Supreme Court Case Romer v. Evans

1501 Words7 Pages
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,…show more content…
Because they did not makes these laws however, the amendment is valid, and should be considered constitutional. Additionally, there is a general law in Colorado that bans discrimination in general, and includes the protection for homosexuals, that would not be affected by the amendment. Furthermore, Scalia believes Kennedy’s argument is invalid because he does not use enough legal citation to provide evidence for his views, therefore the amendment should be allowed in Colorado. Although Scalia does not hold the majority opinion of the court, he does bring up a valid argument, in which there is a law already that bans discrimination for the general public, which includes homosexuals. This notion is valid because it shows why homosexuals do not need a separate law that states there can be no discrimination of homosexuals. However, this brings up the question as to whether or not there is need for an amendment that states there can be no laws that ban the discrimination of homosexuals, where the only group that is specifically affected is the homosexual community. This then, is a flaw in his argument, because if there is a law that bans discrimination in general, then there is no need to create more laws that specifically say there can be no discrimination of
Open Document