Win, Lose, or Draw: Using LGBTQ+ Legal History to Reassess Social Movement Outcomes
Marie‐Amélie George
Abstract
In 1992, Colorado's citizens enacted Amendment 2, a ballot initiative that prevented governmental entities from extending antidiscrimination protections to gays and lesbians. That same year, Oregon's voters rejected a similar measure. At first glance, it may seem that queer rights advocates experienced a loss in Colorado and a victory in Oregon. But the story is much more complicated than this simple framing suggests. This article draws on extensive original archival research to analyze these historical events, focusing on a striking paradox at the heart of Amendment 2: the initiative was simultaneously a stunning rebuke to the queer rights movement and a series of notable victories for gay and lesbian rights advocates. It uses the history of both the Colorado and Oregon ballot measures to build a new typology for evaluating social movement success, one that categorizes outcomes as comparative, adversarial, and contingent victories. This reformulation offers scholars a more robust framework of analysis for identifying wins, losses, and draws. It also helps contemporary social movements better assess their potential to secure essential gains.
Evidence weight
Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40
| F · citation impact | 0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20 |
| M · momentum | 0.50 × 0.15 = 0.07 |
| V · venue signal | 0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03 |
| R · text relevance † | 0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20 |
† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.