Amendment 2 inside out.

When the case was called, a hush fell over the packed courtroom, and all eyes turned to the justices and the attorneys. It was October 10, 1995. After, years of work on Amendment 2, Colorado's historic anti-gay ballot initiative, I had a front-row seat for the oral arguments on the case before, the United States Supreme Court. It was an experience I'll never forget. The justices began by questioning the defenders of the amendment about whether its passage would result in discriminatory practices. Could it, for example, make it possible for gays and lesbians to be prevented from obtaining a library card? asked Justice O'Connor. Could it be used to block access to care in a governmental medical facility? asked Justice Stephens. With each probe I found myself dropping a tear while sligthly nodding my head as though to answer the questions - Yes, yes, it could.

Following the argument we quietly went home and waited with both fear and hope. That one half hour of oral arguments, I kept thinking, couldn't possibly have conveyed to the justices all the division and confusion, the dedication and courage that preceded it. The amendment came after religious and political extremists tried and failed to repeal city ordinances in Denver and Boulder that protect gays and lesbians; it was the extremists' attempt to eradicate those protections once and for all.

Polling data several months prior to the election suggested the amendment would go down in defeat. Nonetheless, as a safety net we formed the Colorado Legal Initiatives .Project to prepare a legal challenge. Election results proved the venture prudent: The amendment passed, 53%-47%.

On election night chaos broke out at anti-Amendment 2 headquarters. Uncertain what the loss would mean, gays and lesbians were incensed, some crying, some screaming. Some marched over to the Democratic headquarters, where party workers were celebrating the Clinton victory, and summoned the elected officials. We were addressed by Governor Romer and Mayor Webb, who then joined us in a march over to the capitol steps. People began to barrage the officials with questions that had no answers. The group was finally quieted by a promise to discuss the matter at a local church, where 1,500 gays and lesbians gathered the next morning. Addressing the crowd, I promised them that CLIP would bring the matter to the Supreme Court if necessary. That statement brought a roaring cheer.

During the period between the passage of the amendment and the Supreme Court decision, gays and lesbians in. Colorado felt that all eyes were on us. A controversial boycott was announced. With every lower-court decision, with every. political statement made by plaintiffs, attorneys, organizations, and community activists, the media found new twists and angles on the amendment. Hate crimes increased 150%. I personally received death threats. Some activist leaders became instant local and national stars. The attention came not only from the media but also from our families, friends, and coworkers as well as from other civil rights organizations. The national gay and lesbian leadership took great interest in what Colorado was doing, in part because of the boycott but also because this attack came in a form that was new to all of us. In some ways the national movement learned off our backs; later both national and state activists were better able to defend against this type of animal.

With each month that passed, new theories about the legal challenge were bandied about. Most gay and lesbian legal minds predicted a loss. Needless to say, when the Supreme Court handed us a victory, we in Colorado were ecstatic. About 2,000 attended a huge "feel good" party hosted by CLIP. We were literally dancing in the streets that evening. Even though I was a recovering smoker and an advocate against smoking, I smoked a good cigar.

There is no doubt that the victory was a tremendous boost for gays and lesbians an over the country. Nevertheless, as I reflect on it now, I wonder whether the attitudes of Colorado citizens have changed. Those cities, counties, and politicians who were gay-friendly before Amendment 2 remain friendly, while those who were not friendly remain unfriendly, The city of Boulder, for instance, was a plaintiff in our lawsuit against the amendment; in July 1995 a court in Boulder ruled in favor of granting adoptions to same-sex couples. But the opposite decision on adoptions was taken by a judge in neighboring Jefferson County, which had supported Amendment 2.

Thus it sometimes seems that the massive educational and political campaigns surrounding Amendment 2 have served only to polarize the two sides, while the middle remains mired in confusion. But in that struggle, while we may not yet have won over an Colorado citizens, we did discover a strong voice - a voice that will continue to be heard until we create relationships beyond our obvious allies, until the middle understands our plight as a matter of basic civil rights, and until we all have found our place at the table.

Celeste, a Denver attorney, cofounded the Colorado Legal Initiatives Project, which prepared the legal challenge to Amendment 2. She now serves as a board member of the Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund.