In a groundbreaking gay-rights case, the U.S. Supreme Court has taken on the task of deciding whether states can prohibit local laws or policies that protect homosexuals from discrimination. The court will be reviewing an amendment in Colorado’s constitution that prevents cities, school districts, and the state government from implementing any measures that offer legal protection against discrimination to individuals who identify as homosexual, lesbian, or bisexual. This amendment, known as Amendment 2, was passed as a ballot initiative in 1992 but has never been enforced due to a court challenge.

If Amendment 2 were to be implemented, it would void existing gay-rights ordinances in cities such as Aspen, Boulder, and Denver. The Boulder Valley school district, along with these cities and several citizens, has opposed the amendment and taken it to court. The district argues that its policy, which aims to protect students from discrimination based on sexual orientation, would be rendered ineffective if Amendment 2 is allowed to take effect. Jean E. Dubofsky, the lead lawyer representing the plaintiffs, expressed concerns about the potential harm Amendment 2 could cause within schools, noting that schools often witness the first expressions of virulent anti-gay sentiments. She also highlighted that even informal school policies promoting tolerance of homosexuality or providing support to gay teenagers could come under attack if the amendment is enforced.

According to legal experts, an increasing number of school districts across the country are including sexual orientation in their anti-discrimination policies. Despite failed attempts in various states, proponents of ballot measures similar to Amendment 2 continue to advocate for their implementation. Maine and Washington State will be voting on similar ballot measures in November.

The U.S. Supreme Court will be reviewing a ruling made by the Colorado Supreme Court last October, which upheld a permanent injunction against Amendment 2. The state supreme court ruled that the ballot measure violated the fundamental right of gay citizens to participate equally in the political process by preventing them from seeking legislation against discrimination. The right to equal participation in the political process is protected by the equal-protection clause of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The state high court previously stated that since Amendment 2 violated a fundamental constitutional right, the state should demonstrate that the measure is supported by a "compelling state interest" and is specifically tailored to address that interest. A Denver trial judge rejected several justifications for Amendment 2 provided by the state in 1993, and the state supreme court upheld this decision with its ruling in October.

In their appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court in Romer v. Evans (Case No. 94-1039), state officials argue that the Colorado high court wrongfully established a new federal constitutional right. The state’s petition argues that Amendment 2 does not impede specific candidates or political parties and that homosexuals and bisexuals have the same access to the ballot as all other citizens in Colorado, including the initiative process through which Amendment 2 was adopted. However, the case will not be presented until the next term of the Supreme Court, meaning a decision could be a year away.

In a separate case unrelated to Colorado, the Supreme Court rejected an appeal from a group of taxpayers who challenged the way the Boulder Valley district responded to another 1992 ballot initiative. This particular initiative required voter approval for all state and local tax increases. In 1993, the Boulder Valley district placed a bond issue on the ballot along with a separate question that aimed to eliminate the need for future elections to raise property taxes for bond repayment. The measure passed, and the state supreme court upheld the district’s action. Without providing any comment, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the taxpayers’ appeal in Wright v. Boulder Valley School District (No. 94-1196).

michaellang

Michael Lang is a 33-year-old professor and blogger who is passionate about writing. He has been blogging for over 7 years and has written for various online publications. Michael is also a seasoned professor who has taught at the college level for over a decade. He is currently a professor of English at a community college in the Midwest.