C_Clayton_Jones
Diamond Member
At least you're consistent at being wrong.The only blunder is your slippery slope fallacy.Romer Governor of Colorado et al. v. Evans et al. 517 U.S. 620 1996 .
With special attention to the very last 2 paragraphs. Its not a difficult read. One of those paragraphs is only 5 words long.
And in the entire ruling you'll notice no mention of 'innateness of homosexuality' being the basis of the ruling. Or the 'immutability of homosexuality'. Or that homsexuality is a 'static trait'....There's simply no mention of any of it in any ruling on homosexuality by this court.
And upon that terrible blunder that opens wide the doors for any other repugnant behavioral group to dictate to the majority, that case's essence might be overturned. This would be especially true if that behavioral culture posed a danger or detriment to children they were trying to get access to through adoption agencies. We'd better take a damn good look at the flaws of previous rulings where the importance of innate vs behavior was ignored..
Your ignorance of the Romer ruling comes as no surprise.
The Romer Court merely compelled the state of Colorado to justify Amendment 2 by demonstrating a rational basis for denying gay Americans access to anti-discrimination laws, to provide objective, documented evidence in support of Amendment 2, and to explain how denying gay Americans access to anti-discrimination laws pursued a proper legislative end.
These were the same legal criteria the courts use when determining whether a government's desire to limit, restrict, or preempt citizens' rights are warranted and Constitutional – that Colorado failed to justify the legitimacy of Amendment 2 in the context of 14th Amendment jurisprudence was the fault of the state, not the Supreme Court.
I've tried to muddle though some of the Romer decision....it is a difficult read to say the least.......
the prohibited amendment prohibited prohibitions and all the double negative talk makes the conclusion doubtful.
No it doesn't. You just don't know what you're talking about. The ruling is clear is as a bell:
We 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.
It is so ordered.
Romer v. Evans
But as usual, you ignore anything you don't agree with. And shocker....you ignore Romer. Alas, the court is unlikely to ignore itself.
The case opens quoting, apparently approvingly, a dissent (usually the only opinions worth reading)
"One century ago, the first Justice Harlan admonished this Court that the Constitution “neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens.” Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U. S. 537, 559 (1896) (dissenting opinion)"
It then proceeds to strike down a law that purported to do just what Harlan wanted ....using, as far as I can figure, and as you said, a classification classifying gays as a protected class.
yes, I am ignoring this unintelligible pile of gibberish...which apparently has no bearing on gay marriage anyway or it would have already figured in the prop 8 or Doma cases.
By the way the underlying Colorado case talks of sexual orientation which sounds an awful lot like innateness to me.
Romer v. Evans has a clear bearing on the Constitutional merits of measures seeking to deny same-sex couples access to marriage laws, and serves as compelling precedent.
From the Proposition 8 ruling:
'Proposition 8 is remarkably similar to Amendment 2. Like Amendment 2, Proposition 8 “single out a certain class of citizens for disfavored legal status․” Id. at 633. Like Amendment 2, Proposition 8 has the “peculiar property,” id. at 632, of “withdraw[ing] from homosexuals, but no others,” an existing legal right—here, access to the official designation of ‘marriage’—that had been broadly available, notwithstanding the fact that the Constitution did not compel the state to confer it in the first place. Id. at 627. Like Amendment 2, Proposition 8 denies “equal protection of the laws in the most literal sense,” id. at 633, because it “carves out” an “exception” to California's equal protection clause, by removing equal access to marriage, which gays and lesbians had previously enjoyed, from the scope of that constitutional guarantee. Strauss, 207 P.3d at 61. Like Amendment 2, Proposition 8 “by state decree ․ put [homosexuals] in a solitary class with respect to” an important aspect of human relations, and accordingly “imposes a special disability upon [homosexuals] alone.” Romer, 517 U.S. at 627, 631. And like Amendment 2, Proposition 8 constitutionalizes that disability, meaning that gays and lesbians may overcome it “only by enlisting the citizenry of [the state] to amend the State Constitution” for a second time. Id. at 631. As we explain below, Romer compels that we affirm the judgment of the district court.'
PERRY v. BROWN FindLaw
Romer did indeed 'figured in' the Proposition 8 case.
As for DOMA, that was Federal law, not state.
Last, the tired canard that 'the Supreme Court sometimes gets it wrong, thus all its rulings are suspect,' is a ridiculous and ignorant 'argument.