Oregon and Colorado faced referenda limiting the rights of gays, lesbians, and bisexuals. Oregon’s Measure 9 was defeated at the polls, but Colorado’s Amendment 2 passed. Amendment 2 was subsequently declared unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court’s ruling marks the first time the nation’s high court acknowledged gays and lesbians as citizens deserving of some degree of civil rights.
At the 1992 Republican National Convention,
The Oregon Citizens Alliance
The campaigns against gay rights in the two states drew on the same printed materials and a video, The Gay Agenda,
The election results were split. Oregon voters rejected Measure 9, 56.5 to 43.5 percent; Colorado voters endorsed Amendment 2, 53 to 47 percent. In the aftermath of its loss in the 1992 election, the Oregon Citizens Alliance sponsored a variety of antigay referenda at the county level as well as subsequent statewide referenda. During the same period, GLB people in Oregon
Colorado’s GLB community was similarly galvanized after the passage of Amendment 2. The first order of business was to activate pre-election contingency plans for a judicial challenge to Amendment 2. The legal team, headed by Jean Dubofsky, initiated the case that ultimately became Romer v. Evans
On January 15, 1993, Colorado district judge Jeffrey Bayless granted an injunction: Amendment 2 would not go into effect until the courts heard arguments and rendered a decision about its constitutionality. Later that year, the Colorado Supreme Court upheld the injunction and, after a full trial on the merits of the case, declared Amendment 2 unconstitutional on December 14, 1993.
The state of Colorado appealed the case to the U.S. Supreme Court,
The success of the campaign against Oregon’s Measure 9 suggests that antigay politics could be effectively countered. On the other hand, the passage of Colorado’s Amendment 2 demonstrated that some American voters were capable of expressing bias toward GLB people at the ballot box. This fact caused significant pain, fear, and anger in Colorado and in other states. Furthermore, the election demonstrated that appeals to “special rights” were especially effective and difficult to counter. The campaign and election also suggested the potential gains for conservatives in pursuing antigay measures, because they provided a means to raise money and galvanize voters. In retrospect, these measures were a harbinger of the subsequent practice of using GLB rights as political wedge issue.
Conservatives were inspired by Amendment 2 to propose similar antigay ordinances in a variety of locations; many petition drives never made it to the ballot box, but some did. However, these efforts were met with intensive and widespread organizing by GLB communities. These campaigns challenged many people in Colorado, in Oregon, and throughout the nation to come out and to take explicit public stands on behalf of GLB rights. Some GLB communities began to look more seriously at the internal divisions that hampered their efforts—divisions based on such factors as race, gender, the degree to which a person was out, and rural-urban differences. The awareness of the very real dangers posed by prejudice against GLB people prompted many heterosexuals to support GLB rights. Oregon and Colorado became models of what was possible—for better and for worse.
The Supreme Court decision declaring Amendment 2 unconstitutional also had significant legal impacts that went beyond the case in question. For the first time in history, the nation’s top judicial authority had acknowledged and delimited antigay prejudice. Also, the majority decision in the case represented a new way of speaking about GLB people, one that regarded them as citizens worthy of respect and civil rights. These two shifts laid a foundation for judicial rulings very different from tradition.
-
Haider-Markel, Donald P., and Kenneth J. Meier. “Legislative Victory, Electoral Uncertainty: Explaining Outcomes in the Battles over Lesbian and Gay Civil Rights.” Review of Policy Research 20, no. 4 (2003): 671-690. -
Herman, Didi. The Antigay Agenda. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1997. -
Hunter, Nan D. “Proportional Equality: Readings of Romer.” Kentucky Law Journal 89 (2001): 885-910. -
Jacobs, Andrew. “Romer Wasn’t Built in a Day: The Subtle Transformation on Judicial Argument over Gay Rights.” Wisconsin Law Review (1996): 893-969. -
Keen, Lisa, and Suzanne B. Goldberg. Strangers to the Law: Gay People on Trial. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1998. -
Murdoch, Joyce, and Deb Price. Courting Justice: Gay Men and Lesbians v. the Supreme Court. New York: Basic Books, 2001. -
Russell, Glenda M. Voted Out: The Psychological Consequences of Anti-Gay Politics. New York: New York University Press, 2000. -
Stein, Arlene. The Stranger Next Door. Boston: Beacon Press, 2004.
1972-1973: Local Governments Pass Antidiscrimination Laws
1973: National Gay Task Force Is Formed
March 5, 1974: Antigay and Antilesbian Organizations Begin to Form
June 27, 1974: Abzug and Koch Attempt to Amend the Civil Rights Act of 1964
July 3, 1975: U.S. Civil Service Commission Prohibits Discrimination Against Federal Employees
1977: Anita Bryant Campaigns Against Gay and Lesbian Rights
1978: Lesbian and Gay Workplace Movement Is Founded
November 7, 1978: Antigay and Antilesbian Briggs Initiative Is Defeated
November 27, 1978: White Murders Politicians Moscone and Milk
1979: Moral Majority Is Founded
November, 1986: Californians Reject LaRouche’s Quarantine Initiative
March-April, 1993: Battelle Sex Study Prompts Conservative Backlash
1994: Employment Non-Discrimination Act Is Proposed to U.S. Congress
December 4, 1995: Lesbian Couple Murdered in Oregon
March 21, 2003: New Mexico Amends Its Human Rights Act
June 26, 2003: U.S. Supreme Court Overturns Texas Sodomy Law