With the recent passage of two state ballot measures banning same-sex marriage, opinion polls and advocates on both sides of the debate say similar initiatives are likely to be approved in as many as 10 other states in November, leading advocates of such marriages to pour money and manpower into a last stand in Oregon.
"Everything seems to point to a tougher battle in Oregon than it has been elsewhere," said Gary Bauer, chairman of the Campaign for Working Families, a political action committee supporting constitutional amendments that would only legally recognize marriage as between a man and a woman. "But I still think my side's got a good chance there."
From deeply conservative Southern states like Georgia and Mississippi to Midwest battlegrounds like Ohio and Michigan, the proposed bans appear on the ballot in 11 states, and opinion polls show widespread support. A recent poll in The Louisville Courier-Journal found that nearly three-quarters of the public in Kentucky supported the ban. Last month, voters in Missouri and Louisiana approved constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage by similar margins.
"We're going to lose a whole lot of them this year," said David Fleischer, director of organizing and training for the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, which has contributed $500,000 to the campaign to defeat the ban in Oregon, far more than it has to any other state.
Mr. Fleischer and other advocates of same-sex marriage conceded that Oregon - where the legal status of almost 3,000 gay marriages performed last March may hinge on the November vote and where voters often reject government interference in personal affairs - may be the only state where voters could deliver them a victory. National and local gay and civil rights groups say Oregon is crucial to their cause, if only to show that the right mix of money, message and organization may at least make winning possible - establishing a model that could be used in states likely to face gay-marriage battles.
"We're feeling good about Oregon," said Seth Kilbourn, national field director for the Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights group in Washington, D.C. "All of them are going to be uphill battles, but we are cautiously optimistic about Oregon."
In swing states like Oregon, Ohio and Michigan, supporters of the
amendments say the measures could draw more conservatives to the polls on
Election Day and thus prove critical to
"There is no advantage to Republicans to this being on the ballot," said Ed Sarpolus, vice president of EPIC-MRA, a Michigan polling firm.
In Oregon, both sides are knocking on doors, stuffing envelopes and preparing to battle through television commercials; amendment supporters began broadcasting ads two weeks ago, while opponents start running theirs on Oct. 11. Supporters of same-sex marriage contend that their internal polling shows a dead heat, while opponents cite their own polls and say Oregonians lean strongly in favor of an amendment.
Oregon has one of the nation's highest concentrations of gay couples, but many live in the Portland area, in the county where nearly 3,000 gay couples were married; voters elsewhere in the state tend to be far more conservative. "We're finding people are very supportive of the traditional notion of marriage and don't see this as a gay rights issue as much as a traditional marriage issue," said Georgene Rice of the Oregon Defense of Marriage Coalition.
Still, gay rights groups say they have reason to be optimistic that Oregonians could defeat the amendment, recalling the 1992 defeat of a proposed constitutional amendment that would have required the state to "discourage homosexuality" as well as two others that sought to forestall gains in gay rights.
"When we have a conversation with voters face to face, if they were a yes voter or an undecided voter, they quickly move to no," said Rebekah Kassell, a spokeswoman for "No On Constitutional Amendment 36," which has raised about $1.5 million, three times as much as its opponents.
While money has flowed to Oregon, opponents of amendments in the 10 other states, including Ohio, Michigan and Kentucky, face perhaps impossible odds, even some gay rights advocates acknowledge.
But gay rights organizers in many states do not share the pessimism. They say thousands of volunteers will use phone banks, literature drops and door-to-door canvassing to persuade moderate swing voters. In Kentucky, for instance, two gay rights groups say they have recruited 2,000 volunteers.
They face a daunting battle: The Courier-Journal poll found that 72 percent of likely voters support the amendment. Kent Ostrander, executive director of the Family Foundation, a conservative group in Kentucky, said the proposed amendment was so popular that legislative candidates were fighting over who supported it first. "Everybody is running to the pro-marriage side," he said. Support for amendments in Ohio and Michigan is not running as high as in Kentucky, recent polls indicate. But those states are so big that supporters of same-sex marriage said that up to $10 million was needed in each state for advertising - and they had not raised nearly that much.
Proponents of the amendments also do not have much money. But they have been able to use extensive networks of churches to recruit thousands of volunteers, raise money and spread their message. "This has stirred people of faith like I have never seen before," said Phil Burress, chairman of the Ohio Campaign to Protect Marriage.
Gay rights groups in Kentucky, Michigan and Ohio are relying on another factor: concern that the sweeping language of those amendments could outlaw health insurance and other benefits not only for homosexual couples but for unmarried heterosexual couples as well.
The amendments' supporters contend that such concerns are overstated, asserting the amendments will not affect employee benefits at private companies. But they acknowledged that they could prevent public institutions like state colleges and agencies from granting domestic partner benefits. "We are defining marriage and the benefits associated with marriage," Mr. Burress said. "No one else should have those benefits unless they are getting married."