US Supreme Court Decision Essay Example for Free

US Supreme Court end EssayAn examination of the United declares Supreme Court baptistery Romer v. Evans, which was decided on May 20, 1996, is to be put forth in this paper. The case was argued on October 10, 1995. At cut back was Amendment 2 to the State formation of carbon monoxide gas which precludes all legislative, executive, or judicial action at any level of state or local government designed to protect the status of persons found on their homosexual, lesbian or sissyish orientation, conduct, practices or relationships (Romer v. Evans, 1995). The U. S. Supreme court held it violates the Equal Protection Clause. The opinion in favor was filed by umpire Kennedy, while the dissenting opinion was filed by justness Scalia. The referendum, Article II sec 30b of the carbon monoxide penning, put down as follows NO PROTECTED STATUS BASED ON HOMOSEXUAL, LESBIAN, OR BISEXUAL ORIENTATION.Neither the State of Colorado, through any of its branches or departments, nor any of its agencies, political subdivisions, municipalities or school districts, shall enact, adopt or hold any statute, regulation, ordinance or policy whereby homosexual, lesbian or bisexual orientation, conduct, practices, or relationships shall constitute or otherwise be the soil of, or entitle any person or class of persons to pay back or claim any minority status, quota preferences, protected status or claim of discrimination. This Section of the Constitution shall be in all respects self-executing (Romer v. Evans, 1996).While many believed the fairness would prevent non-federal discrimination lawsuits based on sexual orientation as well as prevent the passage or the enforcing of alert laws prohibiting such discrimination, Amendment 2s purpose was generally inconsistent with mainstream the Statesn values (Debbage horse parsley, pg. 264). The State of Colorado argued the measure does no more than deny homosexuals special rights (Romer v. Evans, 1995). This is a decades old argume nt that right-wing Christian groups have used to appeal to a wider, more secular audience by characterizing the homophile rights act as one aimed at getting special rights and protected status for gays and lesbians incorporated into civil rights law (Debbage Alexander, pg. 273).Justice Kennedy writes in the opinion in favor, The States principal argument that Amendment 2 puts gays and lesbians in the same do as all other persons by denying them special rights is rejected as implausible (Romer v. Evans, 1995). Justice Kennedy advance states how Amendment 2 confounds this normal process of judicial review. It is at once too narrow and too broad. It identifies persons by a single trait and then denies them protection across the board (Romer v. Evans, 1995). The final paragraph of Justice Kennedys opinion declaresWe must conclude that Amendment 2 classifies homosexuals not to further a proper legislative end but to make them unequal to everyone else. This Colorado cannot do. A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws. Amendment 2 violates the Equal Protection Clause, and the judgment of the Supreme Court of Colorado is affirmed (Romer v. Evans, 1995).While Justice Scalia writes in his dissenting opinion, Amendment 2 is a modest attempt by seemingly tolerant Coloradans to preserve traditional sexual mores against the efforts of a politically powerful minority to revision those mores through the use of the laws (Romer v. Evans, 1995). While Justice Scalia has the right to his own personal beliefs regarding homosexuality and its validity as a protected class, many others do not share them. As Richard Mohr observes in Romer v. Evans A blunder for Justice, All or nearly all legal burdens on gays appeal directly or indirectly to prejudice. His article goes on to describe how in 1996 this ruling should affect two major gay issues gays in the military and gay marriage.When opponents cannot give logical reasons for their opposition it presuppose s strongly held beliefs for which one can cite no reasons or explanations are by definition prejudicial ones (Mohr, para. 5). With the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court, Romer v. Evans marked an vastly important day for the gay rights movement and a major setback for anti-gay rights activists of all persuasions according to Sharon Debbage Alexanders article in the Winter 2002 issue of Texas Forum on Civil Liberties Civil Rights. Furthermore, this case has become one of the most significant decisions issued by the U.S. Supreme Court in regards to gay rights. The absolute majority of those who have analyzed Romer v. Evans purport the fact that the case was won using a rational basis test adds to the strength of the decision for gay rights (Debbage Alexander, pg. 297).Since the decision of Romer v. Evans, President Barack Obama has overturned the feignt Ask, Dont Tell policy within our Armed Forces and gay marriage is currently under circumstance in two cases that have been hear d at the U.S. Supreme Court. After winning Boy Scouts of the States v. Dale in 2000 protecting the groups First Amendment expressive association rights, recently the governing body of the Boy Scouts of America voted to allow openly gay scouts within its membership, but not as Scout Leaders. The important issue of gay rights in America has finally reached the forefront of public policy and debate. As in Romer v. Evans, I hope that the United States Supreme Court will rule against the State of Californias proposal of marriage 8 and DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act, to find both laws unconstitutional. In so far as to shore equality for all to these United States of America.