THE POLICY-MAKING PROCESS AND CIVIL RIGHTS| 411
In the fi rst endorsement of civil rights for gay men and lesbians, the Court
struck down an amendment to the Colorado state constitution that prevented
them from suing for discrimination in employment or housing. The Court said that
the amendment violated homosexuals’ equal protection rights because it “with-
drew from homosexuals, but no others, specifi c legal protection from the injuries
caused by discrimination.”^50 A more important ruling came seven years later in a
case involving two Houston men who were prosecuted for same-sex sodomy after
police entered an apartment—upon receiving a false tip about an armed man in the
complex—and found the two having sex. Under Texas law, sodomy was illegal for
homosexuals but not for heterosexuals. In its ruling, the Court said that the liberty
guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause allows homosexu-
als to have sexual relations. “Freedom presumes an autonomy of self that includes
freedom of thought, belief, expression, and certain intimate conduct.”^51
The Court has yet to rule on gay marriage, but California may provide the test
case. In 2008, California voters narrowly passed Proposition 8, striking down the
state’s gay marriage law. In 2010, a federal district court struck down Proposition
8, and then the state said that it would not defend the proposition in court. After
the state supreme court ruled that proponents of the proposition had standing to
defend the case, the appeal went forward.^52 Gay marriage in California is still on
hold until appeals are decided.
This summary of cases demonstrates that the courts can be both a strong advo-
cate of and an impediment to civil rights. In general, however, the courts have a
limited independent impact on policy. Indeed, the Supreme Court must rely on the
other branches of government to carry out its policy decisions.
The Legislative Arena
Congress has provided the basis for protection of civil rights through laws enacted
starting in the 1960s. Applying to racial and ethnic minorities and women, these
laws attempted to ensure a “level playing fi eld” of equal opportunity.
INITIAL LEGISLATION OF THE 1960S
The bedrock of equal protection that exists today stems from the 1964 Civil Rights
Act, the 1965 Voting Rights Act, and the 1968 Fair Housing Act. President Lyndon
Johnson, a former segregationist, helped push through the Civil Rights Act when
he became president. The act barred discrimination in employment based on race,
sex, religion, or national origin; banned segregation in public places; and estab-
lished the EEOC as the enforcement agency for the legislation.
The Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VR A) eliminated direct obstacles to minority
voting in the South, such as discriminatory literacy tests and other voter registra-
tion tests and provided the means to enforce the law: federal marshals were charged
with overseeing elections in the South. The VR A, often cited as one of the most sig-
nifi cant pieces of civil rights legislation,^53 precipitated an explosion in black politi-
cal participation in the South. The most dramatic gains came in Mississippi, where
black registration increased from 6.7 percent before the VR A to 59.8 percent in 1967.
The Fair Housing Act of 1968 barred discrimination in the rental or sale of a
home based on race, sex, religion, and national origin. Important amendments to the
law enacted in 1988 added disability and familial status (having children under age
18), provided new administrative enforcement mechanisms, and expanded Justice
Depa r t ment ju r isd iction to br i n g su it on beha l f of v icti ms i n federa l d ist r ict cou r t s.^54