The 2009 election has shown us something very important... it's not about the word "marriage", it's about rights for real people who need them now. We can win at the ballot box as Washington State has shown when we frame the debate this way. But when we push for a loaded word such as "marriage", even in progressive states such as California and Maine, we still lose.
I live in Seattle, and was NOT a fan of Washington State's incremental Domestic Partners laws. First in 2007 they passed a DP law with just 11 rights, in 2008 it was a few hundred, in 2009 it was another ~280 rights that made the Domestic Partners into the media-dubbed "everything but marriage" law. So earlier this year, when Maine, New Hampshire and Iowa were all making "marriage" news, a friend from New York congratulated me for the passage of Washington's version, and my response was a sarcastic "separate is not equal". Grrrr.
But then the haters came after us anyway with Referendum 71. First, some technicals... in Washington State, a referendum question is generally asked in the affirmative. So the voters were asked to 'approve' Washington SB-5688, the final installment of DP rights passed earlier this year. A 'reject' would have eliminated only the 2009 installment of rights.
We fought every step of the way. First to keep it off the ballot, and it was close. Follow that with the high-tension legal wrangling around the signature count, court challenges and finally, the ultimate humilation, they made us beg the majority to stand up for us.
But a funny thing happened on the way to the ballot box... er, I guess mailbox now that Washington is practically a vote-by-mail state...
- Voters made a distinction between marriage and domestic partnership
- The Approve 71 capaign was freed of the 'marriage' brand that is a lightning rod for emotions
- The anti-gay rights folks did not seem to fight with the same vehemence as when the institution of marriage was on the line
Much credit should go to the Approve 71 campaign, which made a strong effort to bring religious organizations into the fold, and quite frankly kicked ass with their TV ads that remained laser-focused on the rights that domestic partnership extended to real people. No heavy burden of having to fight for a word, marriage. Still, after Prop 8, no one was taking anything for granted.
Some analyists speculate that the lack of the word "marriage" combined with the simultaneous campaign in Maine, sapped energy that would have gone into Washington. At the same time, I know for a fact that some GLBT money and attention went to Maine but not Washington.
On Election Night, most Washington Counties reported only a single batch of returns. The Approve side squeaking out just over a 2% victory, but none of the news agencies felt confident making a call with only about 1/4 of the votes counted. In the days that have passed, the Approve Ref 71 lead has grown to almost 6%, currently 52.95% to 47.05% reject, and more votes (postmarked by Election Day) continue to trickle in. When it is certified, it's possible Ref 71 may sneak above 53%. A landslide? Not exactly, but compared to the losses in Maine and Prop 8 in California, that's a pretty dramatic swing.
History has been made in Washington State. Many of us have been bitter sitting on the sidelines watching marriage equality advance in other states. And each time one of Washington's incremental DP bills was passed, it felt like scraps from the table. But now, Washington has done what no other state has done ever. We have passed a statewide measure in support of GLBT rights. That is quite a balm to the wounds of years of watching 'marriage' rights pass us by in California and New England.
After a few days when it became clear that Ref 71 was going to pass, I went out on my deck and breathed in deep. It was still hard to know what to feel, but when I breathed in that night air, I felt freedom. And gratitude. Over 2/3 of my neighbors in great King County voted to approve Ref 71. No more feeling second fiddle to Massachusetts. No more jealousy of the enlightened courts in Iowa or legislatures in New England. Washington now stands alone, and there is nowhere I would rather live than here.
There are surely many factors that lead to this stunning victory. I can't help but to credit that the incremental strategy, and especially the avoidance of the word 'marriage' as putting Washington over the top, while we have failed in progressive bastions such as California and Maine.
And when I think about the rights of couples in more conservative states who are waiting for even a fraction of the rights we now have in Washington, I can't help but to question the strategy of pushing for marriage instead of first trying to extend actual rights for real people.
Let's call President Obama on his bluff and ask him to support FEDERAL domestic partnership rights, things like immigration for partners and (pardon the expression) straightening out the tax disadvantages. These are very easy to understand inequalities. They'd make great TV commercials. And if not packaged as 'marriage', it would diffuse some of the fire that religious folk are aiming at us.
My feeling? Let the Supreme Court weigh in on 'separate but equal' in 10, 20, 30 a hundred years for all I care. Real people need rights now, and by pushing for 'marriage' we are the ones asking them to sit at the back of the bus. Meanwhile, the gays fortunate enough to live in more progressive (and perhaps affluent?) states are getting some of those rights. Where is the equality in that? There is none. It's hippocracy, and the GLBT movement needs to stop making couples in conservative states the sacraficial lambs in a dogmatic debate over semantics and the word 'marriage'.