Thank You for making me aware of that case. I had heard of the Colorado Case, but never really looked into it.

The Amendment in question:

"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 enforce any statute, regulation, ordinance or policy whereby homosexual, lesbian or bisexual orientation, conduct, practices or relationships shall constitute or otherwise be the basis of or entitle any person or class of persons to have 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."

Truly sickening. PROHIBITING people from passing laws to help gays. Too far.

The case is interesting. It was written by my favorite Justice, Anthony Kennedy. A compassionate conservative indeed. [wink]

I don't have time to read the case, but I am looking at the Key Notes on Westlaw, and even in that case, they only required a rational basis (not the compelling interest standard) test.

The thing about that case was that the facts of the case were SO tilted against what the govt. was trying to do, further analysis was not required. I get the impression that was a famous S.Ct sidestep. COWARDS!

In that case, there was an Amendment to the Colorado Const. that "prohibits all legislative, executive, or judicial action at any level of state or local government designed to protect homosexual persons from discrimination."

But the case DID note that the "14th Amendment's promise that no person shall be denied equal protection of the laws must coexist with practical necessity that most legislation classifies for one purpose or another with resulting disadvatage to various groups or persons."

"Equal Protection of the laws is not achieved through indiscriminate imposition of inequalities" and "central to both the idea of rule of law and the the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection is the principle that government and each of its parts remain open on impartial terms to all who seek its assistence."

Also, "A law declaring that in general it shall be more difficult for one group of citizens than for all others to seek aid from government is itself a denial of equal protection of the laws in the most literal sense."

But the most stark distinction between this case and a potential case involving same sex marriages is that "a bare desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot constitute a legitimate governmental interest."

So this case really provides firepower for both sides.

It suggests that the EP doesn't allow every group to say that THEY are being violated just because a law applies directly to them and if you want to target a specific class, you better have a stronger reason than you just want to discriminate.


The really interesting development in this field will be when the court rules on Lawrence v. Texas.

Expect that case to cite this one heavily.

The ruling in that case will be VERY important to developments in gay rights.

However that case goes, so goes the gay rights movement.

But, if O'Connor is replaced by a right ideologue, then the issue makes Kennedy a swing voter once again.

This opinion shows he will defend gay rights, but also suggests they may not worthy of strict scrutiny.