Supreme Court Case Romer v. Evans

In the 1996 Supreme Court Romer and Evans trial, Colorado state voters approved a second amendment of the state constitution by a referendum to prevent homosexuals becoming protected minorities. Prior to the referendum, many major cities in Colorado passed legislation prohibiting sexual discrimination, including whether it is homosexual or not. Colorado citizens who declined homosexuality subsequently submitted a petition requesting to vote for the second revision and to win a majority of 53%.

McDermott pointed out in particular the groundbreaking Supreme Court case in 1996, Romer v. Evans. Judge Antonin Scalia considers that the Colorado state constitutional amendment (which was rejected in this case) prohibits legal protection of homosexuals and lesbians in the appeal, which is "completely rational Clause ". Homosexuals "have high disposable income ... they have far more political power than they do" he continues to argue. It appeared. Who is the author of the homosexual community? "Men in the working class explain themselves as homosexuals and it is unlikely that they will participate in the homosexual culture seen in society." There is also a lack of expression by television, there is no strong recognition or support for the community. Also, in homosexual society, you may feel that homosexuals in the workplace are indivisible.

In the 1996 Supreme Court Romer and Evans trial, Colorado state voters approved a second amendment of the state constitution by a referendum to prevent homosexuals becoming protected minorities. Prior to the referendum, many major cities in Colorado passed legislation prohibiting sexual discrimination, including whether it is homosexual or not. A Colorado citizen who declined homosexuality,

In the case of Romer v. Evans, the court finally explored the topic of homosexuality. This case mainly concerns discrimination in Colorado state amendment. The court found that the second amendment of the Colorado Constitution violated the Equality Protection Clause of the 14 th revision (Romer v. Evans, 1996). The court's views are as follows. "A collection of people with the right to abolish specific protection of the law has no precedent and literally denies the same protection" (Romer v. Evans, 1996), p. 4). In addition, the Court stated that Amendment 2 states "Equivalent protection provisions are not permitted because it is based on the status classification" (Romer v. Evans, 1996, pp. 4). This case is the basis for discussion on the recognition of marriage between homosexual couples.