Talk:Romer v. Evans

Link to actual case instead of Wikipedia's definition of citation

Really? When stating the citation of a case, with a link, don't you think that the link should actually link to the SCOTUS case and not Wikipedia's definition of citation? That doesn't even fit. If you wanted to link citation to its Wikipedia definition, fine. But this should be linked to the actual case-- at least if you want a decent article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.136.90.121 (talk) 21:50, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Untitled

I am neither an American nor a lawyer, so I'm probably not the ideal person to write on this. :-) Please check for obvious mistakes, etc. Evercat 23:34, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I think it'd be appropriate to explicitly mention that the vote was concurrent to that year's presidential election. Circeus (talk) 16:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the sentence "Ironically, although Roy Romer was on record as opposing Amendment 2, his name was on the suit as defendant and the appellant solely due to his position as governor of Colorado" from the text because this isn't ironic or otherwise. In fact, it's standard procedure that the government official charged with enforcing a statute is listed as the defendant when a statute is challenged. See, e.g. Hamedi v. Rumsfeld. Biccat (talk) 17:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Dubious paragraph.

I think this whole paragraph: Since Romer stood in obvious tension with the Court's earlier decision in Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986), it laid the groundwork for 2003's Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), which overturned Bowers; like the Romer case, Justices Kennedy and Scalia would author the majority and dissenting opinions in Lawrence with all nine justices voting almost the same way as in Romer (Justice O'Connor concurred, but with a different rationale) . Romer has been narrowly cited but influential within its niche, being cited in the cases of Lawrence v. Texas and Hollingsworth v. Perry - no doubt because Kennedy emphasized the "special" nature of Amendment 2 and refused to apply traditional rational-basis analysis to the Colorado law.

... is dubious and it probably should be removed. First of all, there is no "obvious tension" between Romer and Bowers. The only similarity between the two cases was that both cases were challenges to certain state laws that were brought by gay men. But in Bowers it was explicitly stated that the gay man challenging the "sodomy" law of Georgia had not made an equal protection argument, he was not saying that the "sodomy" law treated homosexuals worse than heterosexuals. The Georgia statute was written to make it just as illegal for heterosexual men and women to engage in "sodomy" with one another as homosexuals. That very point was made by dissenting Justice Blackmun and by retired federal judge Robert Bork, the latter in his book "The Tempting of America," published 1990. Bork said, on page 117, "the statute on its face applied to all forms of sodomy, heterosexual as well as homosexual, and, given the history of its enforcement, Hardwick was in no greater danger of prosecution than any heterosexual." Justice Blackmun said, in the Bowers dissent, "First, the Court's almost obsessive focus on homosexual activity is particularly hard to justify in light of the broad language Georgia has used. Unlike the Court, the Georgia Legislature has not proceeded on the assumption that homosexuals are so different from other citizens that their lives may be controlled in a way that would not be tolerated if it limited the choices of those other citizens. ... Rather, Georgia has provided that "[a] person commits the offense of sodomy when he performs or submits to any sexual act involving the sex organs of one person and the mouth or anus of another." Ga.Code Ann. § 16-6-2(a) (1984). The sex or status of the persons who engage in the act is irrelevant as a matter of state law. In fact, to the extent I can discern a legislative purpose for Georgia's 1968 enactment of § 16-6-2, that purpose seems to have been to broaden the coverage of the law to reach heterosexual as well as homosexual activity." And I say, again, the majority opinion in Bowers explicitly stated that Hardwick did not make an equal protection argument. It was in the very last footnote: "Respondent does not defend the judgment below based on the Ninth Amendment, the Equal Protection Clause, or the Eighth Amendment."

Secondly, I completely disagree with the way that paragraph above ended, insisting that Justice Kennedy "refused to apply traditional rational-basis analysis to the Colorado law." Justice Kennedy was explicitly applying that very standard. The only way to infer a "refusal" is to read between the lines and infer that Kennedy was not REALLY applying that test, even though he claimed to be applying it. The book by Evan Gerstmann, "Constitutional Underclass," published in 1999, was written primarily to educate its readers about the author's theory that there seem to be two different rational-basis standards that the Court is ACTULLY applying, but no Court majority opinion has ever said there are two different rational-basis standards. It is a very, very persuasive book, and I completely agree with the author's conclusion -- the Court is ACTUALLY applying two different rational-basis standards, one strong and one weak, but the Court, as an instititution, has never acknowledged that they are doing so.

Perhaps instead of deleting the paragraph, it can be amended to elaborate on this point much more, although that would mean putting in as much as one whole new paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vincent Labine (talk • contribs) 22:36, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I (in close personal cooperation with my IP) have overhauled the article, and in so doing have addressed some of the points you've mentioned.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:39, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Who was Evans?

The article does not say who Evans was. The opinion itself doesn't provide mush more info in the individual respondents: " Among the plaintiffs (respondents here) were homosexual persons, some of them government employees." The case is too old to be on the Court's internet-based docket, and the case caption says only "Evans et al."

Anyone know who the Evans guy was, and how he got his name on the case? I think it's a fact worth having. Obergefell v. Hodges, for example, identifies James Obergefell as the lead plaintiff and relates how he came to be on the caption. TJRC (talk) 22:26, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

And.... now armed with Evans's full name, I was able to find his part in the underlying suit and add it to the article. Never mind! TJRC (talk) 22:44, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Very biased in favor of conservative views and perhaps animus against the LGBTQ communities

I do not disagree with the inclusions of conservative views on this subject, but missing is the overwhelming positive avalanche wittings in popular and legal publications concerning the way this case changed legal history,

In the current state the page on Romer v. Evans is a disgrace.

Since I worked as a paralegal in the courtroom in Colorado on this case, I obviously cannot change even a semicolon; but I beg people who read this who can help balance this page to help out. Chip.berlet (talk) 16:07, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Chip.berlet (talk) 16:07, 6 March 2021 (UTC)