The Nineties in America - Salem Press (2009)

Eisner, Jane.Taking Back the Vote: Getting American
Youth Involved in Our Democracy. Boston: Beacon
Press, 2004. Discusses the lack of youth participa-
tion in voting since the 1970’s, highlights reasons
why youth choose not to vote, and suggests solu-
tions to increase the youth voter turnout.
Rigby, Ben. Mobilizing Generation 2.0: A Practical
Guide to Using Web 2.0 Technologies to Recruit, Orga-
nize and Engage Youth. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass,

2008. Demonstrates how to use the Internet to
      gather youth around nonprofit or political issues.
      Rock the Vote. http://www.rockthevote.org. The site
      provides general information about the nonprofit,
      as well as links to register for voting and more in-
      formation about political and social issues.
      Emily Carroll Shearer

See also Bush, George H. W.; Clinton, Bill; Clin-
ton, Hillary Rodham; Elections in the United States,
midterm; Elections in the United States, 1992; Elec-
tions in the United States, 1996.

Romer v. Evans

Definition U.S. Supreme Court decision
Date Decided on May 20, 1996

This decision struck a Colorado state constitutional
amendment prohibiting gay rights laws, aiding a later case
that labeled laws forbidding consensual homosexual sod-
omy unconstitutional.

Colorado passed an anti-gay rights amendment to the
state constitution in 1992 in the hopes of overturning
existing gay rights laws. Amendment 2 prohibited
people from claiming minority status based on sexual
orientation and forbade the state and local govern-
ment from protecting people because of their sexual
orientation. An immediate lawsuit sought to keep the
amendment from being enacted, claiming the
change conflicted with the federal constitution.
The majority of the opposition stemmed from the
federal Fourteenth Amendment, which requires the
government to offer equal protection under the law
to everyone. Additionally, those filing the suit argued
that there was no logical government interest and
that the amendment put an unreasonable burden on
gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender (GLBT) vic-
tims to seek protection from discrimination.
The Colorado Supreme Court and District Court

supported the opposition, in 1993, stating that

Amendment 2 failed the strict scrutiny test, which re-

quires laws to present a compelling state interest.

The state of Colorado appealed to the federal Su-

preme Court in 1995. During oral arguments, the

Supreme Court justices asked state counsel to justify

the amendment’s vague language and its preventing

one group from being protected from prejudice un-

less by constitutional amendment.

The Supreme Court ruled 6 to 3 that the amend-

ment was unconstitutional. However, whereas Colo-

rado’s Supreme Court and District Court focused on

the law’s failure to meet the strict scrutiny test, the

federal Supreme Court declared that the law did not

demonstrate a legitimate government interest. The

Court determined that the law subjected homosexu-

als to unfair barriers to legal protection and forever

prohibited its enactment.

Impact Romer v. Evanswent against an earlier Su-

preme Court ruling,Bowers v. Hardwick(1986), up-

holding a Georgia law prohibiting consensual sod-

omy. Thus, Romercame into play in 2003, when

Lawrence v. Texasreached the Supreme Court. That

2003 decision overturned theBowersdecision and

prohibited the government from creating laws mak-

ing homosexual sodomy illegal. Moreover, the lan-

guage the Supreme Court used in theRomerruling

demonstrated that the real argument was about the

morality of homosexuality. Even though the state

claimed that Amendment 2 prevented gays and lesbi-

ans from having special rights, the Supreme Court

felt strongly that, in reality, it would have singled out

homosexuals for discrimination. Even the dissent

showed this bias, suggesting that the amendment was

acceptable because it protected heterosexual mores.

Further Reading

D’Emilio, John, William B. Turner, and Urvashi

Vaid.Creating Change: Sexuality, Public Policy, and

Civil Rights. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2000.

Gallagher, John, and Chris Bull.Perfect Enemies: The

Religious Right, the Gay Movement, and the Politics of

the 1990’s.New York: Crown, 1996.

Walzer, Lee.Gay Rights on Trial. Santa Barbara, Calif.:

ABC-Clio, 2002.

Jessie Bishop Powell

See also Homosexuality and gay rights; Supreme

Court decisions; Transgender community.

728
Romer v. Evans The Nineties in America