For three decades, Colorado was penned the “Hate State,” and for three decades, they have fought against this title. However, the infamous nickname may make a comeback if Propositions 134 and 135 pass this upcoming November.
The name originated in 1992 when Colorado voters were asked if they were for or against LGBTQ+ groups being discriminated against. This topic was controversial because it placed the fate of the group in the general populace’s hands. At a time where the group needed support, many felt that the choice to let voters choose could damage the progress the queer community had made so far.
The debate was sparked when LGBTQ+ members championed Amendment 2, supposedly demanding “special rights.” The issue was then deferred to the people who voted against them. This succeeded to place Colorado in a position to appear anti-gay.
The issue arises once again with Propositions 134 and 135 in 2026. Propositions 134 and 135, if passed, will limit transgender rights by banning them from entering school sports and stripping gender affirming medical care. This parallels the fight around Amendment 2 because the LGBTQ+ community still fights for protection against discrimination and the issue is still put into the hands of the masses. The queer community argues that this puts everyone, and especially transgender children, in jeopardy.
Those who witnessed the similar fight three decades ago are experiencing an unfortunate sense of deja-vu, despite the different political circumstances
Amendment 2 would have made it illegal for towns and cities to pass laws that criminalized LGBTQ+ discrimination. Essentially, it would have extinguished the existing protections the community had in some cities like Boulder, Denver and Aspen where such laws were already in place.
The campaign was driven by hostility towards LGBTQ+ citizens and built around slanderous rhetoric. These efforts were spearheaded by conservative organizations and fueled by religious rhetoric. In 1990, these communities originated from what was called “The Evangelical Vatican,” in Colorado Springs.
Christian group “Colorado for Family Values” pushed propaganda that gay communities wanted superior, not equal rights. The group gained traction throughout the state, in part because of a surge of Christian migration to the state in the 1990’s.
As the run-up election came around, media coverage convinced citizens the second amendment would fail. Phil Nash, a writer and activist, attended a watch party expecting an easy victory. However, as the night progressed, the yes votes overcame the no ones, and the amendment won.
Nash remembered watching the vote saying, “I just remember feeling this just ghastly icy feeling going down my spine, like ‘this is not turning out well, this is not what we expected, this is horrible, we are now in a new world.”
In reaction, protesters took to the streets around a downtown hotel. There, democrats were supporting the Bill Clinton victory. The conflict between the two groups became so bad that Gov. Roy Romer and Denver Mayor Wellington Webb had to intervene.
“There was just an incredible amount of rage and anger and hurt in the days following that election, and there was just a feeling of desperation,” Nash says. “I know people in my family voted for this. I know people I work with voted for this. I know people that live next door to me that voted for this, and they didn’t know what they were doing and they don’t know how much it hurts me.”
However, Mary Celeste, former state judge and practicing attorney, was hard at work to turn the tides in the community’s favor. Her plan:
“We were gonna stop it dead in its tracks with an injunction,” she says.
As it neared the time of going into effect, the Denver District Court paused its progression. While the fight took four years, Amendment 2 was eventually overturned by the United States Supreme Court in 1996.
“There was no rational basis for the law,” Celeste explains, summarizing the Supreme Court’s decision. “The law was sought to be brought on the basis of just hating a group of people. That’s essentially what happened.”
Despite this, by the time of the overturning the damage had already been done and stars such as Barbara Streisand, Whoopi Goldberg and Madonna had boycotted Colorado and coined it “The Hate State.” To make matters worse, Colorado had suffered financially from this upset, losing tourism dollars. Entertainment revenue also suffered with Stephen King pulling shooting production from Colorado and moving it to Utah for his movie “The Stand.” Additionally, Frasier moved its location to Seattle instead of Denver.
The decision did, however, pave the way for other notable Supreme Court decisions such as Lawrence v. Texas and Obergefell v. Hodges. Which furthered legal protection around LGBTQ+ people.
“So, I always characterized it as the LGBT Brown vs. Board of Education-like case,” Celeste said.
This year Propositions 134 and 135 is at it again when they appeared on the ballot in May. The propositions were supplied and championed by ‘Protect Kids Colorado,’ led by activist Erin Lee and former Republican State Sen. Kevin Lundberg. In their words these propositions are meant to “stop the transgender plague in Colorado.”
Citizens of Colorado are forced to consider if the defeat of Amendment 2 truly changed their state for the better, or if there is longer to go in LGBTQ+ rights than they thought.
Similar propositions are being offered in Arizona and Washington. They come on the heels of a Supreme Court ruling in June that stated trans youth will be banned from women’s sports teams.
Proposition 134 relates to this because it hopes to be explicit in who is considered a “man” or a “woman” according to their reproductive organs. It does not, however, discuss repercussions. It leaves individual school districts and leagues to decide their own standards on gender.
Proposition 135 hopes to place a blanket ban on all minor gender-affirming surgeries. The wording bans “medical treatments” that alter a child’s “biological sex.” LGBTQ+ members see this as loose language and see how a legal argument could be made for keeping nonsurgical medical care for people seeking access to puberty blockers.
“They want to make Colorado an example, right?” says Nadine Bridges, executive director of One Colorado. She is heading one of the groups organizing against Propositions 134 and 135 right now. “They want to prove that this state is winnable, and I believe Colorado is the last domino right now.”
Bridges is organizing statewide grassroots coalitions called Families Not Politics to campaign against the propositions in the weeks before the November election. She is using evidence such as Colorado’s 2024 law that protects certain procedures from interstate criminal prosecution, including abortion and gender-affirming care. Colorado’s decision is crucial because the state acts as a safe haven for families who lost access to care in surrounding states.
While four other states are voting on anti-trans measures in this election, former state Rep. Kevin Lundbers, claims the potential passing of the propositions will act as a significant victory for conservatives.
“We would be the first blue state to pass a law of this kind,” he said on a radio show in July. “We would be the first to do it by the will of the people.”
National Democratic figures such as California Gov. Gavin Newsom have suggested compromises when it comes to sports bans. To them, agreement is dependent on convincing liberal voters who think trans acceptance has gone too far.
A href=”https://19thnews.org/2026/09/poll-trans-sports-bans/”>recent poll by The 19th and YouGov showed that 45% of adults nationwide, across political parties, would be more likely to vote for a candidate supportive of trans-athlete bans.
June Churchill, a trans woman is running for Denver City Council in District 10, says we are witnessing the early stages of a trans genocide.
“I don’t use that term lightly, but it’s the steps we’re taking right now as a country.”
