Oregon and Colorado Attempt Antigay Initiatives
In 1992, Oregon and Colorado became battlegrounds for significant antigay initiatives that reflected broader cultural tensions in the United States. The Oregon Citizens Alliance proposed Measure 9, which sought to label homosexuality alongside other sexual behaviors as "abnormal" and required public institutions to promote this view, while simultaneously prohibiting any government endorsement of homosexuality. In Colorado, Amendment 2 aimed to deny gay, lesbian, and bisexual individuals any legal protection against discrimination, effectively nullifying existing ordinances. Both measures sparked heated campaigns that drew on anti-LGBT stereotypes and led to increased violence and hate crimes in the respective states.
While Oregon voters ultimately rejected Measure 9, Colorado voters endorsed Amendment 2, highlighting a stark divide in public opinion on gay rights. The aftermath of these initiatives galvanized the LGBT community in both states, leading to increased activism and legal challenges. Notably, the legal battle against Amendment 2 culminated in a landmark Supreme Court ruling in 1996 that declared the amendment unconstitutional, recognizing the equal protection rights of gay individuals. This period marked a crucial moment in the fight for LGBT rights, illustrating both the challenges posed by antigay politics and the resilience of advocacy efforts in the face of discrimination.
On this Page
Oregon and Colorado Attempt Antigay Initiatives
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.
Date November 3, 1992
Also known as:Measure 9; Amendment 2; Romer v. Evans (1996)
Locale Oregon; Colorado
Key Figures
Jean Dubofsky attorney who argued against Amendment 2 before the U.S. Supreme CourtRichard G. Evans lead plaintiff in the Amendment 2 caseRoy Romer (b. 1928), governor of Colorado and defendant in the Amendment 2 case
Summary of Event
At the 1992 Republican National Convention, Christian Coalition founder Pat Robertson referred to a “cultural war” in the United States. Later that year, that cultural war was dramatically enacted in statewide campaigns about gay and lesbian rights in Oregon and Colorado. Conservative organizations in both states gathered signatures to place referenda on the November 3, 1992, statewide ballots.
The Oregon Citizens Alliance proposed ballot Measure 9, the more extreme of the two referenda, which grouped homosexuality with pedophilia, sadism, and masochism, declaring all to be “abnormal, wrong, unnatural, and perverse.” The measure required that governmental entities, including public schools, promote this view of homosexuality, especially to youth, and prohibited governmental efforts to “promote, encourage, or facilitate” homosexuality (or pedophilia, sadism, or masochism). Colorado for Family Values proposed Amendment 2, which prohibited any governmental body from adopting any ordinance offering claims of “any minority status, quota preferences, protected status or claim of discrimination” to gay, lesbian, or bisexual (GLB) Coloradans. Amendment 2 effectively nullified existing antidiscrimination ordinances in the state and prohibited the enactment of any such ordinances in the future.
The campaigns against gay rights in the two states drew on the same printed materials and a video, The Gay Agenda, all of which exploited long-standing stereotypes of GLB people and antipathy toward them. The campaigns divided each state, with the two sides engaging in vitriolic accusations. Antigay hate crimes were reported in both states, but the atmosphere grew especially heated in Oregon, where churches were desecrated, serious threats against GLB campaign workers were commonplace, and two people—a lesbian and a gay man—were killed when their house was torched by arsonists. Despite such tensions, GLB people from Oregon and Colorado came out in significant numbers and many heterosexual allies, including major public figures, took visible stands for GLB people and their rights.
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 built an organization designed not only to fight such ballot measures but also to build a comprehensive pro-gay movement in the state.
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 (1996). Colorado governor Roy Romer, who ironically had publicly opposed Amendment 2 prior to his election, chose to defend it against a postelection legal challenge. “Evans” was Richard G. Evans, one of seven individuals who, along with the cities of Boulder, Denver, and Aspen and the Boulder Valley School District, were plaintiffs in the case.
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, and arguments were heard in October of 1995. In a decision written by Justice Anthony Kennedy and handed down on May 20, 1996, the Court declared Amendment 2 unconstitutional. The ruling argued that the amendment violated the constitutional right to equal protection and lacked a rational basis for singling out GLB people. Justice Antonin Scalia penned a scathing dissent on behalf of himself and two other justices. Their dissent notwithstanding, Amendment 2 never took legal effect in Colorado.
Significance
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.
Bibliography
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.