Romer v. Evans (1996): Sexual Orientation and the Equal Protection Clause
Can discrimination based on sexual orientation ever be constitutional?
Hello! Today we’re looking at a landmark case for LGBTQ+ rights, Romer v. Evans (1996). When I first encountered this case, I wondered, “How far does the Constitution protect minorities?” The case began when Colorado voters approved a state constitutional amendment that prohibited any law banning discrimination based on sexual orientation. The Supreme Court held that this amendment violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. It became one of the first Supreme Court decisions to move decisively toward protecting LGBTQ+ rights.
Contents
Background
In 1992, Colorado voters passed Amendment 2. It barred the state and local governments from enacting any law or policy prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation. In effect, it categorically denied the LGBTQ+ community the possibility of legal protection from discrimination. Civil rights groups and citizens filed suit, and the case reached the U.S. Supreme Court.
Issues & Legal Questions
The core issue was whether prohibiting any legal protection based on sexual orientation violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Colorado argued that the amendment respected the will of the majority, while the plaintiffs countered that it unconstitutionally disadvantaged a specific group.
| Side | Argument | Key Point |
|---|---|---|
| State of Colorado | The voter-approved amendment is constitutional and merely prevents “special treatment.” | Majoritarian will vs. minority protection |
| Plaintiffs (LGBTQ+ groups & citizens) | The amendment strips a class of people of legal protection altogether and violates equal protection. | Guarantee of constitutional equality |
Supreme Court’s Decision & Reasoning
In a 6–3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled for the plaintiffs. The Court held that categorically denying legal protection on the basis of sexual orientation is discrimination lacking a rational relationship to any legitimate governmental purpose and thus violates equal protection. The amendment placed a particular group at a constitutional disadvantage—a status the Court concluded could not be justified by any legitimate state interest.
- Amendment 2 is unconstitutional as irrational discrimination.
- Blocking a class from legal protection violates core equality principles.
- Majority rule cannot override constitutional rights.
This was a foundational Supreme Court ruling recognizing equal protection concerns related to sexual orientation, paving the way for later advances in LGBTQ+ rights.
Impact
Romer v. Evans laid the groundwork for protecting LGBTQ+ rights. By declaring that a state may not forbid legal protections based on sexual orientation, the Court opened a path for recognizing the constitutional rights of LGBTQ+ people. The decision meant more than overturning a single state provision—it set a national legal benchmark for debates about discrimination based on sexual orientation and marked a turning point in protecting minority rights.
Related Cases
Romer connects earlier equal protection precedents with later LGBTQ+ rights cases, showing a trajectory of incremental progress.
| Case | Key Issue | Holding |
|---|---|---|
| Brown v. Board of Education (1954) | Racial segregation and the Equal Protection Clause | Unconstitutional — ended “separate but equal” |
| Romer v. Evans (1996) | Ban on legal protections based on sexual orientation | Unconstitutional — violates equal protection |
| Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) | Constitutionality of same-sex marriage | Constitutional — marriage equality guaranteed |
Modern Significance
Today, Romer is viewed as a crucial turning point in LGBTQ+ rights jurisprudence. It did more than invalidate a single provision: it made plain that discrimination based on sexual orientation cannot be constitutionally sanctioned. The case significantly influenced modern human rights law and opened the path toward the recognition of marriage equality in Obergefell.
- One of the Supreme Court’s first decisions protecting LGBTQ+ rights
- Opened new horizons in Equal Protection analysis
- Established a legal foundation for protecting minority rights
- A pivot that connects to modern human rights precedents
FAQ
A case challenging Colorado’s Amendment 2, which barred any law protecting against discrimination based on sexual orientation.
In 1992, Colorado voters passed Amendment 2, prohibiting anti-discrimination measures based on sexual orientation.
By a 6–3 vote, the Court struck down the amendment as violating the Equal Protection Clause.
It was the Court’s first major recognition of legal protections for the LGBTQ+ community, expanding equal protection principles.
It helped set the stage for Lawrence v. Texas (2003) and Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), which expanded LGBTQ+ rights.
It’s regarded as a turning point for minority rights and Equal Protection analysis and remains a touchstone in modern human-rights debates.
Conclusion
Today, through Romer v. Evans (1996), we revisited the meaning of the Equal Protection Clause. Even majority rule cannot foreclose an entire group’s access to legal protection—that’s the firm constitutional baseline this case underscored. Reading this decision made me ask, “When the state withdraws protection, who is pushed to the edge first?” Romer offers a clear answer: rights are guarantees, not favors, and even minorities must stand at the same starting line before the law. What do you think? When majority preferences collide with constitutional equality, what should guide our judgment? Share your thoughts!
.jpg)
No comments:
Post a Comment