Election 2006: Support for Same-Sex Marriage Grows
Significantly
Arizona Delivers First-ever Win in Defeating
Anti-Marriage Amendment
Races Coast to Coast Show Supporting
Fairness for Gay Families Is a Plus; Aligning With the Extreme Christian Right a
Big Minus
WASHINGTON, Nov.
8 - For the first time, a proposed constitutional amendment to ban any form of
legal recognition for same-sex couples was defeated, and 39 percent of voters
opposed the bans, a significant increase over the 33 percent who opposed similar
ballot measures in 2004.
As important, election results in
House, Senate and gubernatorial races coast to coast show that supporting
fairness for gay and lesbian families is not a liability, while aligning with
the extreme Christian right is.
Anti-marriage constitutional
amendments
Anti-marriage
amendments were on the ballot in eight states and were approved in seven of the
eight, but by significantly lower margins than in past years. In 2004, there
were 11 anti-marriage amendments on the November ballot, and in only two of them
did opposition top 40 percent: Oregon (43 percent) and Michigan (41 percent).
Early this morning, five out of the eight states topped 40 percent, including
Arizona, Colorado, South Dakota, Virginia and
Wisconsin.
"It's clear that fear-mongering around same-sex
marriage by the GOP and the extreme Christian right is fizzling out," said Matt
Foreman, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task
Force. "It doesn't have the juice it had just two years ago - people
are getting sick of it."
Two states - South Dakota and
Virginia - did far better than pundits expected. In South Dakota the margin was
48 percent to 52 percent and was attributed to a strong campaign run with meager
resources by South Dakotans Against Discrimination and its campaign manager Jon
Hoadley, and a strong "live and let live" ethos among South
Dakotans.
In Virginia , the margin was 43 percent to 57
percent, a tie with the best-showing state in 2004 (Oregon). Assumptions that
the margin would be higher reflected a failure to understand how much the Old
Dominion has changed and underestimating the strength of the "Vote No on #1"
campaign managed by Claire Guthrie Gastañaga.
In Colorado,
meanwhile, with 60 percent of the precincts reporting voters were rejecting a
measure to extend domestic partnership rights to same-sex couples and their
families. The outcome of the measure remained uncertain due to widespread delays
in the tabulation of votes in Denver and Boulder.
Historic win in Arizona
Arizona became the first state to reject an
anti-marriage constitutional amendment, by a margin of 51 percent to 49 percent.
Through today, voters in 28 states have voted on marriage amendments since 1998,
with Arizona being the only state to reject an amendment.
"It
is always wrong to put basic rights up for a popular vote and it is nearly
impossible for any minority to protect itself when that happens. But today, in
Arizona the impossible happened," said Foreman. "This sweet victory was due to
an exceptional campaign run by 'No on 107' and its campaign chair Cindy Jordan
and 'Arizona Together' and its campaign chair Kyrsten Sinema, and the hundreds
of volunteers whoworked on the campaign."
The No on 107
campaign in Southern Arizona was extremely successful at using messages that
openly and honestly shared how same-sex couples in the state would be harmed by
the amendment. And, Arizona Together, the statewide campaign, was also extremely
successful at showing how broad anti-marriage amendments that also outlaw
domestic partner benefits and civil unions harm everyone, including heterosexual
couples. Combined, the messages of both campaigns were able to convince a
majority of Arizona voters that marriage discrimination has no place in their
constitution.
"Arizona has a special place in history as the
first state to reject an anti-gay marriage ballot measure. We know it will not
be the last," said Foreman.
Pro-gay candidates triumph over those aligned with
extreme Christian right
The
influence of the extreme Christian right took a major hit this election as
voters elected a number of pro-gay candidates and rejected some of the nation's
most vocal anti-gay candidates.
"Across the nation, voters
rejected candidates who aligned themselves with the extreme Christian right wing
agenda and repudiated Karl Rove's divisive strategy of relying on the GOP's base
of so-called 'values voters' and divisive wedge issues to win elections," said
Foreman. "Voters didn't fall for it this time. The extreme Christian right has
been revealed as the Achilles heel of the Republican Party in races across the
country." (Individual races are detailed below.)
Defeat of Santorum and Hostettler in Pennsylvania and
Indiana overjoys lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender
community
Voters sent
packing two of the most anti-gay members of Congress: Pennsylvania Sen. Rick
Santorum, the third-ranking GOP leader in the Senate who compared same-sex
marriage to "man on child, man on dog" sex, lost his seat to Democrat challenger
Bob Casey, and in Indiana, Democratic challenger Brad Ellsworth defeated
Republican Rep. John Hostettler, one of the House's anti-gay leaders.
Hostettler, who was elected in the GOP sweep of 1994, worked to slash funding
for AIDS programs and drafted the Marriage Protection Act, designed to prevent
federal courts from ordering states to recognize same-sex marriages permitted in
other states. In this year's campaign, he ran a campaign ad that warned that if
he lost and House leadership changed hands, "(Nancy) Pelosi will then put in
motion her radical plan to advance the homosexual agenda, led by Barney Frank,
reprimanded by the House after paying for sex with a man who ran a gay brothel
out of Congressman Frank's home." The statement about Frank was factually
incorrect.
"We are thrilled, ecstatic and overjoyed that
Rick Santorum has been thrashed at the polls. His extreme and gratuitous
homophobia will no longer pollute the Senate. Good riddance," Foreman said.
"Ditto for Hostettler in the House. To him we offer an equally enthusiastic
good-bye."
Pro-gay
gubernatorial candidates victorious in Wisconsin, Michigan and
Ohio
In Wisconsin, Ohio,
Michigan and Oregon, pro-gay gubernatorial candidates triumphed over candidates
closely aligned with the extreme Christian right.
In
Wisconsin, where an anti-marriage amendment was on the ballot, Democratic
incumbent Gov. Jim Doyle defeated Republican Mark Green. Republicans, who
dominate the state Legislature, put the marriage amendment on the ballot in a
transparent attempt to influence the gubernatorial contest. Doyle campaigned
against the marriage amendment while Green strongly supported it. Polls leading
up to the vote showed the two candidates consistently within two to three points
of each other.
"Jim Doyle's convincing win proves that the
right-wing attempt to win the governor's mansion by attacking gay families
failed and failed miserably," said Foreman. "People who believe in justice and
equality owe a lot to Governor Doyle for standing up for gay people so
consistently and so courageously."
In Ohio, Democrat Ted
Strickland beat Republican Ken Blackwell by a wide margin. Blackwell is one of
the most virulently anti-gay elected officials in the nation, a chief advocate
of Ohio's 2004 anti-marriage constitutional amendment and an outspoken opponent
of Cincinnati's recent nondiscrimination law. Strickland, on the other hand,
voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment as a member of Congress and opposed
the 2004 Ohio state constitutional amendment banning same-sex partner
recognition of any kind.
"We saw Republicans and Christian
right extremists trying to use an anti-gay family amendment to help win Ohio for
Bush-Cheney in 2004. Yet in 2006 Ohio voters have rejected the politics of
division and elected a moderate who opposes scapegoating gay and lesbian
families for political gain."
InMichigan, Democratic
incumbent Jennifer Granholm defeated Republican challenger Dick DeVos. Gay and
reproductive rights both played a role in the race. In mid-September, the
Triangle Foundation, a statewide LGBT organization, linked DeVos to a $10,000
gift to the American Family Association, which is leading a boycott against Ford
Motor Company because it advertises in gay publications. Because the financial
woes of the big three auto companies have created financial hardships for the
state, this received widespread publicity. Granholm picked up additional support
through a series of ads telling that while she personally opposed abortion, she
supported a woman's right to choose while DeVos opposed abortion in all cases,
including instances of rape or incest. Both candidates opposed a ballot
initiative to end affirmative action in the state.
"In 2004,
DeVos supported an amendment which stripped thousands of public sector employees
in Michigan of employer provided health coverage. Then we learned that DeVos'
family is supporting the boycott of Ford Motor Company. Michigan voters have
rejected this anti-gay zealot who puts his own bigotry ahead of the needs of
Michigan families and workers," Foreman said.
In Oregon,
voters re-elected Gov. Ted Kulongoski , one of the most pro-gay governors in the
nation, defeating Rox Saxton. During the campaign, Kulongoski strongly supported
civil unions and nondiscrimination legislation. Saxton, on the other hand,
openly courted the support of the vehemently anti-gay Oregon Family Council and
said he would veto any bill protecting gay people from discrimination.
"Oregonians re-elected the most pro-gay sitting governor in
the nation, beating an opponent who courted and received the enthusiastic
support of anti-gay forces in the state. Kulongoski was re-elected without
wavering - and in fact, continually reaffirming - his commitment to civil
unions," said Foreman.
Nation's first pro-marriage governors elected by wide
margins
In Massachusetts
and New York, pro-marriage equality gubernatorial candidates Deval Patrick and
Eliot Spitzer were elected by landslides. This is the first time pro-marriage
equality candidates have been elected governor of any
state.
"Massachusetts and New York voters have elected in
overwhelming landslides the first two governors ever who support marriage
equality forsame-sex couples. These historic victories show that support for
full equality for our families is not a negative but something voters are
willing to embrace enthusiastically," Foreman said.
Pro-equality local measures pass in Michigan and
Oregon
In Ferndale, Mich.,
residents overwhelmingly approved nondiscrimination protections based on sexual
orientation by nearly three to one. Ferndale voters rejected a similar ordinance
by just 117 votes in February 2000. This campaign was the third attempt since
1991 to pass a human rights ordinance barring such discrimination in housing,
employment, and public accommodation. And more than 60 percent of voters in
Corvallis, Ore., voted to amend their city charter to provide equal protection
and nondiscrimination for all, inclusive of sexual orientation and gender
identity or expression.
"The campaigns in Ferndale and
Corvallis show the depth of local support for nondiscrimination protections for
lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people," said Foreman. "We applaud
Ferndale Alliance Valuing Our Residents and Inclusive Corvallis for coordinating
these victorious campaigns, which has sent a resounding a message to those who
seek to target our community that hatred and intolerance have no place in
Ferndale or Corvallis." (National Gay and
Lesbian Task
Force)
Is the closet an awfully confining space in which to
live? Yes. Is it great that Lance, T.R. Knight, Neil Patrick Harris are out?
Yes. Do I want more and more celebrities to come out? Yes. Every gay person who
is out helps make our community more visible. But unless a celebrity is
virulently anti-gay, I don't believe they should be forced out of the closet via
open-season witch hunts for no other reason than because 
