The struggle for civil rights in the United States has been a long and arduous one, marked by pivotal legal battles that have reshaped the nation's understanding of equality. Among these landmark decisions, Romer v. Evans (1996) stands as a crucial milestone in the advancement of LGBTQ+ rights. This Supreme Court ruling, which invalidated Colorado's Amendment 2, represented a significant victory by affirming that states cannot enact laws that single out and disadvantage a specific group based on their sexual orientation. The Court's decision not only protected gay and lesbian citizens from discriminatory practices but also laid important groundwork for future legal challenges against similar state-level initiatives.
The genesis of Romer v. Evans was the passage of Colorado's Amendment 2 in November 1992. This amendment prohibited any state or local government from passing laws that protected individuals from discrimination based on their "homosexual, lesbian or bisexual orientation, conduct, or relationships." Essentially, it repealed existing protections and barred the creation of new ones. This meant that gay and lesbian Coloradans could be legally fired from their jobs, denied housing, or refused service in public accommodations without recourse. The amendment was a direct response to a growing number of local ordinances in Colorado that had begun to offer such protections, reflecting a broader national trend towards greater LGBTQ+ visibility and advocacy in the late 20th century.
The legal challenge to Amendment 2 was spearheaded by a coalition of individuals and groups, including the Log Cabin Republicans, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, and private citizens like Richard Evans, a Denver landlord who faced potential legal repercussions under the amendment. Their case, Evans v. Romer, argued that Amendment 2 violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. This clause, ratified after the Civil War, ensures that no state shall "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The plaintiffs contended that singling out a group based on sexual orientation and stripping them of the ability to seek legal protection constituted a clear denial of equal protection.
The case made its way through the Colorado state courts. In 1993, Denver District Court Judge Jeffrey Bayless ruled Amendment 2 unconstitutional, a decision upheld by the Colorado Supreme Court in 1994. The state's highest court found that the amendment lacked a rational basis and was an impermissible infringement on fundamental rights, including the right to participate equally in the political process. This ruling, however, was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, setting the stage for a national pronouncement on the issue.
In a 6-3 decision delivered by Justice Anthony Kennedy, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the Colorado Supreme Court's ruling, declaring Amendment 2 unconstitutional. Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion emphasized that the amendment imposed a special disability on a class of citizens without any rational justification. He wrote that the amendment’s sheer breadth and the fact that it singled out a particular group for disfavory treatment were key to its unconstitutionality. While the Court did not explicitly declare sexual orientation a suspect classification requiring strict scrutiny (a higher legal standard), it found that the animus underlying Amendment 2 was too palpable and that it violated the fundamental principle of equal protection. The Court focused on the rational basis review, stating that Amendment 2 failed even this less stringent test because it was animated by a bare desire to harm a politically unpopular group.
The impact of Romer v. Evans was profound and far-reaching. It immediately nullified Amendment 2, restoring legal protections for LGBTQ+ individuals in Colorado. More broadly, it sent a clear signal to other states considering similar discriminatory measures that such laws would likely face constitutional challenges. The decision boosted the morale of LGBTQ+ activists and provided a crucial legal precedent for subsequent cases, including Lawrence v. Texas (2003), which struck down sodomy laws, and ultimately contributed to the broader movement towards marriage equality. While Romer did not grant full constitutional protection to LGBTQ+ individuals based on sexual orientation, it was a significant step forward, establishing that discrimination against this group was not constitutionally permissible.