ROMER Vs EVANS
Overview
This was a landmark case that was basically dealing with rights of the civilians and the state law. It was the first case in the Supreme Court that dealt with rights of the LGBT since Bower v. Hardwick case in late 1980s. A popular amendment commonly known as ‘Amendment 2’ of Colorado state constitution would have seen towns, city or county in the state being prevented from taking legislative, judicial or executive action to acknowledge lesbian and gay citizens as a protected class. The law was passed by Colorado voters in a referendum. However, a court charged with state trial issued permanent injunction against the amendment. Upon appeal, the Supreme Court of Colorado ruled that the amendment was subject to strict scrutiny as defined by equal Protection Clause. In the end, the state trial court drew a conclusion that the amendment was below threshold of strict scrutiny. Upon review, the Supreme Court of Colorado agreed to such conclusion.
However, upon appeal to the Supreme Court of the US, the court in its 6-3 decision argued that the amendment did not pass even the rational basis test. In the 6-3 ruling the court observed that the Colorado’s amendment 2 was basically unconstitutional. This was however based on a totally different reasoning from that of Colorado courts. The judge in charge by then Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the opinion of the majority and several other judges and ordinary civilians backed him. These included Sandra day, David Souter, John Paul and Stephen Breyer among others. According to the state, amendment 2 simply denied gay people chance to enjoy special rights, a standpoint that was rejected by Justice Anthony Kennedy.
Critique of the Romer Vs Evans Supreme Court case and ruling
Although the court held the view that Amendment 2 of the state Constitution of Colorado violated the equal protection clause, what must not be swept under the carpet is that the LGBTs are human beings and have a right to life. Therefore they should never be victimized just because of their uncommon sexual orientation in the society. American values, customs and traditions arguably favor heterosexual marriages. Thus, most Americans perceive believe that the LGBTs have gone overboard as far as norms, values and traditions are concerned. The ruling failed to recognize the urgency with which ordinary people should be educated on the fact that this group of people is right within the society and hence should be respected.
In terms of conception of democracy, it is fundamentally necessary for the people to exercise their democratic rights. Although the constitution demands that all citizens have democratic rights and freedoms they are entitled to, it’s biased for democratic rights of certain groups of people in society is violated. In many instances, LGBTs have suffered harassment and discrimination from law enforcement agencies, judiciary, health facility and general public. In fact, some people openly embarrass them in social gatherings and on the streets. They therefore require certain legislations would accord them special rights. By denying them those rights they badly need only subject them to the worse forms of harassment, discrimination and suppression in the society. Hence none of their problems is solved by declining to adjust Amendment2 of the Colorado state law.
Politics is inevitable just like having gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transsexuals in the society. Thus it is necessary to recognize this group of people in various public office appointments. Basically, an employee’s performance is not pegged on sexual orientation but the academic qualifications, skills and knowledge of the job in front of him or her. Hence it does not make sense when some corporate bodies decline applications or interviews of people purely on grounds that they are homosexuals. The private sector should also follow suit since they are human beings just like heterosexuals. In addition, these homosexuals should be allowed to contest in political appointments including election. Whether at the local, state or federal level, this category of men and women should be accorded rights and protection by the authorities against any kind of discrimination experienced from ordinary citizens and fellow contestants.
Thus, the Supreme Law Court has failed to address the plight of homosexuals who would want to contest in various political positions but are persecuted and harassed in the society. Further, it should be recognized that homosexuals also participate in voting process. Adequate measures should have been put in place to ensure they do not fall victims of discrimination given their choice of candidate among other issues. Amendment 2 failed to anchor full protection of the homosexuals who for many years have faced discrimination and harassment from the public even as they want to participate in politics of the land.
The federal government should be the mouthpiece of every American whether homosexual or heterosexual. Thus, it is the Federal system that ought to have enacted a law that binds together all the states of the US. Homosexuals are not found in Colorado alone, but are present in all states. Hence, it is a failure on the part of Federal Government not to enact binding legislation on protection to the homosexuals who frequently suffer from discrimination by members of the society.
Work Cited
Pollock, Earl E. The Supreme Court and American Democracy: Case Studies on Judicial Review and Public Policy. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2009. Internet Resource
