In 1996 When Colorado Struck Down The Bowers Decision

Romer v. Evans: When Colorado Struck Down (a Part of) Bowers, 1996

In 1996, a significant legal battle unfolded in Colorado that, while not directly overturning Bowers v. Hardwick, foreshadowed its eventual demise and served as a crucial stepping stone in the fight for LGBTQ+ rights in the United States. This battle centered around Romer v. Evans, a case challenging Amendment 2 to the Colorado State Constitution. This amendment, passed by popular vote, prohibited the state and its municipalities from enacting laws protecting LGBTQ+ individuals from discrimination. The Supreme Court's decision in Romer v. Evans is a landmark achievement, demonstrating the power of judicial review to protect minority rights against discriminatory legislation. This article will delve deep into the context, arguments, and implications of this pivotal case.

The Genesis of Amendment 2: Fear and Prejudice

The backdrop to Romer v. Evans was a climate of growing awareness and activism within the LGBTQ+ community, alongside a persistent wave of prejudice and discrimination. While progress was being made in certain areas, many states still lacked legal protections against discrimination based on sexual orientation. Colorado, like many other states, was a battleground for this struggle.

Amendment 2, born from a campaign fueled by fear and misunderstanding, aimed to specifically prevent the enactment of local ordinances protecting LGBTQ+ individuals from discrimination in housing, employment, and public accommodations. Proponents of the amendment argued that it simply restored the status quo, preventing special treatment for a particular group. They framed the issue not as one of discrimination but as a matter of preserving traditional values and preventing a perceived "special rights" agenda.

However, opponents argued that Amendment 2 was discriminatory in its very nature. They argued that it was unprecedented in its sweeping scope, targeting a specific group for the sole purpose of preventing them from accessing basic legal protections. The amendment's effect was to single out LGBTQ+ individuals for disadvantage, creating a second-class citizenry denied access to the same legal protections available to other groups. This was not merely about restoring the status quo, but about actively preventing any progress in LGBTQ+ rights.

The Legal Challenge: Fighting for Equality

Several LGBTQ+ individuals and organizations challenged Amendment 2, arguing that it violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. This clause mandates equal protection under the law for all individuals within a state's jurisdiction. The core argument was that Amendment 2 was a law that discriminated against a group of people based solely on their sexual orientation, an immutable characteristic.

The case went through the Colorado state courts before reaching the Supreme Court. The legal battle was fierce, with both sides presenting compelling arguments and evidence. The plaintiffs argued that Amendment 2 was not only discriminatory but also served no legitimate governmental purpose, targeting a group based on its identity alone. The defendants, on the other hand, insisted that the amendment was a legitimate exercise of the state's power to legislate its values and prevent the imposition of what they saw as discriminatory special rights.

The Supreme Court Decision: A Landmark Ruling

In a 6-3 decision authored by Justice Anthony Kennedy, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs in Romer v. Evans. The Court found that Amendment 2 violated the Equal Protection Clause. The majority opinion didn't hinge on a specific classification of sexual orientation, but rather on the broad and sweeping nature of the amendment's aim: to single out a group for disparate treatment.

Justice Kennedy’s opinion emphasized the unusual nature of Amendment 2, stating that it was “an unprecedented act of the people of Colorado” and that it created a class of citizens deprived of the “protection afforded by the state’s laws to those citizens who belong to other groups similarly situated.” He also stated that “the amendment’s sheer breadth is so discontinuous with the treatment of other groups that it reveals no rational basis for its enactment.” The core of the ruling rested on the idea that the state could not legislate based on mere animosity toward a particular group. This targeted discrimination was held to be unconstitutional.

The Significance of Romer v. Evans: More Than Just Colorado

The impact of Romer v. Evans transcended the boundaries of Colorado. While it didn’t directly overturn Bowers v. Hardwick, which had upheld the criminalization of sodomy, it struck a significant blow against discriminatory legislation targeting LGBTQ+ individuals. The decision established a critical legal precedent, asserting that laws motivated by animus or based on discriminatory intent toward a specific group were inherently suspect and likely unconstitutional.

The ruling provided legal ammunition for future challenges to anti-LGBTQ+ laws. It signaled a shift in the Supreme Court's approach to LGBTQ+ rights, indicating a growing recognition that sexual orientation was a characteristic that should not be a basis for discriminatory treatment. This laid the groundwork for later landmark decisions, ultimately culminating in the Supreme Court's landmark ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, which legalized same-sex marriage nationwide.

The Dissenting Opinions: A Counterpoint

The dissenting opinions in Romer v. Evans, written by Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Rehnquist, presented a compelling counter-argument. They argued that the majority opinion improperly intruded into the democratic process, effectively invalidating a state constitutional amendment passed by a majority of voters. They viewed Amendment 2 as a legitimate expression of the state's policy preferences, even if those preferences were unpopular with some segments of the population.

Justice Scalia, in particular, expressed concern about the majority's seemingly subjective judgment of the amendment's intent. He argued that the Court had essentially substituted its own judgment for that of the Colorado electorate, suggesting that the majority opinion was an example of judicial overreach. The dissenting justices contended that the majority had wrongly applied the rational basis test, asserting that the amendment did have a rational basis—namely, the preservation of the state's traditional moral standards.

The Lasting Legacy: A Foundation for Future Victories

Romer v. Evans stands as a pivotal moment in the ongoing struggle for LGBTQ+ equality. The decision’s impact reverberated through the legal landscape, providing a potent weapon against discriminatory laws. By striking down Amendment 2, the Court implicitly acknowledged the unconstitutionality of laws that target a specific group based on animus rather than legitimate government interest.

The case highlighted the crucial role of the judiciary in protecting minority rights from the excesses of majority rule. It demonstrated that even when a law is passed through a democratic process, it can still be subject to judicial review if it violates fundamental constitutional principles of equality and fairness. While Romer v. Evans didn't immediately grant sweeping protections, it cleared the path for future legal challenges, leading to a gradual dismantling of discriminatory laws and a growing recognition of LGBTQ+ rights across the United States. It served as a crucial legal and symbolic victory in the fight for equality, setting the stage for the transformative decisions that followed. Its impact continues to resonate in contemporary discussions of LGBTQ+ rights and the ongoing struggle for complete legal equality. The case remains a testament to the power of legal advocacy and the importance of judicial review in safeguarding fundamental rights.

The Broader Context: Social and Political Shifts

Beyond the legal arguments, Romer v. Evans reflects broader societal and political shifts in attitudes toward LGBTQ+ individuals. The passage of Amendment 2 itself was a reaction to growing LGBTQ+ activism and the increasing visibility of the community. The subsequent legal challenge and the Supreme Court's decision, in turn, fueled further activism and helped to shape public opinion.

The case helped to raise public awareness about the issue of LGBTQ+ discrimination and sparked national conversations about the role of government in protecting minority rights. The decision played a significant role in shaping the narrative surrounding LGBTQ+ rights, influencing future legislative efforts and social movements. The case underscores the interconnectedness of law, politics, and social change. It highlights the way legal victories can galvanize activism and shift public opinion, leading to greater legal protections and social acceptance.

Conclusion: A Continuing Struggle for Equality

Romer v. Evans was a landmark victory in the fight for LGBTQ+ rights, but the struggle for complete equality continues. The decision helped to establish a legal precedent that has been instrumental in dismantling discriminatory laws. However, challenges remain, as evidenced by ongoing debates surrounding LGBTQ+ rights in various aspects of society.

The case highlights the vital role of the judicial system in protecting vulnerable groups from discrimination and the power of legal action to effect positive social change. The legacy of Romer v. Evans continues to inspire LGBTQ+ advocates and serves as a potent reminder of the ongoing importance of fighting for equality and justice. The case remains a cornerstone in the legal history of LGBTQ+ rights, symbolizing progress while underscoring the ongoing need for vigilance and continued advocacy. The fight for full equality remains, but Romer v. Evans marked an undeniable step forward.