Jul 29, 2005  |  By: RYAN LEE  | COMMENTS     

Editors’ note: This story is the second of two parts on how the fight over gay marriage impacted the gay rights movements in states that faced ballot measures in 2004, or face them in the coming months, and those that did not.

Not all gay organizations in states that suffered losses on gay marriage in 2004 are shying away from fights over rights for same-sex couples.

A gay marriage ban passed in Oregon in 2004 by a 56-44 percent margin, despite national groups like the Human Rights Campaign and the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force funneling the vast majority of their anti-amendment resources into that state. Earlier this month, the Oregon state Senate passed a bill creating civil unions supported by Basic Rights Oregon, a statewide gay group.

The Human Rights Campaign said it contributed $474,000 to last year’s ballot fight in Oregon, some $314,000 directly to the group fighting the measure and $160,000 on get-out-the-vote efforts.

Some $867,858 was contributed by the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force, $662,858 of which went directly to the campaign against the amendment, according to the Task Force.

“We suffered a setback last year, but at the same time I think people would tell you we’re further ahead than we were a year ago because the visibility about our issues is so much higher,” said Rebekah Kassell, communications director for Basic Rights Oregon.

“I think what our opponents wanted us to believe is that people have spoken, and spoken against gay people, period. We don’t believe that,” Kassell added.

In Michigan, priorities change
The resiliency of activists in Oregon reflects the determination of activists in other states who have already faced defeat at the ballot box, said Seth Kilbourn, vice president of HRC’s Marriage Project.

“I think as groups pick themselves up and move forward, the best thing they can do is continue telling the stories of our lives,” Kilbourn said. “By telling those stories, that’s how we’re going to achieve success in all of the other political areas.”

After almost 60 percent of Michigan voters approved a gay marriage ban last year, gay groups in the state wanted to return to their priorities of securing a civil rights act and second-parent adoption rights, said Chris Swope, executive director of Michigan Equality.

“I think people wanted to catch their breath from it, but what we do need to work on is making sure our constitutional amendment has a narrow interpretation,” Swope said.

Despite the time spent in 2005 fighting to keep domestic partner benefits from being nullified by the amendment, Equality Michigan hasn’t been paralyzed, Swope said.

“We were worried a little bit early on that [the amendment’s] passage might affect some legislators’ willingness to support our community, but that hasn’t been the case because of our political involvement,” Swope said, noting that a civil rights law and hate crimes bill were both reintroduced in the Michigan Legislature in 2005.

Readying for future fights
Even after witnessing gay marriage bans pass in every state in which they were considered in 2004, gay groups that face anti-gay marriage initiatives in 2005 and 2006 are eager to fight even if they believe they can’t win, said Toni Broaddus, executive director of the Equality Federation, a coalition of Statewide gay rights groups.

Earlier this year, Kansas voters approved a constitutional ban prohibiting gay unions. Texans face the issue in November. In 2006, voters in at least four states — Alabama, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee — will face a similar measure.

“I think everyone feels pretty strongly that we have to mount some sort of defense, but strategically, the most immediate victory of defeating the amendment may not be the most important,” said Broaddus.

“We need to see this as just another piece of the larger picture of the struggle for full equality, and we need to look at these ballot measures as an opportunity to work toward that,” she added.

In Texas, activists want to make the campaign against the marriage ban focus on more than same-sex unions, said Heath Riddles, communications director for the Lesbian & Gay Rights Lobby of Texas.

“I know for the community involved with trying to defeat this, we’re using it as a true opportunity to build resources and build political power,” Riddles said. “We’ll be building a statewide coalition with an unprecedented number of allies at the table, and that alone is a win.

“If we don’t effectively use this marriage debate to raise awareness and let ...