Top 10 Most Significant LGBT Events of the Decade

Following up on my recent post detailing the most significant LGBT-related events of 2009, I have decided to try and compile a list for the entire decade of the "aughts," from January 1, 2000 to December 31, 2009.

By most significant, I mean the events that either had the most impact on the lives of the most number of LGBT people or that are likely to be remembered as the most significant by historians in the future.

Here we go:

10. The Vermont legislature enacts nation's first civil unions law, signed by Governor Howard Dean, in response to the Vermont Supreme Court's Baker v. Vermont ruling, 2000.

In late December 1999 the Vermont Supreme Court issued its unanimous ruling in Baker v. Vermont, deciding that there was discrimination in the differing ways that the state's laws treated same-sex couples relative to opposite-sex couples, and although it also ruled that under Vermont law the legislature had intended to have marriage be a union between a man and a woman only (and could legally do so), the Court compelled the State to come up with a statutory remedy to address the disparate treatment of same-sex and opposite-sex couples. The Vermont Civil Unions bill, modeled after European civil partnership legislation, attempted to provide "civilly united" same-sex couples all the rights and responsibilities that married couples had under Vermont law. It was signed by Governor Howard Dean on April 26, 2000 and went into effect on July 1, 2000. (Me and my other half got a civil union on August 8, 2000 in Burlington, VT.) Thus Vermont became the first state to attempt to end state-sanction discrimination in relationship recognition in the United States, leading to full marriage equality on September 1, 2009.

9. California legislature passes Assemblymember Jackie Goldberg's AB 205, the first comprehensive domestic partner statute granting almost all the rights and responsibilities of marriage in state law (signed by Governor Gray Davis, went into effect January 1, 2005), 2003.

In summer of 2003, California became the second state (after Vermont) to enact legislation that tried to provide same-sex couples with as much of the rights and responsibilities of marriage while still reserving the word marriage to the exclusive domain of heterosexuals. In April 2000, California voters had passed Proposition 22 by 61%-39% which re-affirmed that state law banned recognition of same-sex marriages. Unlike in Vermont, the California legislature was not reacting in response to a state Supreme Court ruling. Instead, the state legislature was specifically expanding a bundle of rights to an existing statutory entity, the registered domestic partnership, instead of creating something new from whole cloth, like the Vermont civil union. California's comprehensive domestic partnership law would become the model that other (mostly Western) states would follow later in the decade: Oregon, Washington and Nevada. At the time there was much heated debate in the LGBT community about "settling" for domestic partnership in the midst of a pitched battle for equal marriage rights that would be repeated time and again with echoes present even today. Domestic partnerships and civil unions (commonly lumped together as "everything but the word marriage" laws) became overwhelmingly popular with the general public so that even during the backlash against marriage in the middle of the decade voters repeatedly defended such measures in elections (Arizona, 2006 and Washington, 2009).

8. Democrats retake congressional majorities in both the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate, 2006.

After losing control of both Houses of Congress in 1994, fueled by the energy and organizational skills of the progressive blogosphere and under the leadership of Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Rahm Emmanuel and Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee head Charles Shumer the Democrats were able to shock political observers by wresting back control of the entire legislative branch of the federal government in 2006 despite losing two consecutive national Presidential elections. The return of the Democrats to the helm of the federal legislature meant that draconian measures like the Federal Marriage Amendment that would have banned legalization of marriages for same-sex couples in all the 50 states would now be unable to advance. However, with Republicans in control of the executive and judicial branches of government, there was very little positive change the Democrats would be able to enact until a change was made in the occupancy of the White House. The 2006 election were an augur of progressive change to come in the country.

7. Voters pass ballot measures amending 11 state constitutions to ban recognition and validation of same sex marriages while re-electing President Bush, 2004.

In 2004, George W. Bush chief political strategist Karl Rove together with the (closeted) head of the Republican National Committee Ken Mehlman instigated the most coordinated attack on the LGBT community in history in an attempt to boost conservative evangelical turnout for Republican candidates (especially the top of the ticket) nationwide. Their evil strategy worked, although if a mere 60,000 voters in Ohio had voted for Senator John Kerry instead of the incumbent, there would have been another historical discrepancy between the winner of the presidential popular vote and the electoral college vote. The eleven states that voted to amend their state constitution to ban marriage for same-sex couples were: Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon and Utah. In all the states but Oregon the measures were supported by more than 60% of voters and resulted in harsh anti-gay language being constantly repeated during state and local electoral campaigns. 2004 was the political nadir for progressive election results in the decade, with LGBT issues caught in the downturn.

6. U.S. House of Representatives passes Employment Non-Discrimination Act prohibiting discrimination in employment based on sexual orientation nationwide after gender identity protections are dropped, 2007.

Federal gay civil rights legislation was introduced for the first time in May 1974 by New York City-based U.S. Representatives Bella Abzug and Ed Koch as a bill that would add "sexual orientation" to the 1964 Civil Rights Act. However, it was not until November 7, 2007 (a full generation later) that a version of a federal gay civil rights bill passed a single chamber of Congress. Unfortunately, the version passed in the U.S. House by a vote of 235-184 was not only watered-down to an extent that it only covered discrimination in employment (and not public accommodations and housing like the corresponding landmark civil rights legislation of the 1960s) but it also was stripped of the gender identity protections. The passage of the trans-exclusive version of ENDA in the U.S. House of Representatives was significant for the historical precedent it set as well as the internal community it sparked over transgender issues in the LGBT civil rights movement. Even among openly gay Congressmembers Tammy Baldwin and Barney Frank there was disagreement about whether it was better to pass ENDA with sexual orientation and gender identity protections or not. Frank was in favor, Baldwin opposed. For practical purposes, the issue of which measure should be law became moot because the measure died in the United States Senate after President Bush issued a veto threat. However, the passage of ENDA by the House augured well for the passage of other LGBT civil rights legislation in the future.

5. Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court rules marriage for same-sex couples is a fundamental right that can not be constitutionally denied, 2003.

In November 2003, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health became the first high court in the United States to rule that opposite-sex only marriage laws were unconstitutional and that the remedy required was to allow same-sex couples full marriage equality. The Court deemed that the state did not even have a rational basis for denying such an important fundamental right to a class of its citizens on both equal protection and due process grounds. On May 17, 2004, the 50th anniversary of the United States Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education, the Goodridge decision went into effect and the first legal marriages between same-sex couples occurred on U.S. soil. Although the marriage of the lead plaintiffs Julie and Hilary Goodridge did not survive the decade, Massachusetts marriage equality did, and the 4-3 Goodridge decision was the harbinger of positive marriage equality decisions in California (In Re Marriage Cases, 2008; 4-3) Connecticut (Kerrigan v. Department of Public Health, 2008; 4-3) and Iowa (Varnum v. Brien, 2009; 7-0). Through intensive political organizing, the LGBT community and its allies were able to prevent the state legislature from allowing a constitutional amendment from going to the voters and by the end of the decade Massachusetts marriages were considered safe and the state was suing the federal government for discriminating against its legally married same-sex couples in the disbursal of federal recognition and benefits.

4. United States Supreme Court overturns the homophobic Bowers v. Hardwick (1986) precedent, ruling that sodomy laws are unconstitutional, in Lawrence v. Texas, strengthening privacy rights for all Americans, 2003.

For nearly two decades the Bowers v. Hardwick ruling of the United State Supreme Court was used as a legal club to eliminate any claims for civil rights for gay men and lesbians in a number of different contexts. In a 5-4 majority opinion written by Justice Byron White, the court contemptuously dismissed the notion of "a fundamental right to homosexual sodomy" and affirmed the state of Georgia's law criminalizing oral or anal sex between consenting adults--even in the privacy of their own house. The indisputable fact that the highest court in the country had decided that the act which defines homosexuals makes them criminals was used over and over again to refute the concept of equal rights for gay men and lesbians. This all changed on June 26, 2003 when Justice Anthony Kennedy read part of the majority decision in Lawrence v. Texas before assembled court reporters and teary-eyed LGBT legal advocates which declared that the Court's previous sodomy decision in 1986 "was not correct when it was decided, and it is not correct today. It ought not to remain binding precedent. Bowers v. Hardwick should be and now is overruled." The Court's action struck down sodomy laws in 13 states including four states (Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas and Missouri) that had restricted their laws to homosexuals only. The court ruled that the sodomy laws violated due process and equal protection laws. By decriminalizing homosexuality nationwide, the decision in Lawrence dramatically reduced stigma against gay men and lesbians and was a significant legal and cultural advance in the movement for full LGBT equality.

3. Proposition 8 is passed by California voters, stripping the recently-granted right to marry after an $83 million electoral campaign filled with lies and deception, 2008.

In May 15, 2008 the California Supreme Court issued its landmark ruling In Re Marriage Cases which not only ruled that California's marriage laws discriminated against same-sex couples but also declared that sexual orientation was a suspect classification deserving of strict judicial scrutiny on par with race and sex and ordering civil marriage licenses to be issued to gay and lesbian couples in 30 days, on June 15th. 173 days after that, on November 5, 2008, California voters passed a ballot measure 52.3% to 47.7% to amend their constitution to strip away the recently granted right and banned gay marriage. The electoral battle to pass Proposition 8 became the most expensive ballot measure over a social issue in the nation's history with an estimated $83 million ($40 million by Yes on 8, $43 million by No on 8). Many LGBT activists felt that the No on 8 campaign squandered what public polls said were double-digit leads through an overly safe television campaign which did not feature images of gay or lesbian people. However, internal polls never showed the campaign ahead and no public poll ever showed majority support for the concept of marriage equality in the state. The battle over Proposition 8 was a political coming of age for an entire generation of LGBT activists. After Proposition 8 passed an incredible outpouring of rage and disappointment resulted in demonstrations (primarily organized online) in dozens of cities around the country which were estimated to have been attended by over 1 million people. In California, several brand-new grassroots organizations were formed and statewide gatherings of LGBT activists were held in Los Angeles, Fresno and San Bernardino to organize, inform and strengthen the community activists who attended. The lessons of Proposition 8's passage (that majorities would vote to strip away the right to marry from their fellow citizens even in a presumably progressive state like California) were repeated in 2009 when Question 1 in Maine was passed by an even larger margin. Currently Proposition 8's constitutionality is being challenged under Federal law by the legal dream team of super-litigators David Boies and Ted Olson after the California Supreme Court refused to strike down the measure under the state constitution with a full trial on the merits set for the beginning of the next decade, on January 11, 2010.

2. President Barack Obama signs the federal hate crimes bill, the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr Hate Crimes Prevention Act, into law, 2009.

Despite the carping from some corners that the legislation only gives rights to LGBT people only after they are victimized or dead, the historic echoes of the President's signature on H.R. 1913 should not be under-estimated. The federal hate crimes bill became the first piece of federally enacted legislation to ever include the words "gender identity" and only the second to expand rights based on sexual orientation. Yes, the measure was attached to a "must-pass" piece of legislation, the Defense Reauthorization Act of 2009, instead of a stand-alone bill. But this did not make Republican opposition any less fierce or morally questionable. After the federal hate-crimes act was enacted it could never be said again that there were no protections in federal law for the LGBT community. The binding precedent of the legislative action meant that it would not be unthinkable to pass other LGBT civil rights laws in the future.

1. George W. Bush is (s)elected president after U.S. Supreme Court intervention in Florida recount results in defeat of Vice-President Al Gore, 2000.

The presidential election of 2000 was the most pivotal political moment of the decade as a 2-term Democratic president was going to be replaced by either his Vice President who would maintain and mainly continue Bill Clinton's relatively pro-gay policies or by Texas Governor George W. Bush, the "compassionate conservative" attempting to restore the Bush family name to the highest echelons of power in the country. That Al Gore would get more than half a million more votes than George W. Bush but the presidency of the United States would come down to a few hundred votes in Florida (a state where the candidate's brother was the Governor) was something a Hollywood screenwriter would have been discouraged from including in a political thriller as too far-fetched and simply unbelievable. But, thanks to intervention from the United States Supreme Court in the case of Bush v. Gore where David Boies and Ted Olson were on opposite sides, Bush was declared the winner. Instead of governing like he had just won the closest presidential election in U.S. history, Bush proceeded to dismantle as much of the Clinton legacy as he could as rapidly as possible. Thanks to Bush's election (and re-election) we now have two relatively young arch-conservative jurists on the United States Supreme Court (Chief Justice John Roberts, 54 and Samuel Alito, Jr., 59) along with hundreds of other conservative federal judges in lifetime appointments on District and Appellate Courts throughout the country. Additionally, Bush being president for most of the decade meant that federal progress on enacting LGBT civil rights was stymied at every level, with attention moving to state-based legislative, judicial and administrative action. The low point came in 2004 when President Bush endorsed the Federal Marriage Amendment, which would have explicitly stripped the fundamental right to marry from same-sex couples, an unprecedented and maximalist attack on a particular minority group that would have incorporated discrimination in to the founding document of the country which has been only amended 27 times in 222 years. The main impact of having a Republican in the White House was the aid and comfort the Bush Administration gave to virulent homophobes and the political cover it provided for other Republican politicians to express and implement counterfactual and prejudiced views and policies towards LGBT citizens.