Voters approve same-sex marriage; opponents concede
»Play Video
OLYMPIA, Wash. (AP) - Washington state has approved gay marriage, joining Maine and Maryland as the first states to pass same-sex marriage by popular vote.
Voter returns released since election night show Referendum 74 has maintained its lead of 52 percent. Opponents conceded the race Thursday, while supporters declared victory a day earlier.
Zach Silk, a spokesman for Washington United for Marriage, called it a "historic day."
"We have always understood that there are good people on the other side of this issue," he said in a statement issued Thursday. "Yet, we remain confident that once people see how much marriage matters to families, they will realize that the love and commitment that marriage embodies only strengthens families, neighborhoods and communities."
R-74 asked people to approve or reject a state law legalizing same-sex marriage that legislators passed earlier this year. That law was signed by Gov. Chris Gregoire but has never taken effect. It was on hold pending the election's outcome.
Washington is one of four states where voters were asked about the issue this election cycle. Maryland and Maine approved gay marriage Tuesday night, while Minnesota voters rejected a proposed constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage.
Six other states - New York, Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont - and the District of Columbia already allowed gay marriage. But Maryland, Maine and Washington are the first to enact it by public vote. The other states' laws were enacted either by lawmakers or court rulings.
In Washington, more than half of the expected ballots have been counted and additional results are expected to be posted Thursday evening. Because Washington is a vote-by-mail state, and ballots only had to be postmarked by Tuesday, votes will continue to trickle in throughout the week.
The measure was losing in 31 of the state's 39 counties. But it had its strongest lead - 66 percent of the vote - in King County, which holds about a third of the state's voters and is home to Seattle.
Gregoire, who announced her support of gay marriage at the start of the legislative session in January, said she was proud of the result.
"Voters stood up for what is right and what is just and said that all Washington families are equal under the law," she said in a statement issued Thursday afternoon. "This is a day that historians will look back on as a turning point for equality."
Preserve Marriage Washington, meanwhile, issued a statement saying its members were disappointed but will "continue to educate citizens and policymakers on the timeless truth that real marriage is the union of one man and one woman."
"We are disappointed in losing a tough election battle on marriage by a narrow margin," said Joseph Backholm, the campaign chairman.
Backholm blamed several factors, saying Washington is a "deep blue state."
"The election results reflect the political and funding advantages our opponents enjoyed in this very liberal and secular state," he wrote. "The results show only that in a deep blue state, with a huge financial advantage, gay marriage activists can win - barely."
About $13.6 million was spent on the initiative in Washington state, with the bulk of it coming from gay marriage supporters. Washington United for Marriage far outraised its opponents, bringing in more than $12 million, including donations from big names like Amazon.com CEO Jeff Bezos, Microsoft Corp. co-founder Bill Gates and New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg. Opponents of gay marriage raised just $2.7 million.
Many supporters started celebrating early, taking to the streets in a Seattle neighborhood and cheering at election watch parties Tuesday night as early results showed the referendum taking a narrow lead. Police closed off several blocks in Seattle's Capitol Hill area as more than 1,000 people gathered for a late-night, impromptu election celebration, dancing and chanting "74, 74, 74."
Gay couples in Washington could start picking up their marriage certificates and licenses from county auditor offices Dec. 6, a day after the election is certified. However, because Washington has a three-day waiting period, the earliest a certificate could be signed, making the marriage valid, is Dec. 9.
The law doesn't require religious organizations or churches to perform marriages, and it doesn't subject churches to penalties if they don't marry gay or lesbian couples.
The path to gay marriage in Washington state began several years ago.
A 2006 state Supreme Court ruling upheld a 1998 law banning same-sex marriage. But earlier that year, a gay civil rights measure passed after the idea had failed for nearly 30 years, signaling a change of mindset in the Legislature.
The state's first domestic partnership law passed in 2007, granting couples about two dozen rights, including hospital visitation and inheritance rights when there is no will. It was expanded a year later, and then again in 2009, when lawmakers completed the package with the so-called "everything but marriage" law that was ultimately upheld by voters later that year.
This year, lawmakers passed the law allowing gay marriage, and Gregoire signed it in February. Preserve Marriage gathered enough signatures for a referendum, putting the law on hold before it could take effect.
State Sen. Ed Murray, a Democratic gay lawmaker from Seattle who sponsored the marriage law that passed the Legislature, said the outcome "rectifies an injustice that was done to gay and lesbian couples" when the state Legislature passed the Defense of Marriage Act banning gay marriage in the state.
Murray was in his third year as a state representative when that 1998 law passed. At the time, he was the state Legislature's lone gay lawmaker.
"I believe that when the marriages start happening next month, that will be a healing moment for this state," he said.
We asked you to describe, in one word, what the passage of Referendum 74 means to you. See your responses in the word cloud below.

Voter returns released since election night show Referendum 74 has maintained its lead of 52 percent. Opponents conceded the race Thursday, while supporters declared victory a day earlier.
Zach Silk, a spokesman for Washington United for Marriage, called it a "historic day."
"We have always understood that there are good people on the other side of this issue," he said in a statement issued Thursday. "Yet, we remain confident that once people see how much marriage matters to families, they will realize that the love and commitment that marriage embodies only strengthens families, neighborhoods and communities."
R-74 asked people to approve or reject a state law legalizing same-sex marriage that legislators passed earlier this year. That law was signed by Gov. Chris Gregoire but has never taken effect. It was on hold pending the election's outcome.
Washington is one of four states where voters were asked about the issue this election cycle. Maryland and Maine approved gay marriage Tuesday night, while Minnesota voters rejected a proposed constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage.
Six other states - New York, Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont - and the District of Columbia already allowed gay marriage. But Maryland, Maine and Washington are the first to enact it by public vote. The other states' laws were enacted either by lawmakers or court rulings.
In Washington, more than half of the expected ballots have been counted and additional results are expected to be posted Thursday evening. Because Washington is a vote-by-mail state, and ballots only had to be postmarked by Tuesday, votes will continue to trickle in throughout the week.
The measure was losing in 31 of the state's 39 counties. But it had its strongest lead - 66 percent of the vote - in King County, which holds about a third of the state's voters and is home to Seattle.
Gregoire, who announced her support of gay marriage at the start of the legislative session in January, said she was proud of the result.
"Voters stood up for what is right and what is just and said that all Washington families are equal under the law," she said in a statement issued Thursday afternoon. "This is a day that historians will look back on as a turning point for equality."
Preserve Marriage Washington, meanwhile, issued a statement saying its members were disappointed but will "continue to educate citizens and policymakers on the timeless truth that real marriage is the union of one man and one woman."
"We are disappointed in losing a tough election battle on marriage by a narrow margin," said Joseph Backholm, the campaign chairman.
Backholm blamed several factors, saying Washington is a "deep blue state."
"The election results reflect the political and funding advantages our opponents enjoyed in this very liberal and secular state," he wrote. "The results show only that in a deep blue state, with a huge financial advantage, gay marriage activists can win - barely."
About $13.6 million was spent on the initiative in Washington state, with the bulk of it coming from gay marriage supporters. Washington United for Marriage far outraised its opponents, bringing in more than $12 million, including donations from big names like Amazon.com CEO Jeff Bezos, Microsoft Corp. co-founder Bill Gates and New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg. Opponents of gay marriage raised just $2.7 million.
Many supporters started celebrating early, taking to the streets in a Seattle neighborhood and cheering at election watch parties Tuesday night as early results showed the referendum taking a narrow lead. Police closed off several blocks in Seattle's Capitol Hill area as more than 1,000 people gathered for a late-night, impromptu election celebration, dancing and chanting "74, 74, 74."
Gay couples in Washington could start picking up their marriage certificates and licenses from county auditor offices Dec. 6, a day after the election is certified. However, because Washington has a three-day waiting period, the earliest a certificate could be signed, making the marriage valid, is Dec. 9.
The law doesn't require religious organizations or churches to perform marriages, and it doesn't subject churches to penalties if they don't marry gay or lesbian couples.
The path to gay marriage in Washington state began several years ago.
A 2006 state Supreme Court ruling upheld a 1998 law banning same-sex marriage. But earlier that year, a gay civil rights measure passed after the idea had failed for nearly 30 years, signaling a change of mindset in the Legislature.
The state's first domestic partnership law passed in 2007, granting couples about two dozen rights, including hospital visitation and inheritance rights when there is no will. It was expanded a year later, and then again in 2009, when lawmakers completed the package with the so-called "everything but marriage" law that was ultimately upheld by voters later that year.
This year, lawmakers passed the law allowing gay marriage, and Gregoire signed it in February. Preserve Marriage gathered enough signatures for a referendum, putting the law on hold before it could take effect.
State Sen. Ed Murray, a Democratic gay lawmaker from Seattle who sponsored the marriage law that passed the Legislature, said the outcome "rectifies an injustice that was done to gay and lesbian couples" when the state Legislature passed the Defense of Marriage Act banning gay marriage in the state.
Murray was in his third year as a state representative when that 1998 law passed. At the time, he was the state Legislature's lone gay lawmaker.
"I believe that when the marriages start happening next month, that will be a healing moment for this state," he said.
We asked you to describe, in one word, what the passage of Referendum 74 means to you. See your responses in the word cloud below.

Sad day in WA.
 @Harry reems you poor thing. Â
Does anyone here really read the Bible? believe what it says? or just pick out a few scriptures to twist into your agruments? the first book of the Bible Genesis, tells us God made man in his image, so man was created first, right? ok, then he saw it was not good for man to be alone, so he took a rib from Adam and proceded to make a woman, he called her Eve, who was to be a compliment and helper to man, right? so what does that tell us? it tells me that just as any painter, writer, creator of anything, they all need a rough draft to start with before the real master piece is finished. "WOMAN".
Get it over with already...we are so tired of hearing about it! Let them be miserable and pay higher taxes like everyone else if they think that will make them equal. Everyone sounds like gay marriage is the answer to all our social problems, that their relationships work any better.. Like a pack of dogs chasing a car, they finally caught it, so now what? It will run its course.
 @burmesepythondude "....gay marriage is the answer to all our social problems"
Â
said no liberal ever. Â
The opponents made it a matter of MORTAL SIN, and then GIVE UP? Why did you bother to torment peoples' consciences in the first place? Either it's sinful or not, and if it is that easily dismissed, then it is patently NOT sinful! Think about it Catholic Church!
Whether you think it is a sin or not, it has no bearing on the civil decision to make same-sex marriage legal. Stating that is a sin is not a consideration that should be taken into account when making secular laws for the entire populace. No one is going to force a church to marry a same-sex couple, nor should it be legal to force one to do so.
Â
This is the right outcome.
As always, logic, critical thinking and common sense beat out ignorant, regressive, bigoted fear-mongering. It must really suck to be a conservative, regressive RepubliCant this week!
Â
But no worries, all you guys have to do is change your entire political ideology and then maybe, just maybe, you'll actually have a shot at being taken seriously again.Â
Â
 @LeftWing You call it "logic and critical thinking" from people who fell for the"civil rights" argument?  From people who fell for the "it's just like interracial marriage" argument when race and sex are too different things?  From people who fell for the "equality" arguments when gays already had the exact same rights as everyone else?  You might be celebrating the legal pot a little too heavily!  ;)
 @Vertex  @LeftWing Exact same rights?
Â
That is a lie. Flat out.
 @Audio Cat Then name the exact right they did not have.
I don't hate gay people. On the contrary, I feel sad for them and the society. No, I'm not without sin, but I try to admit my sin and ask Jesus to forgive. In this perspective, I wish people would understand that there's an absolute right and wrong and it doesn't depend on one's opinion/feelings/experience.Â
There is a way which seems right to a man, But its end is the way of death. - Proverbs 14:12
 @Yuniverse Lets pretend you're book of magic stories is relevant, and you are right. Lets play along, for fun, right?
Â
OK, they are sinning. All gay people are evil evil sinners and they are going to burn in the pits of hell.  Satin will make a personal point of roasting each and every gay person himself.
Â
Let them at least have a little happiness here on earth.
Â
Oh yeah, and judging is a sin too.
Want some marshmellows to take with you?
 @T H I S Who's "Satin"?
 @two loons LOL, must be...lol..
 @Olivia  @T H I S I caught that too, Satin might be Satan's gay uncle or something?
@T H I S @Yuniverse You know THIS there is an element of truth to your point. However, I find it curious that "marriage" became such a potent issue for the gay community so quickly. If the zenith of your happiness on this planet is being married to another man then I find that rather sad. Gay men and women are talented, bright, generally affulent and yet somehow "marriage" is the be all and end all. I personally think it is more an agenda driven issue than not. Traditional marriage is on the decline in this country yet the gay community is fanatic in their desire for it. I just don't get it.
Â
 @Olivia The constitution doesn't, but the US Supreme Court says:
Â
"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival..."
Â
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
388 U.S. 1
Loving v. Virginia
Â
Â
 @Olivia The constitution doesn't say anything about married people having more rights than single people. It is actual laws at both the federal and state levels against gay marriage that are unconstitutional.
 @LocalLady KOMO is denying me with their undefined error- I tried to reply to jdoll88 with the following:
You have always had the right to marry, so you can take that for granted if you please. Additionally, gay people are not suddenly on the marriage band wagon. This has been a long struggle, and you're just now paying attention. Start with the Stonewall Riots and work your way to the present if you want to know more.
Where in the great constitution does it say one has to be married to have equal rights? who made that mandatory? every human on this planet is equal, and should be afforded every right as anyone else, weather they are married or not, no matter how you believe, who you sleep with, or if you do or don't read the Bible, voting on who should get equal treatment under the constitution is judging, no human has the right to judge another human.
Perhaps because it means they are legally equal under the law, and therefore can be treated as each other's spouse for such important things as estate planning, end or life decisions, medical emergencies, and a host of other things without having to carry a sheaf of legal paperwork around with them to "prove" it, or having to pay tens of thousands of dollars to get that legal paperwork drawn up. Paperwork that is unnecessary for a hetero couple because they get ALL the same rights simply by saying "I Do".
Â
Look at the case of Charlene Strong - they HAD a long-term committed relationship, they had been "partners" for nine years. But when her partner Kate Flemming was dying at Harborview, Charlene was DENIED the right to see her because she was not a "spouse". She NEVER saw her partner alive again.
 @T H I S Why do you think I'm judging? If I don't agree with you, that makes my views as judging others? I judge no one for I'm not a judge.Â
'Let them at least have a little happiness here on earth?"Â From MY PERSPECTIVE, wouldn't it be better to know Jesus as your Savior and have everlasting happiness in Heaven?
 @cheap_dick Yes, the Bible shouldn't be used to 'judge' others. Yes Jesus accepts all those who come to Him (Word of God). That means those who are willing to lean(depend upon) on Jesus to live by His Word - not those who thinks they are self-sufficient. None of us are sufficiently Holy to enter the Heaven. That's why it's by Jesus Christ only and as you quoted, Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.
 @cheap_dick Everyone who believes in what?
 @Yuniverse Yes, and Jesus accepted and included all people. To use the Bible as a weapon to judge, condemn and exclude people is to abandon the Spirit and the example of Jesus. Reading and translating ancient texts and writings to suit yourself borders on idolatry, making anything other than God absolute. It becomes Legalism.   In legalistic religion, the individual is absorbed into the system and loses identity and self esteem. Legalism is the mortal enemy of healthy self esteem.  Peace with God is a gift and not a work of law. Romans 10:4: "Christ is the end (or "goal" Gk. Telos) of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes."
 @Yuniverse  @T H I S That's just the point- you don't get to define their happiness here or elsewhere. That is for them to do.
And how doi you "know" that they don't "know Jesus" and won't have hap[piness in heaven?
 @T H I S Hahahah..."want some marshmallows to take with you" hahaha....That was great...
 @Yuniverse I feel sad for you, because you don't seem to be capable of understanding that not everyone lives their lives according to your beliefs, nor are they required to.
 @alaska_dreamin I totally understand that "not everyone lives their lives according to [my] beliefs" nor am I forcing anyone to. It's just how I feel, just as how you feel otherwise.
 @alaska_dreamin Who said anything about anyone "needing" my pity? Proponents for this issue is speaking their opinions as I am speaking of mine. It's not matter of who needs or wants my pity.
 @Yuniverse But see, you just made my point, they don't need or want your pity anymore than you need or want mine. They just want the freedom to live their own lives with the same right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness that heterosexuals already have.
@alaska_dreamin @Yuniverse You are correct alaska. We are free to believe what we want but the radical gay agenda is relatively young in relation to thousands of years of heterosexual norm. You are the new kids on the block and have no right (until the other day) to toss it all out and redefine marriage. Many in the gay community support NAMBLA (National Association of Man/Boy Love) whose motto is "sex by 8 or it's too late. That does not mean it's right.
 @Vertex  @Olivia Up until now - they did not have the right to marry in WA.
 @jdoll88  @LocalLady Um we DO use Greco Roman culture as the base model for our society.
Â
Crack a book.
Â
 @jdoll88  @alaska_dreamin  @Yuniverse Um. There is thousands of years of gay community as well. Perhaps you are not familiar with Greco Roman Culture?
 @Vertex Perhaps, but since jdoll88's response to me was in response to my response to the original post by Yuniverse, I maintain that religion is still relevant to the discussion. If jdoll88 had wanted to engage in a discussion about the non-religious reasons people oppose same-sex marriage, then he/she should have started a new thread rather than jumping into one that was already based on religious points of view.Â
 @alaska_dreamin Thanks but you were replying to jdoll88, not Yuniverse.
 @Vertex Yuniverse opened this conversation thread with religion, not me, but I don't expect you to pay attention to obvious things like that.
 @jdoll88  @alaska_dreamin Yes jdoll88, don't be surprised when people like alaska_dreamin immediately jump on the religion argument even if when you never raised it.  That's mainly all they've heard unfortunately so I understand why they think that way.
 @Olivia But exactly how were gays being treated unequally?  They had the same right as everyone else - the right to marry someone of the opposite sex.  They don't want to exercise that right?  Fine.  Having a right does not require you to exercise it.
 @LocalLady Yeah and guess what...Romans and Greeks also had sex with young boys.  No what was that attack always fired at conservatives about wanting to regress to the dark ages?  Maybe some people are regressing even further!
@LocalLady By all means we should use the Greeks and Romans as our role models. Our country will soon be a footnote in human history just like them. I highly doubt however if it was sanctioned by the powers that be of Rome and Greece. You won, get married, destroy society with your perversions. Ciao!Â
 @LocalLady Ok, what I'm saying is why do supporters have to bring up long past history of what the Greeks or Romans, or animals did/do sexually? why bring up Naomi, Ruth, etc. they have Nothing to do with what happens in this century, or anything to do with equal rights, what they did has no bearing on what people do today, or at least it shouldn't, this is NOT about sex, is it? people have sex before marriage, during marriage, inside marriage, outside marriage, after marriage, and some with multiple partners......who cares.........one does not need a certificate of marriage to have sex, all I'm saying.
If you have read any of my previous posts on this topic, you will know that I agree with you. People are people - we all bleed red. We all have the same basic needs & desires - to love & be loved, to live & let live, to lead a fullfilling life, to (hopefully) leave the world a better place.  Â
Â
The problem is that those who continue to oppose this make it ALL about who someone is sleeping with or having sex with. They seem to have an incredibly huge fixation on that point.
Â
But what I find REALLY intersting with their fixation, it is ONLY about "Adam and Steve" - they seem to have no problems with Cindy & Eve.
Â
Curious, no?
 @jdoll88  @alaska_dreamin  @Yuniverse Cite your source please. Your equating homosexuality with pedophilia is an old tired line. Pedophiles are people from all walks of life, and many are either preying on the opposite sex or pretending to be straight and upstanding while preying on children or the same or either sex.
 @LocalLady Why is it always about sex? everyone has the right to be treated equal, and that means "Everyone" reguardless of who anyone chooses to sleep with, I do not think the people have a right to vote on who gets equal treatment under the law, just because they don't agree with what one does in the privacy of ones own home, everyone is equal and should be treated as such, as for religion, there is much debate on which one is right and which one is wrong, who's the judge?
We are all human, and we all deserve to be treated equally and with respect when it comes to rights, opinions, and who we love, no one is superior to anyone.
Actually, both the Romans & the Greeks had instances of long-term same-sex relationships, and since they were around BEFORE the time of Jesus, I would say that that means that there were LGBTQ relationships before the bible & before christianity.
@alaska_dreamin Excuse me! I said nothing about religious setting. I specifically avoiding making religion an issue. There is enough of that with other posts. Tell me one culture in the history of time secular or otherwise where men married men? You can't. It is absurd to automatically assume everyone that detests the concept of gay marriage does it on the grounds of religion. If you notice 1.1 million people voted no on 74. I assure you that a high percentage of those people did that on non-religious grounds.Â
 @jdoll88  @alaska_dreamin  @Yuniverse The radical gay agenda?  What is that?  I always hear about the gay agenda, but no one can tell me what that is?  Please enlighten me on what the gay agenda is.....
 @jdoll88 You are the epitome of the low information voter.
You want to define marriage in a religious setting that is fine, no one is forcing religious institutions to officiate same sex marriages, but there is a difference between religious and civil ceremonies. You don't like same sex marriage, don't marry someone of the same sex, pretty simple. And considering how the bible defines marriage, I'd say you are grasping at straws with the one man one woman thing.
Â
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFkeKKszXTw