Back in 1992, the "Culture Wars" were probably new and unleashed, even when the country just elected Bill Clinton. In the state of Colorado, the same state that elected Bill Clinton, also passed an amendment to its Constitution, now infamously known as Amendment 2 (which reared its head in its moniker in Florida this year). That amendment basically said people with LGB identities had "no protected status," no means for recourse for discrimination, and furthermore no legislature or statute could undo this amendment as it repealed city ordinances passed in Denver, Aspen, and Boulder. In its effect it tried to remove the proclamation of such existence. I lived in Colorado during that time.
and I've talked about it elsewhere, but as I was closeted during that time, it's in some ways a different experience than now, except I did start coming out of the closet as a reaction after feeling very lonely, alienated, etc. after that action.
I'm currently reliving it in a way as I checked out a book titled Voted Out: The Psychological Consequences of Anti-Gay Politics which details especially responses from a qualitative survey that was administered to LGB individuals all across the state. In fact, I didn't read the first third before I heard myself speak to me from back then. Actually, literally. Because some months after the passage of Amendment 2, I was trying to fit in with a gay group on campus and this survey was handed out to us, and I did fill it out (actually I never thought mine would ever be read, as it was at least a couple of months before I finally mailed it in. I visualized it more as a quick, snapshot survey, rather than a long study that took years looked over by a team, and was not published until 2000).
But I've also relived it through the Prop. 8 campaign which was also coinciding like Amendment 2, with a campaign for change to necessary Democratic leadership in the country. And how on a night where once again the Democrats had the White House, the state I lived in passed an initiative, by Direct Democracy, against me. And to add to insult, in 1992, there was the amendment for the prevention of the shooting for the baby brown bear, which passed overwhelmingly, and now our rights are eclipsed by chickens.
I'm starting to read many different quotes of pain from many different individuals from their surveys, conveyed in this book. And I'd be asked why am I reading this, and yet, the only way I feel I can deal is to reflect on the past. I took my "day without a Gay" in a vast research library to find all sorts of articles, all which are in full-text I've emailed and collected, and also shared the bibliography of resources in hopes that activists and future campaigns can take advantage of this phenomenon we've had over thirty years of the anti-gay initiatives. As one person from Boulder said to me in a listserv back in 1994, calling the Christian Right's continual attacks and hate campaigns a
"frontal assault," that were permeated everywhere (I eventually had to stop reading the newspaper, as it was there daily from news stories to editorials to letters to the editor) the sensationalism over this group's fear and hate.
From 1990 to 1994, I lived in Fort Collins, Colorado, which until recently was represented by Marilyn Musgrave who was the author of the anti-same sex marriage amendment. Though at the time our representative was Wayne Allard, who later as Senator forwarded the anti-same sex marriage to the Senate (as author of the Senate version). So I actually lived in a center, so to speak. Though it wasn't so much Fort Collins, which by itself was truly a college town and in fact we had a fairly liberal mayor of the city during that time (back in 1992). But just north of Fort Collins, there was a sleepy small town, if you will, called Laporte, which like most of Larimer County lived many conservative people many who had the evangelical faith. One of the churches, the Laporte Church of Christ, had this fascist in charge named Reverend Peters. The Reverend Peters was filled with horrible orations of hate against pretty much anyone who was a non-Christian white, and he also penned and distributed notorious pamphlets such as "The Death Penalty of Homosexuals is Proscribed in the Bible" and "They're Taking Our Country" (the latter pamphlet had a black fist crumpling a map of the United States). In 1993, I actually came across this infamous pamphlet, as many of this guy's followers and similar evangelical presences on campus (such as the Campus Crusades) would continue to litter their junk in libraries, bookstores, anywhere where there was a pile of books, or newspapers, or magazines, to easily lift up. I actually found it in the English Department, where I spent most of my time as a hermit in the computer room as a graduate student.
To this day, I have not read such a vile piece of propaganda that made me physically ill, and unable to sleep a couple of days. I was downright horrified that for example, this asshole through truly emotional and fearful rhetoric made people believe that LGB people (specifically GB males, as there was very little mention of lesbians or bisexual women in the pamphlet) were like Jeffrey Dahmer, and he continually tried to bring in this man's heinous crimes and intersperse with the LGB identity, among other nasty usages in cherry picking the bible, as many do to try to give their points. That pamphlet in some ways did encourage reactions and I'd argue entice violence.
After a couple of years, I moved back to California, and have not been back to Colorado since I defended my thesis in 1996, and in some ways I still have a clear memory of going to grocery stores, to classes, driving down the street, etc. always having this ugly, nasty feeling that many people around me voted against the right to exist as a group of people, with no recourse with regards to this identity, because such rights they argued were "Special rights." You see, equality was turned into "Special rights" through anti-affirmative action and quotas rhetoric, arguing there are other means of legal recourse and there's absolutely no need to identify a group that they equated with pedophilia and perverts in some of their more controversial ads or rhetoric (though one aspect Russell forgets to mention in her book were the other commercials that had African American, Hispanic, Native American, and Asian persons encouraging people to vote Yes on 2, arguing who is this group to ask for recourse when they have had no harsh ugly histories simply because of who they are, etc.)
So tonight to see now that the Yes on 8 people are now going an extra mile and to void 18,000 marriages across the state and with Ken Starr out of all people, I am downright furious. It's bad enough that my refuge of Los Angeles (expanding to the county level, at least) voted against marriage equality. I was especially disturbed over many persons' complacency, surprised no one remembered that in 1992, polling always showed Amendment 2 was losing (the worry was Measure 9 in Oregon and that's where for the most part, a lot of energy was focused).
One of the greatest ironies: The phrase "Hate is Not a Family Value" that many have heard and seen on bumper stickers on cars all these years--that is actually a name of a failed slogan. It was the No on 2's campaign slogan (just reminded about it reading a page in Voted Out). The Yes on 2 Campaign's slogan was "No Special Rights." While there was a sense from many who voted on it thinking of it in terms of political terms, from those who were constantly bombarded by rhetoric that was similarly on English Only and Anti-affirmative action measures, this "no special rights" phrase was a winning language, seeming to imply that LGB people think they are "special" in people's minds, and they needed to be told they can't flaunt their "lifestyle choice," etc., using their rhetoric. One person in the survey who was a gay male in Boulder actually said that while he was upset, he didn't believe in "special rights, either" which is really quite eye opening. But somehow enough people did not understand "Hate is Not a Family Value" with respect to the amendment. In September, 1993, most voters (even more than 53% which passed it) said at that point they would not change their vote, they still did not believe in "special rights" and yet 71% were against discrimination against LGB people in the workplace. It was a twist of words, (including on the amendment, itself) that seemed to place a disconnect, where people actually appeared to think that they didn't vote the way they did.
The amendment, itself, was not simply just authored by Colorado for Family Values (CFV), but was actually drafted and wordsmithed out in Virginia, from the ACLJ (American Center of Law and Justice--a front of Pat Robertson's) and CFV, itself, was actually a sattelite of the Traditional Values Colaition (from Orange County, California--Reverend Lou Sheldon). In fact the ACLJ also tinkered and worked with Measure 9 in Oregon and Measure 1 in Idaho--but this particular amendment was from this group given a seal of approval--they were positive this amendment would survive the muster of the United States Supreme Court, partly because of Bowers vs. Hardwick, but also because in the Constitution, itself, based on their strict interpretations there was no acknowledgement of existence of such people, so therefore it would pass muster (the Equal Protection Clause, they believed would not fit).
Romer vs. Evans is one of the most important Supreme Court rulings as it brought pretty much a stop to the trend of ballot initiatives that focused on trying to discriminate or try to only put in existence in bad light of LGB people in state Constitutions. Since then, their battles have focused on LGB people as couples--unfortunately, since they constantly seek the Direct Democracy approach, making civil rights decisions by ballot on a "suspect minority," they seem to be winning at this point. While I have read comments (including from today) beliefs that the goal should not be the courts but by the ballot--if the Courts do not step in and these laws are not contested, soon practically every state that allows especially an easier ballot process will have anti-marriage amendments on their books. There is a fear of how a United States Supreme Court would rule as well, as it could set back marriage rights for generations. However, I don't see any other way how to resolve this, especially now that Christian and Mormon groups want to now force 18,000 couples (a number who have children) a divorce. Now the clear, concrete assault on civil rights will be dramatized and with this wretch from the past, Ken Starr, who once vilified our internet with what seemed to be this peculiar obsession of instances of oral sex (including being on the cutting edge of doing the PATRIOT ACT before there was one, getting credit card receipts and records of Monica Lewinsky's bookstore purchases).
Anyway, sorry for my ramblings tonight. Thinking of 2008 vs. 1992, while we've come some ways, in some ways we haven't. LGBT people are still a "suspect minority class" that maybe we've at least come around enough to see them as a class. Meanwhile, the fears of LGBT people invading classrooms, influencing children, and being the menace to religious institutions' rights, etc. may already be around. The No on 8 campaign tried to state it's about discrimination and vote for equality--which ironically was a more appropriate counter-argument sixteen years ago to "No Special Rights." And while there is a number of problems of how the No on 8 campaign was run (I mean no canvassing?!) and the failure that the Mormon Church with its influence, organization, and devoted followers that helped defeat the Equal Rights Amendment back in the 70's (and the dollars), would now do the same and permeate the whole state with even anti-Newsom ads in San Francisco, they managed to do something . . .
Amendment 2 failed by 90% in the city of Boulder.
Proposition 8 failed only 75% in SAN FRANCISCO, by comparison.
So there may be some ways to go from a public uneasy about marriage rights, which in some ways are by religion, but also by so-called "secular norms" that may be more of a challenge by the population at large, than one realizes.
I for one will see what happens with the California Supreme Court in March, continue to modify the bibliography, and while I also hope to read some enriching literature that's not about anti-gay rights topics, will probably read some of this stuff as well. As someone who spends time volunteering for progressive campaigns, I'd like to try to get a good understanding of what has seemed to work/not work in the past, and I'd like to be as informed as possible.