Colorado Attorney Lawyer

In a major victory for gay rights, the Supreme Court met Monday with a provision of the Constitution, Colorado, not only negates the civil rights of homosexuals protection mechanisms in the state, but also the passage of the prescription of new anti-discrimination laws.

“A State can not hold a class of persons a stranger to its laws,” Justice Anthony Kennedy said in a notice to a powerful 6-3 majority. He said the determination of Colorado, known as the Amendment 2, the state took homosexuals “in a single class,” singling in violation of the Constitution of the same protection to guarantee a fixed fee disability and any other inexplicable on the basis of “animus”.

“It is not in our constitutional tradition to enact laws of this nature,” said Kennedy in an opinion with Justices John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O’Connor, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer.

Justice Antonin Scalia records also a powerful dissent, has raised the majority of revenues in the pages of the “culture war” to “not an act of justice, judgement, but of political will.” The process by which the voters of Colorado’s adopted Amendment 2, 53 per cent to 47 per cent in 1992, was the “democratic process,” he said.

If no other state has such a provision in the Constitution, petitions for a referendum similar to the November election are now in circulation Idaho, Oregon and Washington. Voters in Maine defeated a similar proposal last year. Local governments in Florida, Ohio, Oregon and have the same approach through local regulations. A federal appeals court confirmed last year, a settlement of Cincinnati gestrippt that homosexuals citizens’ rights protection mechanisms in one case, which is currently under appeal before the Supreme Court.

Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justice Clarence Thomas joined Scalia’s opinions differ on Monday criticised the majority of “Inventing a new constitutional doctrine and extravagant, far from the victory of traditional strengths.” Justice Scalia said Colorado, an amendment was “extremely sensitive” prevention opportunities “piece of deterioration of the sexual morality preferably with a majority of Coloradans.

The decision Romer vs. Evans, No. 94-1039, not to interpret a victory for homosexuals to work in other cases, through their legal system, including the constitution to challenge the current policy in the field of homosexuals in the army, or - farther Down the Road - the issue of same-sex marriage. The positive decision to provide human rights gay, a constitutional rather as a shield, sword, it is not necessary, they say offer new mechanisms for protection of citizens’ rights.

Nevertheless, the decision was a strong statement, coming from a member of a curator at the bottom conservative court, the injury is not valid to justify a policy, single, gay especially for people in other .

Kennedy said the Colorado amendment is able to meet even the lowest level of supervisory powers of an official action, it is questioned, as a violation of constitutional guarantees of equal protection. After this test, which he described Kennedy as “a law must be reasonable in relation to a legitimate objective of the state, and Amendment 2.”