Petitioner
Roy Romer, Governor of Colorado, et al.
Respondent
Richard G. Evans, et al.
Petitioner's Claim
That the lower court erred in striking down a Colorado constitutional amendment that prohibited any government efforts to protect homosexuals from discrimination.
Chief Lawyer for Petitioner
Timothy M. Tymkovich
Chief Lawyer for Respondent
Jean E. Dubofsky
Justices for the Court
Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Anthony M. Kennedy (writing for the Court), Sandra Day O'Connor, David H. Souter, John Paul Stevens
Justices Dissenting
William H. Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
20 May 1996
Decision
Denied the petitioner's claim, affirming the unconstitutionality of the stateamendment.
Significance
For the first time, the Supreme Court gave homosexuals constitutional protection against government or private discrimination. The issue, however, spurredemotional debate on both sides, promising future legal battles over the rights of gays and lesbians.
For hundreds of years, most homosexuals in America kept their sexuality hidden. Religious teachings condemned their behavior, and state and local laws made homosexual acts illegal. Then came the Stonewall riots. On 27 June 1969, New York police raided the Stonewall Inn, a gay bar in Greenwich Village, justas police across America had raided other gay bars before. But this time, thepeople inside the Stonewall clashed with the police. For the next three nights, gays rioted in New York, releasing years of pent-up frustration over their legal and social persecution.
From that point on, gays and lesbians grew more outspoken in their quest fortolerance. A year after the Stonewall riots, 5,000 homosexuals marched in NewYork City to commemorate the event. The movement for equality grew during the 1970s and 1980s, and in 1987, more than half-a-million gays and lesbians rallied in Washington D.C., to demand fair legal treatment.
At that time, however, the Supreme Court had just dealt the gay rights movement a major setback. In Bowers v. Hardwick (1986), the Court refused togrant gays a constitutional right of privacy to engage in homosexual acts. The ruling upheld a Georgia law, and similar laws in more than 20 states, thatmade sodomy a crime. Homosexuals also faced growing vocal opposition from some religious groups and others concerned about public morality. Colorado became the first legal battleground between gays and their detractors, as state voters approved an amendment denying gays and lesbians protection from discrimination.
Amendment 2--An Effort to End "Special" Rights for Homosexuals
To support gay rights, some Colorado communities, including Denver and Boulder, passed local ordinances that prohibited discrimination because of a person's sexual orientation. The ordinance applied to practices in employment, housing, and education. In 1992, a group called Colorado for Family Values felt they had to take a stand against the increasing legal tolerance of homosexuality. The group led an effort to amend the state constitution so the existing anti-discrimination laws would be repealed. Their proposed amendment would also prohibit any future attempts to protect the legal status of homosexuals based on their sexual orientation. In November, Colorado voters approved the ballot measure, known as Amendment 2.
Soon after the election, Richard Evans, a gay municipal worker in Denver, andother homosexuals, went to court to stop Amendment 2 from going into effect.The trial court issued a preliminary injunction, which the state appealed tothe Colorado Supreme Court. The supreme court said the amendment denied gaysthe right to participate in the political process; the court supported the injunction and ordered the case back to the trial court. After hearing arguments, the trial court ruled that the state could not enforce the amendment, andthe state supreme court once again upheld the lower court. The U.S. SupremeCourt then agreed to hear the case.
The Court's membership had changed considerably in the ten years since the last major case addressing homosexual rights; only three sitting justices had heard Bowers v. Hardwick. In certain ways, some legal experts thought,the Court in 1996 was more conservative than it had been in 1986. But by a clear 6-3 majority, the Court ruled that Amendment 2 was unconstitutional, as it denied homosexuals their right to equal protection as guaranteed in the Fourteenth Amendment.
The state of Colorado had argued that Amendment 2 was merely taking back special rights that the local ordinances granted to homosexuals. Justice Kennedy,who wrote the decision, strongly disagreed:
Kennedy also noted that Amendment 2 failed to meet any "rational relationshipto some legitimate end," a standard the Court had previously used in addressing issues of equal protection. Amendment 2, it seemed to him, was "born of animosity toward the class of persons affected."
Skirmish in the "Cultural War"
Kennedy's decision did not mention Bowers v. Hardwick, but Justice Scalia relied on that precedent in his dissent, which was joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice Thomas. "If it is constitutionally permissible," Scalia wrote, "for a State to make homosexual conduct criminal, surely it is constitutionally permissible for a State to enact other laws merely disfavoring homosexual conduct."
Scalia, known for his sometimes caustic style, harshly criticized Kennedy's decision. He said the majority's reasoning was " . . . long on emotive utterance and . . . short on legal citation." He also argued that the Court was getting involved in a "cultural war" about toleration for homosexuals that was best left to the voters and the legislatures, not the courts.
To Washington Post reporter Joan Biskupic, the strong words in both decisions "went to the core of a passionate social debate playing out in legislatures and living rooms . . . " across America. Homosexual organizations cheered the ruling. "This is the most important victory ever for lesbian and gayrights," said Suzanne Goldberg, one of the lawyers who helped scuttle Amendment 2. Some conservative groups were not as pleased. Gary Bauer of the FamilyResearch Council said, "This is not an ending point . . . this creates a pressure cooker atmosphere."
Related Cases
Roy Romer, Governor of Colorado, et al.
Respondent
Richard G. Evans, et al.
Petitioner's Claim
That the lower court erred in striking down a Colorado constitutional amendment that prohibited any government efforts to protect homosexuals from discrimination.
Chief Lawyer for Petitioner
Timothy M. Tymkovich
Chief Lawyer for Respondent
Jean E. Dubofsky
Justices for the Court
Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Anthony M. Kennedy (writing for the Court), Sandra Day O'Connor, David H. Souter, John Paul Stevens
Justices Dissenting
William H. Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
20 May 1996
Decision
Denied the petitioner's claim, affirming the unconstitutionality of the stateamendment.
Significance
For the first time, the Supreme Court gave homosexuals constitutional protection against government or private discrimination. The issue, however, spurredemotional debate on both sides, promising future legal battles over the rights of gays and lesbians.
For hundreds of years, most homosexuals in America kept their sexuality hidden. Religious teachings condemned their behavior, and state and local laws made homosexual acts illegal. Then came the Stonewall riots. On 27 June 1969, New York police raided the Stonewall Inn, a gay bar in Greenwich Village, justas police across America had raided other gay bars before. But this time, thepeople inside the Stonewall clashed with the police. For the next three nights, gays rioted in New York, releasing years of pent-up frustration over their legal and social persecution.
From that point on, gays and lesbians grew more outspoken in their quest fortolerance. A year after the Stonewall riots, 5,000 homosexuals marched in NewYork City to commemorate the event. The movement for equality grew during the 1970s and 1980s, and in 1987, more than half-a-million gays and lesbians rallied in Washington D.C., to demand fair legal treatment.
At that time, however, the Supreme Court had just dealt the gay rights movement a major setback. In Bowers v. Hardwick (1986), the Court refused togrant gays a constitutional right of privacy to engage in homosexual acts. The ruling upheld a Georgia law, and similar laws in more than 20 states, thatmade sodomy a crime. Homosexuals also faced growing vocal opposition from some religious groups and others concerned about public morality. Colorado became the first legal battleground between gays and their detractors, as state voters approved an amendment denying gays and lesbians protection from discrimination.
Amendment 2--An Effort to End "Special" Rights for Homosexuals
To support gay rights, some Colorado communities, including Denver and Boulder, passed local ordinances that prohibited discrimination because of a person's sexual orientation. The ordinance applied to practices in employment, housing, and education. In 1992, a group called Colorado for Family Values felt they had to take a stand against the increasing legal tolerance of homosexuality. The group led an effort to amend the state constitution so the existing anti-discrimination laws would be repealed. Their proposed amendment would also prohibit any future attempts to protect the legal status of homosexuals based on their sexual orientation. In November, Colorado voters approved the ballot measure, known as Amendment 2.
Soon after the election, Richard Evans, a gay municipal worker in Denver, andother homosexuals, went to court to stop Amendment 2 from going into effect.The trial court issued a preliminary injunction, which the state appealed tothe Colorado Supreme Court. The supreme court said the amendment denied gaysthe right to participate in the political process; the court supported the injunction and ordered the case back to the trial court. After hearing arguments, the trial court ruled that the state could not enforce the amendment, andthe state supreme court once again upheld the lower court. The U.S. SupremeCourt then agreed to hear the case.
The Court's membership had changed considerably in the ten years since the last major case addressing homosexual rights; only three sitting justices had heard Bowers v. Hardwick. In certain ways, some legal experts thought,the Court in 1996 was more conservative than it had been in 1986. But by a clear 6-3 majority, the Court ruled that Amendment 2 was unconstitutional, as it denied homosexuals their right to equal protection as guaranteed in the Fourteenth Amendment.
The state of Colorado had argued that Amendment 2 was merely taking back special rights that the local ordinances granted to homosexuals. Justice Kennedy,who wrote the decision, strongly disagreed:
We cannot accept theview that Amendment 2's prohibition on specific legal protections does no more than deprive homosexuals of special rights. To the contrary, the amendmentimposes a special disability upon those persons alone. Homosexuals are forbidden the safeguards that others enjoy or may seek without constraint . . . Wefind nothing special in the protections Amendment 2 withholds. These are protections taken for granted by most people either because they already have them or do not need them; these are protections against exclusion from an almostlimitless number of transactions and endeavors that constitute ordinary civic life in a free society.
Kennedy also noted that Amendment 2 failed to meet any "rational relationshipto some legitimate end," a standard the Court had previously used in addressing issues of equal protection. Amendment 2, it seemed to him, was "born of animosity toward the class of persons affected."
Skirmish in the "Cultural War"
Kennedy's decision did not mention Bowers v. Hardwick, but Justice Scalia relied on that precedent in his dissent, which was joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice Thomas. "If it is constitutionally permissible," Scalia wrote, "for a State to make homosexual conduct criminal, surely it is constitutionally permissible for a State to enact other laws merely disfavoring homosexual conduct."
Scalia, known for his sometimes caustic style, harshly criticized Kennedy's decision. He said the majority's reasoning was " . . . long on emotive utterance and . . . short on legal citation." He also argued that the Court was getting involved in a "cultural war" about toleration for homosexuals that was best left to the voters and the legislatures, not the courts.
To Washington Post reporter Joan Biskupic, the strong words in both decisions "went to the core of a passionate social debate playing out in legislatures and living rooms . . . " across America. Homosexual organizations cheered the ruling. "This is the most important victory ever for lesbian and gayrights," said Suzanne Goldberg, one of the lawyers who helped scuttle Amendment 2. Some conservative groups were not as pleased. Gary Bauer of the FamilyResearch Council said, "This is not an ending point . . . this creates a pressure cooker atmosphere."
Related Cases
- Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1 (1948).
- Sweatt v. Painter, 339 U.S. 629 (1950).
- Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964).
- Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969).
- Personnel Administrator of Massachusetts v. Feeney, 442 U.S. 256 (1979).
- Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986).
User Comments Add a comment…