To reach this conclusion, the Romer v evans court relied on our voting rights cases, e. And it seems to me most unlikely that any multilevel democracy can function under such a principle.
In the ordinary case, a law will be sustained if it can be said to advance a legitimate government interest, Romer v evans if the law seems unwise or works to the disadvantage of a particular group, or if the rationale for it seems tenuous.
At some point in the systematic administration of these laws, an official must determine whether homosexuality is an arbitrary and thus forbidden basis for decision. But the Court today has done so, not only by inventing a novel and extravagant constitutional doctrine to take the victory away from traditional forces, but even by verbally disparaging as bigotry adherence to traditional attitudes.
What gave rise to the statewide controversy was the protection the ordinances afforded to persons discriminated against by reason of their sexual orientation. Hardwickmaking homosexual conduct criminal, was still good law.
Among the plaintiffs respondents here were homosexual persons, some of them government employees.
For example, a social harm may have been a legitimate concern of government for reasons quite apart from discrimination.
The laws first enumerate the persons or entities subject to a duty not to discriminate. Code to -4 same ; Denver, Colo. Rather, they set forth an extensive catalogue of traits which cannot be the basis for discrimination, including age, military status, marital status, pregnancy, parenthood, custody of a minor child, political affiliation, physical or mental disability of an individual or of his or her associates-- and, in recent times, sexual orientation.
The Court today, announcing that Amendment 2 "defies. To the extent Davis held that persons advocating a certain practice may be denied the right to vote, it is no longer good law. It put directly, to all the citizens of the State, the question: To the extent Davis held that a convicted felon may be denied the right to vote, its holding is not implicated by our decision and is unexceptionable.
IV, to same ; Executive Order No. Should homosexuality be given special protection? Among the plaintiffs respondents here were homosexual persons, some of them government employees.
I agree that we need not resolve that dispute, because the Supreme Court of Colorado has resolved it for us. Homosexuals are forbidden the safeguards that others enjoy or may seek without constraint. I would not myself indulge in such official praise for heterosexual monogamy, because I think it no business of the courts as opposed to the political branches to take sides in this culture war.
Code defining "sexual orientation" as "the choice of sexual partners, i. Lacking any cases to establish that facially absurd proposition, it simply asserts that it must be unconstitutional, because it has never happened before. And a fortiori it is constitutionally permissible for a State to adopt a provision not even disfavoring homosexual conduct, but merely prohibiting all levels of state government from bestowing special protections upon homosexual conduct.
Yet a decision to that effect would itself amount to a policy prohibiting discrimination on the basis of homosexuality, and so would appear to be no more valid under Amendment 2 than the specific prohibitions against discrimination the state court held invalid.
And a fortiori it is constitutionally permissible for a State to adopt a provision not even disfavoring homosexual conduct, but merely prohibiting all levels of state government from bestowing special protections upon homosexual conduct. Just as a policy barring the hiring of methadone users as transit employees does not violate equal protection simply because some methadone users pose no threat to passenger safety, see New York City Transit Authority v.
Code of RegulationsPolicy prohibiting discrimination in state employment on grounds of specified traits or "other non merit factor".Evans v.
Romer, P. 2d (Colo. ) (Evans II). We granted certiorari and now affirm the judgment, but on a rationale different from that adopted by the State Supreme Court.
II. The State's principal argument in defense of Amendment 2 is that it puts gays and lesbians in the same position as all other persons. So, the State says, the. Romer v. Evans, U.S. (), is a landmark United States Supreme Court case dealing with sexual orientation and state laws.
It was the first Supreme Court case to address gay rights since Bowers v. Hardwick (), when the Court had held that laws criminalizing sodomy were constitutional.
View this case and other resources at: Citation. U.S.S. Ct.
L. Ed. 2dU.S. Brief Fact Summary. Colorado. Colorado voters adopted Amendment 2 to their State Constitution precluding any judicial, legislative, or executive action designed to protect persons from discrimination based on their "homosexual, lesbian, or bisexual orientation, conduct, practices or relationships.".
Case opinion for US Supreme Court ROMER v. EVANS. Read the Court's full decision on FindLaw. ROY ROMER, GOVERNOR OF COLORADO, et al., PETITIONERS v. RICHARD G. EVANS et al. on writ of certiorari to the supreme court of Colorado [May 20, ] Justice Kennedy delivered the opinion of the Court.
One century ago, the first Justice Harlan admonished this Court that the Constitution “neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens.”.Download