Supreme Court Case Romer v. Evans

In the 1996 Supreme Court case Romer v. Evans, the voters of the state of Colorado approved a second amendment to their state Constitution through a referendum, in order to prevent homosexuals from becoming a protected minority. Before the referendum occurred, many of the major cities in Colorado passed laws prohibiting people to be discriminated against based on their sexuality, including whether or not they are homosexual. The citizens of Colorado who disapprove of homosexuality then created a petition to put the second amendment to a vote, and won with a majority of 53% of the votes. Richard Evans, with the support of many others, took the amendment to court claiming it was unconstitutional, and should be removed from the constitution, going on to win in the Colorado Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court.
The opinion of the court was held by Justice Kennedy, in that the Colorado amendment was held unconstitutional on the basis that it violated the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment on the United States Constitution. Kennedy argued the amendment singles out a specific group in which, it would make it so only homosexuals cannot receive the protective rights that are available to anyone else. This idea makes homosexuals unequal to everyone else because they are not guaranteed the same protection that anyone else could get if they needed it. Furthermore, the amendment burdens the homosexual community by not allowing them to seek protection against discrimination though the use of legislation. Additionally, Kennedy claims “In and ordinary case, a law will be sustained if it can be said to advance a legitimate government interest…” (632) By this he means that a law will be considered valid as long as it has a ...

... middle of paper ...

... argument because it shows the problems with the amendment and his argument complies with the constitution. Furthermore, Kennedy brings up more valid points, whereas Scalia mostly relies on the reasoning that Kennedy’s argument lacks the evidence of enough legal citation. Also, Kennedy believes the amendment is unconstitutional on the basis that it violates the equal protection clause because it denies homosexuals special rights that any other minority has access to, and it singles out one class that it affects instead of creating a general law that affects everyone. Thus, Kennedy’s argument should prevail because it relies on the constitution as its main evidence to show that the amendment is invalid and should not be permitted, and Kennedy believes that the amendment violates the rights of homosexuals, which is clearly does by singling them out as a specific class.