrote...
    DonVigo
    November 13, 2012 11:14 am
    Please provide us with a link or passage where, anywhere, in the United States Constitution says anything regarding the "Seperation of Church & State"?.....We'll all be waiting.....
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • ron prevost wrote...
    Agreed - this is not a constitutional issue.
    November 13, 2012 11:44 am
    I did end up voting for 74, mainly because people don't need any more stress in their lives than necessary. ... I had thought the 'everything but..' law we passed 3 years agowas sufficient, but if some people wanted more, who am I to judge.

    Of course the gay community judges others way too much themselves but I'll let them deal with their own bias. Honest people should never suffer from the views of bigots - on either side.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • FormerMarineSgt wrote...
    @ron
    November 13, 2012 12:20 pm
    "the gay community judges others way too much themselves" if you're going to point that out, then I'll have to point out that there are many, many foks from the conservative right wing who do the very same thing - AND they demand to be allowed to force everyone else to follow thier beliefs and morals no matter what. The gay community merely wants to have the Constitutional right to equal protection under the law to be upheld when it comes to marriage.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • JBLee726 wrote...
    Marriage
    November 13, 2012 2:39 pm
    I think marriage is not in the constitution. Unless I'm mistaken it's covered under partnership law on contracts and obligations. If it is then, the definition cannot be limited to apply between a man and a woman since we know that from time immemorial both straight and gay people are raising families to satisfy the basic human need of belonging. However, the practice have been limited to pertain to straight people because of religious indoctrination. As such the families of same sex couple were no given the same social and legal standing. I'm sure that nobody can deny that love is love no matter what the genders are. I think therefore that the solution is to make everybody who wish to be together be instituted under civil union and those who wish to be married be under religious ceremony. This I think would be in accordance with the separation of church and state and would resolved the present arguments.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • FormerMarineSgt wrote...
    @it's me....
    November 13, 2012 12:17 pm
    Not even hetero marriage is in the Constitution. And 'marriage' is whatever we as a society deems it to be. And if a majority of Americans want to see it include gay marriage (and a majority do btw), then those of you who don't want it can go suck lemons.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Cigarillo wrote...
    @Sarge
    November 13, 2012 3:06 pm
    I'm a firm believer that the government endorsement of relationships, otherwise known as marriage, is a non-constitutional issue subject to the whims of the electorate. Although I have concern with the potential social ramifications of the passing of R74, I am forced by the belief that it is a non-constitutional issue to accept the outcome of the vote. That being said, every other fool in the pro R74 camp deemed this a civil liberties issue and would shriek "FOUL" if the vote went the other way and were told to "suck lemons".
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • FormerMarineSgt wrote...
    @Cigarillo
    November 13, 2012 10:48 pm
    sorry if I wasn't clear about what I meant about 'the majority of Americans'. By no means would I ever speak in support of voting on whether or not to provide a basic constitutional right to any group of people, and I was certianly not speaking about the vote. My apologies for not making that clear. What I was speaking to about 'the majority of Americans' was the shift in people's beliefs that there is no problem with allowing gays to marry. Now that the majority of Americans agree with what's Constitutional on this issue, the folks who wish to force all others to adhere to a singular set of religious beliefs (whether we others agree with it or not) can go suck lemons, because that's all they'll get out of the majority of us on this issue. Now when it comes to 'every other fool in the R74 camp', well - if you were on the other side and wanting to force others to NOT follow the Constitution in order to force your own sense of right and wrong upon all others, then, well, I'm sorry for you.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Cigarillo wrote...
    @Sarge
    November 14, 2012 5:39 am
    Couldn't you have simply said, "I disagree. I think it's a constitutional issue" ?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Angry Monkey wrote...
    Once again Ha ha!...
    November 13, 2012 3:52 pm
    There is not now, nor has there ever been anything in the US constitution about marriage gay or straight. This issue is not about what goes on in your bedroom, my bedroom, or anyone else's bedroom. You do not have to marry a man under this new law. You can if you want to, but it's not mandatory.

    I really don't know why I'm bothering with this yet again. My whole point will fly right over your head as it has dozens of times in the past, and when you respond, if you respond, it'll be some nonsensical drivel about The Dear Leader, "real Americans" or some such

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • WAmovesRight wrote...
    For Crying Out Loud MyNW...
    November 13, 2012 10:31 am
    ... You got your gay marriage passed. Why do you continue to write aricles with pictures of the gay community kissing every single day?

    Is there yet more that the LGBT community wants now?

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • cloey wrote...
    Gay parade
    November 13, 2012 10:56 am
    Can we now put a halt to the silly, annoying, obnoxious gay parade?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • cigarfan wrote...
    @cloey
    November 13, 2012 11:04 am
    As soon as the Conservative Taliban led by LDS and other RWNJ white males are elected and return America to the 1950's.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • ron prevost wrote...
    And YOU, cigar guy, ALMOST
    November 13, 2012 11:45 am
    pissed me off enough to vote against it.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • cigarfan wrote...
    @ron prevost
    November 13, 2012 3:49 pm
    Sorry about that Ron. My goal is to argue ideas, not to (necessarily)make you mad ;)
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • maplefish wrote...
    @cigarfan
    November 13, 2012 4:57 pm
    Argue ideas you say? OK that made me laugh harder than anything you've ever said...I think your OK. Good luck to the Gays, the Stoners and the Liberals. It gonna be an interesting next few years. Now, lets get stoned, have some gay weddings and spend all the rich people's money!
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Cigarillo wrote...
    @CigglesTheWonderCommie
    November 13, 2012 1:29 pm
    Careful their Ciggy. Your bigotry is starting to peek out again. At least in the 50's, one didn't have parades with floats carrying waxed men with their junk crammed into sequined man thongs wiggling their tongues at the onlookers like a femmy Gene Simmons. If returning to the 50's meant we'd get Shriners on mini-bikes again, who WOULDN'T be for it?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • cigarfan wrote...
    @FrankenCigarillo
    November 13, 2012 6:03 pm
    Are you saying you've never been to a midnight showing of "The Rocky Horror Picture Show" ? ;)
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Cigarillo wrote...
    @HavannaDevotee
    November 13, 2012 8:16 pm
    I have been, but at the risk of dating myself, Bic lighters and slices of toast were the extent of audience participation at the time.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Forrest wrote...
    What did you conservatives use to say when liberals complained about something?
    November 13, 2012 11:01 am
    Oh yeah, "If you don't like it, leave". May I suggest one of the Muslim countries that follow Sharia Law. They believe as you do.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • maplefish wrote...
    Ahhh Yes
    November 13, 2012 11:16 am
    The ever Tolerant Liberal Left rears its always even, clear thinknig head...
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Fuego wrote...
    I sure hope
    November 13, 2012 11:05 am
    that married gay couples will start paying the "marriage penalty" to the IRS although I wouldn't be surprised if they don't.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • It's me! Ha ha! wrote...
    The Tolerant Left.
    November 13, 2012 11:24 am
    I would love to see all the tolerance from the Left wing Parrots if we Americans who voted for Mr. Romney were to hold a parade for America!
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Phil B wrote...
    Tolerance
    November 13, 2012 12:54 pm
    Being tolerant doesn't mean you roll over and don't stand up for yourself. Although come to think of it, isn't "turning the other cheek" supposed to be a Christian trait, Republicans? Personally I'd love to see a Romney parade. Talk about comedy gold.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • cigarfan wrote...
    Lord ha ha!'s Romney Parade
    November 15, 2012 12:30 pm
    Now that would be hilarious! Good Idea Lord Ha ha! All the Romney fans could parade down Aurora avenue until they reach the Aurora bridge then one by one....walk off the makeshift plank (after receiving LDS membership) and meet Mittens on Planet Kolob! Sounds like a Boze sci-fi flick...
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Oly80 wrote...
    marry, don't marry...
    November 13, 2012 11:27 am
    i really don't care and it does ZERO to effect my life with my wife.

    i can say that, guessing the age of those young ladies kissing, that they very well are not gonna be married forever.

    already in my 30's i've had no less than THREE different lesbian couples that i knew in college break up and become straight, a couple of them married, and on their way to mommy-hood. One of those couples got "married" in a ceremony and everything several years back.

    my guess is that the two more prominent ladies featured in the picture above are still in the early/mid L.U.G. phase.

    give it time...

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Oly80 wrote...
    very well...
    November 13, 2012 11:28 am
    might NOT be married forever.

    sorry. had to clarify.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Kitsapbass wrote...
    The questions that now come to mind (to which I haven't heard answers to)
    November 13, 2012 11:34 am
    Now that r-74 has passed, does that mean that couples that had to get civil-unions now grandfathered in, or do they have to get new licenses? Does this now kick partners off of insurance plans (that previously accepted partners of gay people - because they couldn't get married) immediately or are they being given a grace period? If they're not being removed from insurance and benefit rolls, does that now mean that hetero partners that choose to not get married are now allowed to sue under discrimination policies? I've asked several people who supported R-74 regarding these questions and no one could answer me before, now that it's law I'd like to know what the answers are....
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • TeeJay wrote...
    What's next you ask?
    November 13, 2012 11:45 am
    Why group marriage of course. How can society discriminate against groups of 3 or more people that only want their loving relationship to be recognized by society as equal to 2-person marriages.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Cigarillo wrote...
    @TeeJay
    November 13, 2012 2:05 pm
    Group marriages are nothing new. Historians have uncovered evidence of it in the adult films of the '70s.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • TeeJay wrote...
    @Cigarillo
    November 13, 2012 3:13 pm
    Tell me something I don't already know. Group marriage here will be next.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Troll Hunter wrote...
    TeeJay
    November 13, 2012 5:13 pm
    Group marriages you say? Already been tried, by the Mormons
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • gaymarriedchristianfromhollywood wrote...
    "Separation of church and state"
    November 13, 2012 11:53 am
    is a phrase used by Thomas Jefferson expressing an understanding of the intent and function of the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. The phrase has since been repeatedly cited by the Supreme Court of the United States. In Reynolds v. United States (1879) the Court wrote that Jefferson's comments "may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the [First] Amendment." In Everson v. Board of Education (1947), Justice Hugo Black wrote: "In the words of Thomas Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect a wall of separation between church and state." Since the US Supreme Court interprets the constitution and it has referenced the phrase no less than 25 times it's pretty standard knowledge. Que no?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • GloScot wrote...
    Hollywood...
    November 13, 2012 2:56 pm
    For more background, here's the letter penned by Thomas Jefferson to the Baptist association where he coins the phrase "separation of church and state;" As you can see, he references the king as "executive" who is the head of the state and the church: Mr. President To messers Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut. Gentlemen The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing. Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. [Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from prescribing even those occasional performances of devotion, practiced indeed by the Executive of another nation as the legal head of its church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.] Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties. I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association assurances of my high respect & esteem. (signed) Thomas Jefferson Jan.1.1802.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • gaymarriedchristianfromhollywood wrote...
    Thanks. But what's your point?
    November 13, 2012 4:47 pm
    I think I missed it.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • maplefish wrote...
    His point was
    November 13, 2012 5:17 pm
    You are a loud mouth, know-it-all, bigot who epitomizes the entire Liberal/Gay community...How's that?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • gaymarriedchristianfromhollywood wrote...
    Oh hellz no. I'm not engaging you.
    November 13, 2012 5:41 pm
    You are part of the anti-American right that always blame America first. The people have spoken. Love it or leave it...
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Cigarillo wrote...
    @GayWood
    November 13, 2012 6:31 pm
    It was a pretty piece of prose, but I would agree that it wasn't applicable to the issue at hand. What I can't figure is how one could even accept the weak association made here between the gay issue and separation of church and state. One could apply the same logic to just about every law on the books.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • gaymarriedchristianfromhollywood wrote...
    it must be me, I'm not sure what you're talking about either
    November 13, 2012 8:15 pm
    I was responding to maplefish. I'm sure you have a point, but hex if I can figure it out. P.S. maplefish is a jerk
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Cigarillo wrote...
    @Woody
    November 13, 2012 8:44 pm
    It is you. The reason people put @[name} in their subject line is to maintain some clarity. I could've been more clear by beginning my post with "GloScot's contribution to the Jeffersonfest was a pretty piece of prose,"
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • gaymarriedchristianfromhollywood wrote...
    Oh...got it.
    November 13, 2012 9:10 pm
    I'm new to the blogs. Thanks.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }