Photo credit: Russell Guerrero

Transcription

1 Amy L. Stone is assistant professor of sociology at Trinity University in San Antonio, Texas. She writes about gender, sexuality, and the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender (LGBT) movement. She became interested in anti-gay ballot measures while living in Michigan during a series of anti-gay ballot measures across the state. She completed her PhD in Sociology at the University of Michigan in 2006 with a dissertation on transgender inclusion in local non-discrimination ordinances and referendum campaigns. Stone is the author of (Minnesota 2012), the first comprehensive history of the LGBT movement s fight against anti-gay ballot measures from the earlier ballot measure in Boulder in 1974 to California Proposition 8 and Maine Question 1. This book examines how the tactics of LGBT activists have evolved, unraveling the complex relationship between ballot measure campaigns and the broader goals of the movement. Photo credit: Russell Guerrero Her work has appeared in such journals as GLQ, Sexualities, American Anthropologist, Social Identities, and Research on Social Movements, Conflict and Change along with several edited books. Her publications also include essays and articles on queer sexual communities, transgender inclusion in the LGBT movement, race in political messaging, and LGBT inclusion in urban festivals.

2 For Immediate Release university of minnesota press From Boulder in 1974 to Maine Question 1 in 2009, the first comprehensive history of the LGBT movement s fight against anti-gay ballot measures The passage of the anti-gay marriage Proposition 8 in California in 2008 stunned gay rights activists across the country. Although facing a well-funded campaign in support of the ballot measure, LGBT activists had good reasons for optimism, including the size and strength of their campaign. Since 1974, the LGBT movement has fought 146 anti-gay ballot initiatives sponsored by the religious right and has developed innovative strategies to oppose these measures. In, Amy L. Stone examines how the tactics of LGBT activists have evolved and unravels the complex relationship between ballot measure campaigns and the broader goals of the LGBT movement. The first comprehensive history of anti-gay ballot measures, both those merely attempted and those successfully put before voters, this book draws on archival research and interviews with more than one hundred LGBT activists to provide a detailed account of the campaigns to stop such ballot measures from passing into law. As Stone shows through in-depth case studies, although LGBT activists lost the vast majority of these fights, they also won significant statewide victories in Oregon in 1992 and Arizona in 2006, and local successes, including ones in Ypsilanti, Michigan, in 1998 and Stone analyzes how LGBT activists constantly refined their campaign tactics in response to both victories and defeats. She also stresses that such campaigns have played both a complementary and contradictory role within the LGBT movement. Specific anti-ballot campaigns and the broader movement do often strengthen each other. However, ballot measure campaigns sometimes distract activists from the movement s more general goals, and activists at the movement level can pressure local campaigns to take on more than they can handle. With gay rights coming under increasing assault from the religious right, this book is a vital resource for LGBT activists and others working to block their efforts. Amy L. Stone is assistant professor of sociology at Trinity University in San Antonio. ### Please consider a review or feature of, or an interview with the author. Please contact Heather Skinner, Publicist, at with questions, requests, or comments. By Amy L. Stone Available: April 2012, University of Minnesota Press 272 pp., 5 1/2 x 8 1/2, 6 b/w illustrations ISBN: , $22.50 paperback Praise for Amy L. Stone crafts a compelling, deeply textured portrayal of the more than 200 antigay ballot campaigns in the U.S. since Through interviews with movement leaders and other sources, Stone deftly analyzes the tension between winning campaigns and building a sustainable movement, between national, urban activists and local, rural communities, as well as debates over tactics and messaging. Gay Rights at the Ballot Box is essential reading for anyone seeking to understand the central, disturbing role anti-gay politics has played in contemporary U.S. politics. Sean Cahill, Ph.D., Fenway Institute and New York University Fax tel

3 university of minnesota press Q&A with Amy L. Stone Author of 1. What is an anti-gay ballot measure? Currently, people are most familiar with anti-gay ballot measures like Proposition 8, which repealed same-sex marriage in California in And since 1998 there have been dozens of same-sex marriage bans across the country. However, the most common type of anti-gay ballot measure is a referendum to repeal a city or statewide nondiscrimination law that includes sexual orientation and/or gender identity. Other types of anti-gay ballot measures include legal-restrictive initiatives like Colorado Amendment 2 and Oregon Ballot Measure 9, which attempted to ban all existing and future LGBT rights laws. This type of legal-restrictive initiatives was overturned by the Supreme Court Case Romer v. Evans. Like Ballot Measure 9 and Amendment 2, same-sex marriage bans eliminate LGBT rights before they even exist in a particular state, tying the hands of legislatures and judges. For example, after the passage of Proposition 8 in 2008, the LGBT movement has two options for reinstating same-sex marriage in California: getting the same-sex marriage ban overturned in a federal court or getting voters to pass a constitutional amendment allowing same-sex marriage. There have also been anti-gay ballot measures on issues like adoption, teachers, schools, and HIV/AIDS. 2. Why are these ballot measures important? Since 1974, the LGBT movement has fought over 145 anti-gay ballot measures sponsored by the Religious Right, losing almost 70% of the time. This book is the first historical overview of all anti-gay ballot measures, both attempted and those on the ballot. Using detailed historical records and interviews with over 100 activists who fight anti-gay ballot measures, this book analyzes the considerable time, resources, money, and attention have gone into fighting these ballot measures. And frequently, the consequence of these ballot measures is that LGBT rights are taken away. 3. Why are these ballot measures difficult for the LGBT movement to win? Campaigns, in general, are difficult and time-consuming to run. What makes antigay ballot measure campaigns more difficult for the LGBT movement is that they are forced upon the movement by the Religious Right. They are rarely planned, and they increasingly occur in areas where LGBT community members may have little experience running regular campaigns, much less ballot measure campaigns. For example, when Louisiana faced a same-sex marriage ban in 2004, the LGBT community had never run a ballot measure campaign before and had little experience organizing statewide. This was challenging for a campaign in which voters have to be educated and mobilized, volunteers have to be recruited, and funds have to raised all within a short period of time. These campaigns also have to fight the political messages created by the Religious Right about the dangers of LGBT rights, which can appeal to voters homophobia. Another difficulty of these ballot measure campaigns is lack of agreement on how best to fight them. In, I analyze how for the first two decades of organizing ballot measure campaigns, the LGBT movement had little method to its madness. It wasn t until 1992, when statewide campaigns happened simultaneously in Oregon and Colorado (one won, one lost), that there was the beginning of what many LGBT organizers call campaign organizing in LGBT ballot measure campaigns. With the support of national organizations and strong role models from Oregon cam- fax tel

4 for Immediate Release university of minnesota press paigns, campaigns started to fundraise professionally and recruit lots of volunteers. Campaigns increasingly used voter identification, which is a way of using phone banking and door-to-door canvassing to identify supporters, who are then turned out to vote on election day. Campaigns also started to develop political messages for voters that talked frankly and openly about gay rights, encouraging voters to disapprove of discrimination. According to national LGBT campaign consultant Dave Fleischer the reason why we started winning at the local level on these non-discrimination ballot measures is that we finally started campaigning. The development of these ways of campaigning and the development of large scale campaigns led to a series of victories between 1997 and 2003, mainly victories in defeating referendums on local LGBT rights laws. 4. Will the LGBT movement win same-sex marriage at the ballot box? Probably not. Or at least not now, in most states. There is a chance that same-sex marriage can be won at the ballot box in states like Maine, Washington, Oregon and California, where LGBT activists have running statewide campaigns down to a science and voters have increasingly supportive opinions about same-sex marriage. LGBT organizers in Maine are counting on both these factors as they put same-sex marriage on the ballot for the November 2012 election. This is the first time that same-sex marriage has been put on the ballot by the LGBT movement rather than the Religious Right. In other states like Washington and Maryland, the Religious Right may put newly-legalized same-sex marriage on the ballot. However, states like Texas, Montana, and Kentucky are a different story. In Southern states, over 75% of voters supported same-sex marriage bans. Same-sex marriage bans passed in most states handily, although there were was a surprising defeat of a samesex marriage ban in Arizona and a near defeat in South Dakota in However, an actual initiative to legalize same-sex marriage would be defeated by potentially an even higher margin. Although voters opinions about same-sex marriage are changing rapidly, winning same-sex marriage state by state at the ballot box would require the LGBT movement to spend countless dollars and time. 5. What are the consequences of these ballot measures for the LGBT movement? These ballot measure campaigns and the larger LGBT movement operate in both a contradictory and complementary relationship with one another. At times, both the campaigns and movement support each other, as a stronger movement supports campaigns and campaigns develop into lasting social movement organizations, like Basic Rights Oregon or Michigan Equality. For example, the growth and support of national organizations like the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force have been critical for spreading tactics to fight anti-gay ballot measures by training organizers and working directly with campaigns. However, ballot measure campaigns can also be destructive for social movement goals, such as remedying a history of marginalization within the movement, and social movements can pressure campaigns to take on more than they can handle. ### For more information on GAY RIGHTS AT THE BALLOT BOX, please go to: By Amy L. Stone Available: April 2012, University of Minnesota Press 272 pp., 5 1/2 x 8 1/2, 6 b/w illustrations ISBN: , $22.50 paperback fax tel

5 A TIMELINE OF THE LGBT MOVEMENT S FIGHT AGAINST ANTI-GAY BALLOT MEASURES 1970s 1980s May The first referendum on a local LGBT rights law. Residents of Boulder, Colorado, quietly rescind a gay rights law. June 7, With Anita Bryant leading the charge, Dade County (Miami) voters repeal a local gay rights law. The referendum receives national attention. Anita Bryant, who had once been a spokesperson for Florida Citrus and was subsequently dropped, goes on tour to support ballot measures across the country as the Religious Right proposes ballot measures in Wichita, St. Paul, Seattle, Eugene, and California. Nov. 4, Activist Lyndon LaRouche sponsors Proposition 64, which would have placed Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) on the list of communicable diseases and might have led to mandated state reporting of individuals with AIDS. The measure was defeated by a margin of 71% to 29% at the ballot box. The measure was re-introduced as Proposition 69 in California in It was also defeated. 1990s Nov. 3, Voters in Oregon and Colorado simultaneously face two of the most draconian anti-gay initiatives. Ballot Measure 9 and Amendment 2 eliminate existing and future lesbian and gay rights. Oregon activists successfully defeat Ballot Measure 9. Amendment 2 passes. Between 1993 and 1996 Religious Right activists attempt ballot measures like Amendment 2 in 13 states and in more than 30 towns. May 20, The Supreme Court rules 6-3 that Amendment 2 is unconstitutional (Romer V. Evans). Nov. 3, The first ballot measures on same-sex marriage happen simultaneously in Hawaii and Alaska in response to pro-marriage court cases. 2000s : Winning streak. The LGBT movement wins a series of referendums on local LGBT rights laws, including four victories in Michigan and the defeat of a referendum in Miami-Dade County Two major court victories for the LGBT movement. The Supreme Court case Lawrence v. Texas overturns sodomy laws across the country. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruling in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health established the right of same-sex couples in the state to marry. Nov. 2, A record number of same-sex marriage bans. As samesex marriage becomes legalized in Massachusetts during the presidential election, voters pass same-sex marriage bans in 11 states. All but one of these same-sex marriage bans are constitutional amendments and the majority of them eliminate not just marriage rights but also domestic partnerships. Nov. 7, A same-sex marriage ban is defeated in Arizona, marking the first time LGBT activists defeat a same-sex marriage ban at the ballot box. Nov. 4, Voters pass California Proposition 8, the first same-sex marriage ban to eliminate existing same-sex marriage rights, after more than 16,000 same-sex couples marry. law in a Nov. 3, Maine Question 1: Shortly after the Maine legislature passes same-sex marriage in a historic vote, Maine voters overturn the People s Veto. MORE DETAILS: by Amy L. Stone