Oregon Measure Condemning Homosexuals Is Trailing : Initiatives: Milder attempt to ban gay-rights legislation in Colorado is ahead. Passage of either could prompt similar efforts elsewhere.

A far-reaching anti-gay ballot initiative in Oregon that attracted nationwide attention appeared headed for defeat Tuesday, while a milder Colorado measure barring the adoption of gay-rights legislation in that state was winning with most of the vote counted.

The measures have been closely watched as flash points in the battle over gay rights, with both sides predicting that passage of either initiative would prompt similar efforts elsewhere.

“We could be used as a pattern for other states,” said Will Perkins, chairman of Colorado for Family Values, the group that put the anti-gay measure on Colorado’s ballot.

With 84% of the vote counted, the proposed constitutional amendment was leading, 53% to 47%.

In Oregon, Measure 9 was trailing, 55% to 45%, with nearly half of the vote recorded.

The initiative was a bitterly contested attempt to write into the Oregon constitution language that would have condemned homosexuality as “abnormal, wrong, unnatural and perverse,” required state and local government agencies to discourage it and prohibited the adoption of any laws to protect gay men and lesbians from discrimination.

The voting trend in Oregon caused Measure 9’s foes to predict that they had defeated it.

“We were able to bring together a coalition of people in Oregon who have never worked together before,” said Carolyn Young, spokeswoman for the “No on 9” campaign. “Oregon was picked out as a target state by the Christian Coalition and they lost. . . . I think this clearly shows this measure was too extreme.”

The measure was fiercely opposed by a broad and well-financed coalition of political, religious and business groups representing most of Oregon’s Establishment.

With more than $1.5 million in donations from around the country, the “No on 9” forces conducted a well-orchestrated effort to portray the proposed amendment as an extremist edict that would foster discrimination and censorship, singling gays and lesbians out for “special condemnation.”

“We did a lot of strategy aimed at making (people) comfortable in voting no on 9 . . . by making it a bigger issue,” said Pacy Markman, a Santa Monica political consultant who oversaw the advertising campaign against the measure.

Opponents contended that if the initiative passed, tourism would suffer and state government would be turned into a cultural police squad. For instance, they argued that openly gay teachers and police officers could be fired, openly gay doctors and lawyers could be denied licenses to practice and books portraying homosexuality in a positive or neutral light would be cleared from public library and school shelves.

The Oregon Citizens Alliance, the conservative political group that authored the measure, denied that it would have the sweeping effects predicted by the opposition. Supporters--who sought to frame the initiative as a referendum on homosexuality--argued that the constitutional amendment was necessary to safeguard Oregon culture from corruption by “homosexual radicals” and to stop gays from gaining “special rights” through anti-bias legislation.

Raising only about a third of the money collected by the measure’s opponents, the Oregon alliance promoted its cause with no-holds-barred videos and fliers that depicted homosexuals as disease-ridden child molesters inclined to serial killing.

Foes of Measure 9 pointed to a rise in anti-gay violence and vandalism in Oregon as a sign of things to come if it won. The “No on 9” campaign office in Portland was broken into last June and churches opposing the measure were vandalized this fall.

Election Day was marked by fears of violence, as Portland police and groups on both sides of the debate took extra security precautions. No incidents were reported.

In Colorado, supporters of the anti-gay constitutional amendment, Amendment 2, used some of the same material to argue that gays and lesbians are not a legitimate minority and do not deserve anti-discrimination protections.

If the Colorado amendment becomes law, it would overturn existing gay-rights ordinances in Denver, Boulder and Aspen and prevent either local or state government from adopting such legislation in the future.

Using much the same strategy employed in Oregon, Amendment 2 opponents argued that the proposal would sweep aside local control and legitimize discrimination against gays and lesbians, denying them basic rights to jobs, housing and public accommodations.

Lower-key than the Oregon battle, the Colorado fight over gay rights attracted less attention and money. Opponents nonetheless raised about $500,000, compared to about $300,000 collected by proponents, and a number of business, religious and political leaders in the state ultimately condemned the proposed amendment.

In other state initiatives, early returns showed Arizona voters favoring a referendum recognizing Martin Luther King Day, which would end a controversy that lost the state $300 million in convention revenue--including the 1993 Super Bowl--when it previously refused to declare a state holiday honoring the slain civil rights leader.

An anti-abortion initiative in Arizona was trailing by a substantial margin in early returns, with 70% against it to 30% in favor. It called for amending the state constitution to ban abortions except to save the life of the mother, while allowing the Legislature to make further exceptions in cases of rape and incest.

In Maryland, meanwhile, voters overwhelmingly approved a referendum that establishes a woman’s right to an abortion. The proposal, which passed 62% to 38%, was written to protect state abortion rights even if the U.S. Supreme Court overturns the Roe vs. Wade decision that established a woman’s right to an abortion.