| 2000
| California Proposition 22 (Knight Amendment) |
| California (statewide) |
Date: March 7, 2000 |
Result: Antigay |
| Remarks: Sponsored by William J. "Pete"
Knight, state senator from Palmdale. |
| Ballot question: Only marriage between
a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. |
| Answer |
Votes |
% |
| Yes |
4,567,844 |
61.4% |
| No |
2,878,034 |
38.6% |
| Maine Question 6 (PL 629) |
| Maine (statewide) |
Date: November 7, 2000 |
Result: Antigay |
| Remarks: Maine voters again rejected
a law passed by the legislature which prohibited employment and housing
discrimination. |
| Ballot question: Do you favor ratifying
the action of the 119th Legislature whereby it passed an act extending
to all citizens regardless of their sexual orientation the same basic
rights to protection against discrimination now guaranteed to citizens
on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin in the
areas of employment, housing, public accommodation and credit and
where the act expressly states that nothing in the act confers legislative
approval of, or special rights to, any person or group of persons? |
| Answer |
Votes |
% |
| Yes |
314,012 |
49.6% |
| No |
318,846 |
50.4% |
| Nebraska Initiative Measure 416 |
| Nebraska (Statewide) |
Date: November 7, 2000 |
Result: Antigay |
| Remarks: Called the mini-DOMA (Defense
of Marriage Act, the measure was a reaction to the Vermont Civil Union
laws passed earlier in 2000. No county in the state had more than
a 40% support for the no option. |
Ballot question: To add a new section
29 to Article I:
Shall the Nebraska Constitution be amended to provide that only marriage
between a man and a woman shall be valid or recognized in Nebraska,
and to provide further that the uniting of two persons of the same
sex in a civil union, domestic partnership, or other similar same-sex
relationship shall not be valid or recognized in Nebraska? |
| Answer |
Votes |
% |
| Yes |
477,571 |
70.1% |
| No |
203,667 |
29.9% |
| Nevada Question 2 |
| Nevada (statewide) |
Date: November 7, 2000 |
Result:Antigay |
| Remarks: |
| Ballot question: Shall the Nevada Constitution
be amended to provide that: "Only a marriage between a male and
female person shall be recognized and given effect in this state?" |
| Answer |
Votes |
% |
| Yes |
412,654 |
69.6% |
| No |
180,057 |
30.4% |
| Oregon Measure 9 |
| Oregon (statewide) |
Date: November 7, 2000 |
Result: Pro-gay |
| Remarks: Oregon again established itself
as the state which favors gay rights (or at least frowns upon anti-gay
sentiments), albeit in a close race. |
| Ballot question: Prohibits Public School
Instruction Encouraging, Promoting, Sanctioning Homosexual, Bisexual
Behaviors. |
| Answer |
Votes |
% |
| Yes |
702,572 |
47.1% |
| No |
788,691 |
52.9% |
2001
| Houston Proposition 2 |
| Houston, TX |
Date: November 8, 2001 |
Result: Antigay |
| Remarks: |
| Ballot question: Shall the charter
of the city of Houston be amended to deny health care and other employment
benefits to same-sex domestic partners of city employees and to address
other matters of city employment and contracting practices based on
sexual orientation? |
| Answer |
Votes |
% |
| Yes |
130,310 |
51.5% |
| No |
123,592 |
48.5% |
| Huntington Woods Ordinance 454 |
| Huntington Woods, MI |
Date: November 8, 2001 |
Result: Pro-gay |
| Remarks: |
| Ballot question: Should Ordinance 454,
the Human Rights Ordinance unanimously adopted by the city commission
April 24, 2001, become effective immediately? |
| Answer |
Votes |
% |
| Yes |
1,982 |
68.9% |
| No |
896 |
31.1% |
| Kalamazoo Anti-Discrimination Ammendment |
| Kalamazoo, MI |
Date: November 8, 2001 |
Result: Pro-gay |
| Remarks: |
| Ballot question: Shall the Kalamazoo
City Charter be amended by the addition of a new section entitled
Adoption of Special Class Status Based on Sexual Orientation, Conduct,
or Relationship Prohibited, which shall provide that no special class
status shall be granted based upon sexual orientation, conduct or
relationships, and that the City of Kalamazoo and its various boards
and commissions shall not adopt and enforce any ordinance or regulation
which will afford protected status based on sexual orientation, conduct
or relationships, and that any ordinance or regulation enacted before
this amendment that violates this provision shall be null and void? |
| Answer |
Votes |
% |
| Yes |
5,211 |
46.1% |
| No |
6,085 |
53.9% |
| Traverse City Proposal 1 |
| Traverse City, MI |
Date: November 8, 2001 |
Result: Pro-gay |
| Remarks: Proposal would have prohibited
any city body from adopting policies or rules to protect gay, lesbian
and bisexual people from discrimination. |
| Ballot question: N/A |
| Answer |
Votes |
% |
| Yes |
2,152 |
42.2% |
| No |
2,944 |
57.8% |
2002
| Miami-Dade repeal campaign
(click here for more information) |
| Miami-Dade County, FL |
Date: September 10, 2002 |
Result: Pro-gay |
| Remarks: The pro-gay ordinance squeaked
by the county commission on December 1, 1998. Four years later, Take
Back Miami-Dade raised enough signatures to put it on the ballot.
After some election-night jitters, Miami-Dade County came through. |
| Ballot question: Shall County Ordinance
98-170, entitled "Ordinance amending Articles I, II, III and
IV of Chapter 11A of the Code of Miami-Dade County to prohibit discrimination
based on sexual orientation in housing, credit and finance, public
accommodations, and employment; amending Article VI relating to the
office of Fair Employment Practices to require Miami-Dade County to
provide equal employment opportunity without regard to sexual orientation,"
be repealed? |
| Answer |
Votes |
% |
| Yes- Repeal gay rights |
134,500 |
47.1% |
| No- Against repeal |
151,064 |
52.9% |
| Nevada Question No. 2 |
| Nevada (statewide) |
Date: November 5, 2002 |
Result: antigay |
| Remarks: This is the second election
cycle for this constitutional ammendment. It was already approved
in 2000 by Nevada voters. |
| Ballot question: Shall the Nevada Constitution
be amended to provide that: "Only a marriage between a male and
female person shall be recognized and given effect in this state?"
|
| Answer |
Votes |
% |
| Yes |
337,187 |
67.1% |
| No |
164,555 |
32.9% |
| Tacoma initiative No. 1 |
| Tacoma, WA |
Date: November 5, 2002 |
Result: Pro-igay |
| Remarks: Third time was the charm
for the Washington city. |
| Ballot question: Initiative No.
1 amends Tacoma’s anti-discrimination law. Initiative
No. 1 removes those provisions of the Tacoma Municipal Code
which prohibit discrimination in employment, housing, public
accommodation, and lending based on sexual orientation or gender
identity. A yes vote enacts the Initiative. A no vote defeats
the Initiative. Should this Initiative become law? |
| Answer |
Votes |
% |
| Yes |
15,303 |
41.2% |
| No |
21,834 |
58.8% |
City of Sarasota Charter Ammendment |
| Sarasota, FL |
Date: November 5, 2002 |
Result: Pro- gay |
| Remarks: |
| Ballot question: Amendment to prohibit
discrimination in housing, employment and public accomodations. Summary:
Discrimination on the basis of age, disability, gender, marital status,
national origin, race, religion, sexual orientation or veterans status
in the areas of housing, employment and public accommodations shall
be prohibited in the City. |
| Answer |
Votes |
% |
| No |
4,170 |
27.1% |
| Yes |
11,209 |
72.9% |
| Westbrook initiative |
| Westbrook, ME |
Date: November 5, 2002 |
Result: Pro gay |
| Remarks: A heartening triumph in Maine. |
| Ballot question: Unavailable |
| Answer |
Votes |
% |
| Yes |
3316 |
51.5% |
| No |
3126 |
48.5% |
| Ypsilanti City Proposal |
| Ypsilanti, MI |
Date: November 5, 2002 |
Result: Pro-igay |
| Remarks: A whopping victory in the
Ann Arbor suburb. |
| Ballot question: |
| Answer |
Votes |
% |
| Yes |
1,739 |
36.1% |
| No |
3,080 |
63.9% |
|