Romer
v. Evans —
State of Colorado
In
holding that homosexuality cannot be singled out for disfavorable
treatment, the Court places its prestige behind the proposition
that opposition to homosexuality is as reprehensible as racial
or religious bias.
The
State's principal argument that Amendment 2 puts gays and
lesbians in the same position as all other persons by denying
them special rights is rejected as implausible. The extent
of the change in legal status effected by this law is evident
from the authoritative construction of Colorado's Supreme
Court - which establishes that the amendment's immediate effect
is to repeal all existing statutes, regulations, ordinances,
and policies of state and local entities barring discrimination
based on sexual orientation, and that its ultimate effect
is to prohibit any governmental entity from adopting similar,
or more protective, measures in the future absent state constitutional
amendment - and from a review of the terms, structure, and
operation of the ordinances that would be repealed and prohibited
by Amendment 2. Amendment 2 goes well beyond merely depriving
them of special rights. It imposes a broad disability upon
those persons alone, forbidding them, but no others, to seek
specific legal protection from injuries caused by discrimination
in a wide range of public and private transactions.
Decisions
Lower
Court Opinion Full
text
Supreme Court Opinion Summary
U.S.
Supreme Court Romer v. Evans Full
text
Amendment
2 Syllabus
Brief
Amicus Curiae of the American Psychological Association, the
American Psychiatric Association, the National Association
of Social Workers, Inc., and the Colorado Psychological Association.
Amici
submit this brief to bring to this Court's attention the principal
body of professional research pertinent to the questions posed
in this case. Gay men and lesbians have been subjected to
widespread discrimination based on prejudice, myths, and stereotypes.
Amici believe that this Court's consideration of this case
will be aided by presentation of the literature demonstrating
the baselessness of, and harms caused by, such discrimination.
http://www.apa.org/pi/romer.html
Amicus
Curiae of the People For the American Way Foundation
PFAWF,
along with other organizations, filed an amicus curiae brief
in the Supreme Court supporting the challenge to the constitutionality
of Colorado's "Amendment 2," an anti-gay initiative
that would have prohibited governmental entities in the state
from adopting any civil rights protections for gay men and
lesbians, and that would effectively have repealed the protections
that have adopted in a number of cities in the state. The
Supreme Court affirmed the holding of the Colorado Supreme
Court that Amendment 2 is unconstitutional.
Press
Releases
Statement
of Lambda Staff Attorney Suzanne B. Goldberg on U.S. Supreme
Court's Striking Down Colorado's Amendment 2
News
& Views
How
Far Can Romer Reach?
U.S.
Supreme Court Rules Amendment 2 Unconstitutional!
Anti-Gay
Initiatives
“Equal
Rights, Not Special Rights” —
Cincinnati,
Ohio
"Proposal
1" in Traverse City is substantially similar to "Issue
3" authored by a group known as "Equal Rights,
Not Special Rights" in Cincinnati Ohio. Cincinnati
is the only city in the United States that has adopted language
similar to the the TC Yes/AFA backed "Proposal 1"
in Traverse City, much to their regret.
The
people of Cincinnati bemoan their decision to follow the deceptive
rhetoric of the "Equal Rights, Not Special Rights"
organization. Since passing "Issue 3" the Cincinnati
City Council has attempted to overcome this grievously restrictive
legislation. The Cincinnati City Council argues that changes
are needed to deal with increasing violence toward gays and
lesbians. Most of the citizens of Cincinnati are concerned
that they may be overlooked as a host city for the 2012 Olympics
because of "Issue 3." The Greater Cincinnati Convention
and Visitors Bureau estimates that the anti-gay "Issue
3" has cost the city $64 million in lost convention business
since 1993.
Traverse
City is being used by the American Family Association as a
legal guinea pig who may be dragged through all manner of
ordeals as we 'test' the language of "Proposal 1"
through the local, appellate and supreme courts. Proposal
1 is ambiguous at best and exceedingly poor public policy
that presents a significant risk to Traverse City.
U.S.
District Judge S. Arthur Spiegel who ruled Issue 3 unconstitutional
said, "Thus, under its very language, Issue 3 completely
excludes an entire group of citizens from all areas of city
politics with respect to issues of vast importance to that
group.". "Issue 3 completely cuts off gay, lesbians
and bisexuals from the normal and accessible avenues of
political action and political participation, and ... violates
even rudimentary notions of fundamental fairness, and undermines
the integrity of our nation."
As
there is very little precedent in this area of law, it is
highly likely that Traverse City "Proposal 1", if
passed, will be argued in our court system by law firms familiar
with Romer v. Evans. It is important to note that Cincinnati's
"Issue 3" and Traverse Cities "Proposal 1",
are written in the mirror image of Colorado's "Amendment
2" where the Supreme Court found it unconstitutional
to create a special class of citizen (lesbian, gay bisexual)
— for the sole purpose of discriminating against them.
ACLU's Evaluation of Traverse
City Proposal 1
In
the final analysis, a NO Vote on Proposal 1 will offer the
best outcome for the city of Traverse City, saving us a substantial
sum of grief, money and years spent in litigation, as well
as, public relations nightmares, and lost tourist revenue.
Equality
Foundation v. Cincinnati
(Cincinnati Ohio)
Equality
Foundation A: 860
F. Supp. 417 (S.D. Ohio 1994), reversed by Equality Foundation
B.
Equality
Foundation B: 54
F.3d 261 (6th Cir. 1995), reversing Equality Foundation
A, vacated and remanded by U.S. Supreme Court, 116
S.Ct. 2519 (1996).
Equality
Foundation of Greater Cincinnati, Inc. v. City of Cincinnati
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/u20017.html
Brief
Amicus Curiae of the American Psychological Association. http://www.psyclaw.org/efgc.html
Amicus
Curiae of the People For the American Way Foundation
In 1993, voters in Cincinnati enacted Issue 3, an anti-gay
amendment to the city charter. Much like Colorado's infamous
Amendment 2 subsequently struck down by the Supreme Court
in Romer v. Evans, 116 S.Ct. 1620 (1995), Issue 3 would prohibit
Cincinnati from ever providing "protected status"
to lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals, and would repeal all
of the city's existing laws and policies prohibiting discrimination
against gay men and lesbians. A federal district court declared
Issue 3 to be unconstitutional, but the 6th Circuit, prior
to the decision in Romer, reversed. A cert. petition was filed,
and the Supreme Court subsequently vacated the 6th Circuit
decision and remanded the case for reconsideration in light
of Romer. Nonetheless, in October 1997, the 6th Circuit panel
again upheld Issue 3, and on February 5, 1998, a sharply-divided
full court denied the plaintiffs' petition for rehearing en
banc. Another cert. petition was filed but was denied by the
Supreme Court. People For the American Way Foundation was
an amicus curiae in this case, arguing that Issue 3 is unconstitutional.
Cincinnati
News Headlines
Jim
Crow for Gays
A loud call for reform in the form of unanimous resolutions
by the International Association of Official Human Rights
Agencies Read
What
Homophobic Reputation?
But there remains one key question about the Olympic bid Cincinnati
doesn't have an answer for. That's 'Equal Rights, not Special
Rights" Issue 3, the city charter amendment that prohibits
the city from adopting laws or policies allowing "any
claim of minority or protected status, quota preference or
other preferential treatment" based on sexual orientation.
Read
Cincinnati
Groups Seek Change in Charter
Urging Cincinnati to "remove the shame" of the
city's anti-gay rights policy, a coalition of civil rights
groups today called for repeal of the controversial charter
amendment.
Cincinnati
CAN? No, Cincinnati MUST
We must repeal Article 12 of the city charter — codified
by the passage of Issue 3 in 1993 — which singles out
gays and lesbians for discrimination.
Mayor
Luken's angry denunciation of a boycott organized by the Black
United Front has a certain irony. Cincinnati already suffers
the effects of a boycott-in-fact, without the name. Since
voters passed Issue 3, enshrining anti-gay discrimination,
the city has lost an estimated $64 million in convention business.
The
anti-gay legislation is a major obstacle to a proposed Summer
Olympics and is a pernicious distinction for a city whose
recent legacy features the anti-Semitic rantings of Marge
Schott and the prosecution of the Contemporary Arts Center
on obscenity charges for exhibiting Robert Mapplethorpe photographs.
This city, so widely derided for intolerance, is the only
one in the nation whose charter expressly discriminates against
homosexuals. ... Gays and lesbians in Cincinnati, continue
to suffer under a sexual Jim Crow law. We must end it now!
more
Think
of the Money: Can We Afford Intolerance?
The biggest hurdle for people who want to bring the Olympics
to Cincinnati in 2012 might not be a matter of hotel capacity
or transportation, but political maturity. Can the city get
over its sexual hang-ups before it alienates the whole world?
Read
The
Injustice of the Other Part: the Constitutionality Of Cincinnati's
Issue 3
An analysis of constitutional theory and precedent regarding
public referendums and equal protection claims establishes
a framework for analyzing Cincinnati's Issue 3 referendum,
which prevented the city from enforcing or enacting legislation
to protect gays and lesbians. The author concludes that Issue
3 was unconstitutional. Read
(University of Michigan : Michigan Journal
of Political Science)
No
shortage of opinions on Issue 3
Be careful when you open your voice mail. Taking a position
on Issue 3 tends to crank up the volume. Read
Becoming
America's "Ruling Taliban"
“Operation
Potomac”
The National Reform Association, a Christian Reconstructionist
organization, has announced plans to form a political action
committee and public policy organization, officially entering
Washington’s world of politics. Christian Reconstructionist
ideology is the most radical expression of the Religious Right;
believing that the Bible should be the basis of government,
education, and law. Reconstructionists envision an extremist
society in which public schools, most social service programs,
and welfare would be obliterated. According to Reconstructionist
belief, the Bible allows liberal application of the death
penalty for crimes including homosexuality, abortion, adultery,
child disobedience, and witchcraft. Acceptable forms of capital
punishment supposedly outlined in the Bible include burning,
stoning, and hanging. Read
|
