| Venue: | SCOTUS |
| Facts: | Aspen, Boulder, and Denver pass anti-discrimination ordinances that
prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
CO passes a constitutional amendment decreeing no special protected status for homosexual folks. |
| Posture: | CO SC says the amendment is subject to strict scrutiny because it prevents homosexuals from participating in the political process. |
| Issue: | Is this amendment constitutional? |
| Holding: | No, but not because of that political process reasoning. |
| Rule: | A status-based enactment can't be divorced from any legitimate state interest. |
| Reasoning: | This doesn't just deprive homosexuals of special rights-- it imposes
a disability on homosexuals along. They're forbiden to seek
the kinds of safeguards that others can pursue. The only way
they can get protection is to mobilize the citizenry of Colorado
This is a classification undertaken for its own sake-- its purpose is just to make homosexuals unequal to everyone else. A state can't deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws. |
| Dicta: | If equal protection means anything, at least it must mean that you can't make laws based on a bare desire to harm an unpopular group. |