Gay marriage supporters declare victory
»Play Video
OLYMPIA, Wash. (AP) - Supporters of gay marriage in Washington state declared victory Wednesday, saying they don't see a way for their opponents to prevail as votes continue to trickle in on Referendum 74.
"The numbers point to victory," said Zach Silk, a spokesman for Washington United for Marriage. "We're really feeling good."
R-74 asked Washingtonians to approve or reject a state law legalizing same-sex marriage that lawmakers passed earlier this year. That law was signed by Gov. Chris Gregoire but has been on hold pending the election's outcome.
With about half of the expected ballots counted Tuesday night, R-74 was passing with 52 percent of the vote. Counties were expected to post additional results Wednesday afternoon. Because Washington is a vote-by-mail state, and ballots only needed to be postmarked by Tuesday, votes will continue to trickle in throughout the week.
Silk said he was confident supporters would hold or build on their current lead and that Washington state would join Maryland and Maine, which both approved gay marriage measures Tuesday night. In Minnesota, voters rejected a proposed constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage in their state. Gay marriage remains illegal under Minnesota state law.
In Washington state, many supporters started celebrating Tuesday night, taking to the streets in a Seattle neighborhood and cheering at election watch parties as early results showed the referendum taking a narrow lead. Police closed off several blocks in Seattle's Capitol Hill area late Tuesday as more than 1,000 people gathered for an impromptu election celebration, dancing and chanting "74, 74, 74."
At a news conference Wednesday afternoon, gay marriage supporters crowded a room in Seattle to celebrate the vote count. Rep. Laurie Jinkins, D-Tacoma, was joined by her partner of nearly 24 years, Laura Wulf, and their 12-year-old son, Wulf.
"I can't wait to marry her," Jinkins said, before leaning down to kiss Laura Wulf. "I want to thank the voters of the state of Washington for allowing Laura and I to be married. It's a great day."
Even as the local campaign said it's waiting for more ballots to be counted, officials with the National Organization for Marriage noted they were "very disappointed in losing four tough election battles by narrow margins."
"We knew long ago that we faced a difficult political landscape with the four marriage battles occurring in four of the deepest-blue states in America," the group's president, Brian Brown, wrote in a news release issued Wednesday.
Preserve Marriage Washington, which also opposes the law, was waiting to see additional numbers from the counties, spokesman Chip White said.
"While we understand that the math is difficult, there is still a path to victory for our side," he said. "Everyone needs to respect the process and wait for the votes to be counted."
About $13.6 million was spent on the campaign, with the bulk of it coming from gay marriage supporters. Washington United for Marriage far outraised its opponents, bringing in more than $12 million compared with the $2.7 million raised by Preserve Marriage Washington.
If Referendum 74 does pass, gay couples 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 state 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.
Six other states - New York, Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont - and the District of Columbia already allow marriage. Maryland and Maine were the first to enact the law by public vote. In the other states, the laws were enacted either by lawmakers or through court rulings.
"The numbers point to victory," said Zach Silk, a spokesman for Washington United for Marriage. "We're really feeling good."
R-74 asked Washingtonians to approve or reject a state law legalizing same-sex marriage that lawmakers passed earlier this year. That law was signed by Gov. Chris Gregoire but has been on hold pending the election's outcome.
With about half of the expected ballots counted Tuesday night, R-74 was passing with 52 percent of the vote. Counties were expected to post additional results Wednesday afternoon. Because Washington is a vote-by-mail state, and ballots only needed to be postmarked by Tuesday, votes will continue to trickle in throughout the week.
Silk said he was confident supporters would hold or build on their current lead and that Washington state would join Maryland and Maine, which both approved gay marriage measures Tuesday night. In Minnesota, voters rejected a proposed constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage in their state. Gay marriage remains illegal under Minnesota state law.
In Washington state, many supporters started celebrating Tuesday night, taking to the streets in a Seattle neighborhood and cheering at election watch parties as early results showed the referendum taking a narrow lead. Police closed off several blocks in Seattle's Capitol Hill area late Tuesday as more than 1,000 people gathered for an impromptu election celebration, dancing and chanting "74, 74, 74."
At a news conference Wednesday afternoon, gay marriage supporters crowded a room in Seattle to celebrate the vote count. Rep. Laurie Jinkins, D-Tacoma, was joined by her partner of nearly 24 years, Laura Wulf, and their 12-year-old son, Wulf.
"I can't wait to marry her," Jinkins said, before leaning down to kiss Laura Wulf. "I want to thank the voters of the state of Washington for allowing Laura and I to be married. It's a great day."
Even as the local campaign said it's waiting for more ballots to be counted, officials with the National Organization for Marriage noted they were "very disappointed in losing four tough election battles by narrow margins."
"We knew long ago that we faced a difficult political landscape with the four marriage battles occurring in four of the deepest-blue states in America," the group's president, Brian Brown, wrote in a news release issued Wednesday.
Preserve Marriage Washington, which also opposes the law, was waiting to see additional numbers from the counties, spokesman Chip White said.
"While we understand that the math is difficult, there is still a path to victory for our side," he said. "Everyone needs to respect the process and wait for the votes to be counted."
About $13.6 million was spent on the campaign, with the bulk of it coming from gay marriage supporters. Washington United for Marriage far outraised its opponents, bringing in more than $12 million compared with the $2.7 million raised by Preserve Marriage Washington.
If Referendum 74 does pass, gay couples 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 state 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.
Six other states - New York, Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont - and the District of Columbia already allow marriage. Maryland and Maine were the first to enact the law by public vote. In the other states, the laws were enacted either by lawmakers or through court rulings.
Well hump my hiney...gays can marry!
Out of town for a while, we voted absentee. Â Now that we read the articles on 74, we realize we misread its wording and voted for 74, thinking we were voting against gay marriage. Are we the only ones who had trouble deciding what the ballot said? Â Â
 @masterofnone There were a few who misunderstood it, yes. But I have a hard time believing it was difficult to understand: It said very clearly "If approved, R74 will UPHOLD the law as it was originally passed, allowing same-sex couples to marry." To me, there's nothing all that confusing about it.
This is a step forward and in the right direction. Why should they not want the same rights as everyone else?? Should blacks and women still not be allowed to vote too? Let's get real for a second, shall we? If we want to be a great nation we have to do great things. If we ALL want freedoms then we ALL need to be free. If we want the right to succeed in life, then EVERYONE has to have the same rights for us to be successful. Everyone should be afford the same rights of the pursuit of happiness, shouldn't we?Â
 @Tracey Bland There are still restrictions associated with our rights, are we all really equal and free?
 @oledawg Everything comes with restrictions and limitations. We can't just do what ever we want when ever it pleases us. No matter what we believe in or don't we still have to be responsible LOL.Â
 @oledawg  @Tracey Bland To my knowledge, same-sex couples will have exactly the same rights (and restrictions) as heterosexual couples. So Equal? Yes. Free? Depends on what you think makes you not free.
@KieferSkunk @oledawg @Tracey Bland Not quite...we still do not receive benefits at a federal level that are accessable to married heteros. For example, social security benefits for a surviving spouse or filing joint federal tax returns.Â
 @KieferSkunk  @Tracey Bland So when does the restriction deny the right?  Some say we all had the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex, same sex was a restriction.  Others say that restricting those individuals was denying them the equal right.Â
 @KieferSkunk  @oledawg Why should "straight" people be the only ones to suffer LOLÂ
They will have to answer to the final judgement when they depart this earth. But in the mean time let there be porn in the streets.
 @Willie69 Assuming that there's a final judgment to answer to. There are a lot of people out there (including myself) who believe there isn't.
 @KieferSkunk Amen!
 @Shawneboi Not to mention the "porn in the streets" comment. Come on, like there hasn't already been porn in the streets for decades?
and who is passing judgement on whom??? sounds like Willie69 is already the judge and jury on same sex marriage.
 @cheap_dick Cool. :)
 @KieferSkunk I am a Gnostic Christian. We are seekers of knowledge and not dogma.
Proverbs 2.6
â The Lord gives wisdom (sophia), from his face come knowledge (gnosis) and understanding (sunesis)"
Â
 @cheap_dick An observation I've made over time: It's funny how frequently the most outspoken within the religious community state things like "You'll face the final judgment" as matters of fact - like it's guaranteed to happen and there's no other possible way things might shake out.
Â
I mean, it's perfectly fine for people like Willie69 to believe that same-sex couples are doomed to hell for all eternity. But they seem to forget that their faith is just that: Faith. Not fact. Not proven. Not even truly understandable by living humans. It's belief, and predicting what will happen is by definition speculation and prophecy, but not fact.
Â
Truth is, as an atheist, I believe there's nothing for me after death. I believe I'll simply cease to live, and the concept of me will only last as long as people's memories and whatever artifacts I leave behind. But of course, I don't know this to be true. That's why I try to avoid stating such things as facts when I don't actually know.
Totally personal issue between two people and is NO ONE elses BUSINESS... AND surely requires no one elses permission... especially a vote involving government OR people who are NO WAY involved.
gays have every right i guess to have the ol ball-n-chain like the rest of us i guess...no offense honey...
I wonder if the divorce rate will go up now.Â
 @Northend No, I'm pretty sure, statistically speaking, that it'll remain largely unchanged. ("Divorce rate" = ratio of divorces to marriages.)
Â
If you meant the count of divorce proceedings will go up, then I'm pretty certain it will, since approximately the same percentage of gay marriages will likely end in divorce as for hetero marriages that end in divorce. More marriages total = more divorces.
Â
Now, the more interesting question, I think, would be: I wonder if the divorce rate among heterosexual couples will go up now. And I'm pretty sure the answer to that is "No."
:) Very pleased this passed, it's time to get with the program people. There is absolutely nothing wrong with gay men.woman wanting the same rights to marry as us straight people, in fact it shouldn't be an issues in the first place, and i'm quite shocked it has been. The right complain about the sanctity of marriage, uhhhhh ok so look at the Kardashians, oh and who can forget Britneys 24 hour publicity stunt...sanctity of marriage my ASS.
 @Megs Louise Woodard It hasn't passed yet so don't get ahead of yourself.
 @dB  @Megs Louise Woodard Do you really think that it has much of a chance of failing at this point? Considering the majority of the ballots left to count are in King County, which is traditionally liberal, I seriously doubt we're looking at a sudden shift toward the No vote here.
 @dB  @Megs Louise Woodard Sure, that's fine. :) Of course it's not over until it's over - none of the races are.
Â
I'm not too worried.
 @KieferSkunk  @Megs Louise Woodard Let's agree to disagree and wait for the final tally.
 @dB  @Megs Louise Woodard Yes, I looked at that one. I still don't see your point. The percentages are generally most skewed toward "No" in the smallest counties - for example, 72% No in Adams (~4000 total) and Garfield (~1200 total). As county population increases, the "No" counties tend to move closer to a 50-50 split, so the raw numbers of "No" votes won't be enough to override the 60+% "Yes" votes in the state's most heavily-populated counties (which also happen to be the most liberal in the state).
Â
In every single one of the "No" counties that still have uncounted ballots, ALL of the remaining uncounted ballots would have to approach 100% "No" in order to produce enough "No" votes across the state to swing the measure in to the Rejected column. That seems extremely unlikely.
 @KieferSkunk  @Megs Louise Woodard Try this one and you might see your flawed assumption: http://vote.wa.gov/results/current/Referendum-Measure-No-74-Concerns-marriage-for-same-sex-couples_ByCounty.html
Â
 @dB  @Megs Louise Woodard Okay, perhaps using the term "Majority" to refer to King County's contribution to the uncounted ballots was incorrect. But as of right now, that page you pointed me to says there are approximately 750,000 ballots left to be counted statewide, and nearly 1/3 of those are in King County. So King County accounts for the largest single group of uncounted ballots, by far compared to other counties. And since KC is generally quite liberal, it would take a much stronger percentage of No votes across every other county than they currently have to cause R74 to fail, given the totals so far.
Â
Frankly, given all the data that's currently available, I'll go out on a limb and say it would take an act of God to cause R74 to fail at this point. And since I don't believe there's a God there to cause an Act, I believe it's impossible.
 @cheap_dick It's not done until Mr Reed's office certifies the results. Until then it is pure speculation.
@cheap_dick @dB -- I wonder where you got that because according to the SOS Elections results page that is not true. You might want to have a looksee at the county map and educate yourself before you go off on poor informaiton you have obtained on this board. Here is the link to help you out. http://vote.wa.gov/results/current/Referendum-Measure-No-74-Concerns-marriage-for-same-sex-couples_ByCounty.html
 @dB As state below, the counties voting down R74 are only doing so by a slim margin -- just one or two percent. They'd need to have 80% or more no votes on the remaining ballots to cause it to fail at this point, which is statistically impossible.
 @cheap_dick Yep same old trash talk from someone who ran out of thoughts long ago and reverts to the liberal party line. You failed to recognize that I was was neither praising or condemning the outcome of this vote but merely stating that it wasn't over yet. Simple statistics dictate that it could go either way. You immediately blathered about Fox news and Karl Rove.
 @dB Yes Karl Rove....LOL!
 @cheap_dick  @KieferSkunk  @Megs Louise Woodard . I was just pointing out that the counting is not done yet. I know it's a novel thought but think before you go shooting off your mouth.
 @KieferSkunk  @Megs Louise Woodard I don't know where you are getting your info from but less than 1/3 of teh ballots left to count are from King county. See here:
http://vote.wa.gov/results/current/Turnout.html
 @KieferSkunk  @dB  @Megs Louise Woodard Must be Karl Rove again from Faux News (O.O)
Uh oh.... still have 744,000 votes to be counted! Â Crazy! Â Engage drum roll !!!
Don't count your eggs yet peeps !!
Still somewhat close for this referendum and Governor race. Â Break out the popcorn..... Â
Â
http://vote.wa.gov/results/current/Turnout.html
 @Eric Darnell As @ Krullulon pointed out below, the counties voting down R74 are only doing so by a slim margin -- just one or two percent. They'd need to have 80% or more no votes on the remaining ballots to cause it to fail at this point, which is statistically impossible.
Â
Much like Karl Rove was doing on Fox News the other night when even Fox News called Ohio as Obama's . He complained that they dare do this with only 73% of the vote counted. He even argued about it with the on-air talent that were there with him. Â It was hilarious.
 @cheap_dick .... key word... "Statistically".... which isn't absolute.  This is crazy.  Wish everyone luck on their votes!
@Eric Darnell --- Not at all the landslide victory they were hoping for, is it?Â
Now that the definition of marriage is arbitrarily transformed to make gay activists happy, thereâs no chance itâs going to stop there. Where does it stop? How about brother and sister? Marrying the dead sound any better? How does man and dog strike you? Adults marrying children? How does marrying a tree or a clay urn hit you?
 @RaeRae You are wearing the most interesting tinfoil hat EVER.
Â
We agreed to disagree earlier, but I really want you to know that the statement sounded paranoid and prety silly.
Â
Â
 @WAbornnraised  @RaeRae I know we did. And for those confused I share this computer and account.Â
 @RaeRae I personally can't wait to marry a clay urn
 @RaeRae I think that's taking it a little far. The ratio of gays vs those who live the lifestyles you mention differ by a large amount. Also the gay lifestyle is no longer taboo, but those lifestyles you mentioned are and some are also illegal.Â
 @Brahma37 it's not taking it too far. If we're willing to compromise in the name of "equal rights" for those that want same sex marriage, who's to say it wont go farther. Sin is sin. There is no sin that is worse. Homosexuality is a SIN. As as the other things I mentioned.Â
 @RaeRae  @cheap_dickÂ
Â
Levitucus is the most BATSHIT INSANE part of the entire Bible (you will never convince me that he wasn't the world's first succesfull troll) , and that second quote was a letter of OPINION.
Â
C'mon Rae, you are really beginning to look pretty goofy. :(
 @Brahma37  @RaeRae  @cheap_dick Look, what I'm getting at is the Theology in the Bible, is just that. Too many try to put a literal translation into a book that was translated 3rd and 4th and 5th hand from long dead languages through language shifts, through different survival and acceptability standards. Through the memories and thoughts generations removed from events, some being merely myth by the time they were written... Sure, there are some original texts but that does not imply any relevancy to today's society except in the broadest sense. You just cannot take the scripture literally, and any true scholar knows this. A different time a different culture a different place.....the only thing that conveys is love thy neighbor.......leave it at that.
 @Brahma37 Being gay is NOT a "choice". It's the way I am. The Bible has nothing to say about homosexuality. The ancient text made no reference to Homosexuality at all. There were now words. Only the evil translations do.
 @Susabelle  @RaeRae  @cheap_dick It also says in the New Testament that Pork is no longer unclean. It's not picking and choosing if the New Testament explains there is a new covenant. Of course, this depends on which faith you follow. Do we still do brunt offerings? No, because Jesus was the last sacrifice for all of us.
 @RaeRae  @Brahma37 Just another reason why I keep reminding everyone that the United States is not a theocracy, Christian or otherwise. We are purposefully a secular state, and churches and religions do NOT have the right to impose their views on US citizens.
Â
You are entitled to your faith, and if your faith calls homosexuality a sin, great. You're entitled to believe that homosexual people are doomed to the fires of hell or whatever. But you do NOT have the right to dictate what other people do with their lives just because you believe this way.
Â
The United States is a democracy, and so is Washington State. That means, among other things, that laws are adopted and changed by the will of the people. In this case, the will of the people is (by a slim -- and unconfirmed [dB] margin) to allow same-sex couples to marry. This means that the state will officially acknowledge these people as being in the same class as heterosexual couples, no matter what you personally believe is right.
Â
As I said, you're certainly welcome and encouraged to believe what you want, and you have the right to state your mind. Your right ends when you attempt to cross the boundary between free speech and imposition of religion on a secular state.
 @cheap_dick He's accepted all who have accepted Him. Look, if you choose to be gay then be gay but don't think that the Bible condones it. If you;re happy with your life then I'm happy for you, and I don't mean that sarcastically. You brought up the fire and brimstone thing above and I simply explained that not all Christians use the fire and brimstone way of thinking.
 @RaeRae  @cheap_dick I really tried to stay out of this.......but I have to ask.......Do you eat pork? You realize you are unclean if you do.... just sayin'. It says so right there in that Bible of yours, or do you, like so many out there, merely choose which parts of the Bible you wish to put into practice. Do you advocate polygamy? Do you eat meat after the 3rd day?Â
 @RaeRae Quoting Leviticus oh my. Did you know that Both of these verses refer not to homosexuals but to heterosexuals who took part in the baal fertility rituals in order to guarantee good crops and healthy flocks. No hint at sexual orientation or homosexuality is even implied. The word abomination in Leviticus was used for anything that was considered to be religiously unclean or associated with idol worship. Did you know that  Hebrew language at the time only had a vocabulary of about 10,000 words and had no past, present or future tense?Â
The use of Leviticus to condemn and reject homosexuals is absurd and makes literal legalistic bible based religion look ridiculous.
Â
LOL!  1Cor 6:9-10 Homosexuality did not exist in the Bible how could it be a "sin". It's a modern day aberration coined by a Austrian-born novelist Karl-Maria Kertbeny in 1869. The word never existed before then.Â
Â
You see HOMOSEXUAL GHOSTS!
 @cheap_dick "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them" Lev 20:13
Â
"You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination." Â Lev 18:22
Â
"Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God." 1Cor 6:9-10
Â
Im not JUDGING anyone. Im simply INFORMING...GOD has declared homosexuality as a SIN.
 @Brahma37  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.
 @Northend  @RaeRae If sin is man made then why do you need Mark 3:28? And you don't get a free pass for every sin without first accepting Jesus as your Savior and faithfully attempting to follow God's laws.
 @RaeRae  2 Samuel 1:26 where David says in a psalm lamenting the death of his friend that "Jonathan's love for David surpassed the love of women" . Yeap sure they weren't. Homosexuality did not exist in the Bible how could it be a "sin". It's a modern day aberration coined by a Austrian-born novelist Karl-Maria Kertbeny in 1869. The word never existed before then.Â
 @RaeRae Who are you to say it's a sin and that they're wrong to make their own choices? Are you God? Do you not sin? Does God not tell us to withhold judgement of other people and to Love others the way he loved us? you've done your duty as a Christian and informed them of God's will, now let them choose.
 @RaeRae  @Brahma37 Sin is a manmade idea that is so ridiculous. If you are a Christian then you'd know that no matter what you do in life, Mark 3:28 absolves you of it. Such hogwash. Â
 @Brahma37 It's not a "lifestyle". My life doesn't revolve around being gay. Get a grip.
 @Brahma37 It's not a "way of life". It's my life. Keep out of it.
 @cheap_dick OK, take it to the extreme. You know what I was getting at. Ok, I'll rephrase it to "way of life". I don't see the difference. I'm heterosexual and that is a lifestyle I follow in the aspect of whom I choose as a partner. Your life might not revolve around it but it's a big part of how you live and who you are.Â
 @RaeRae Yawn, same old arguments peddled by the "fire and brimstone" crowd. They must be given a manual for that from their pastors.
 @cheap_dick  @RaeRae Well I'm not in the fire and brimstone crowd but I am Christian, if that's what you mean. We have our beliefs just as every other person does. We're not given a manual, we're given the Bible. Like it or not, that is what we strive to live by.
 @Brahma37 Being gay isn't about "choice". It's just the way we are.Â
 @Anarchy  @Brahma37  @cheap_dick  @RaeRae I don't see how I'm being judgemental at all. if you'd read my posts you'd see that I'm actually trying to explain this to others. I've expressed opinions but I haven't judged any person on here for being gay. if they choose to be gay, then that is their choice.
 @Anarchy  @Brahma37  @cheap_dick  @RaeRae Its ok to skip the parts of the Bible that you don't like...didn't you know this?
@Brahma37 @cheap_dick The bible is all about interpretation. One religion says one thing and one says another. People use it to fit what they want. Seems to me that doesn't make it very valid.
@Brahma37 @cheap_dick @RaeRae You say you strive to live by the bible. Doesn't it say somewhere in there not to judge others? Because from the posts I see from you on this board are very judgemental.
 @cheap_dick Ruth and Naomi weren't a same sex loving couple. Naomi was Ruth's Mother-in Law. Jonathan and David were like best friends. I can see how someone could read more into it with the mention of kissing but that was a common custom back then for men and women. David and Jonathan were friends afraid for David's life because Saul was going to kill him.
 @Brahma37 I am a Christian as well. The Bible says nothing about homosexuality. But it does refer two same sex loving relationships. Ruth and Naomi and Jonathan and David.