Editing Romer v. Evans (section)

==Proceedings in state court==
Richard G. Evans, a gay man who worked for Denver mayor [[Wellington Webb]],<ref>{{cite news |last1=Dunlap |first1=David W. |title=The Gay Rights Ruling: In Colorado;Ruling Signals More Fights To Come |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1996/05/21/us/the-gay-rights-ruling-in-colorado-ruling-signals-more-fights-to-come.html |access-date=April 11, 2016 |work=New York Times |date=May 21, 1996}}</ref> as well as other individuals and three Colorado municipalities, brought suit to enjoin the amendment. A former [[Colorado Supreme Court]] justice, [[Jean Dubofsky]], was the lead attorney. A state trial court issued a permanent injunction against the amendment, and upon appeal, the [[Colorado Supreme Court]] ruled that the amendment was subject to "[[strict scrutiny]]" under the [[Equal Protection Clause]] of the [[United States Constitution|federal Constitution]].<ref name=Evans1>{{cite court |litigants= Evans v. Romer |vol=854 |reporter=P.2d |opinion=1270 |court=Colo. |date=1993|url=https://law.justia.com/cases/colorado/supreme-court/1993/93sa17-0.html |access-date=2018-05-11 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url= https://lcrm.lib.unc.edu/blog/index.php/tag/amendment-2/ |title= Archive for 'Amendment 2' On This Day: Romer v. Evans |last1= Shay |first1= Alison |publisher= [[University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill]] |date= May 20, 2012 |url-status= dead |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20160424202108/https://lcrm.lib.unc.edu/blog/index.php/tag/amendment-2/ |archive-date= April 24, 2016 |df= mdy-all }}</ref> The state trial court, upon [[Remand (court procedure)|remand]], concluded that the amendment could not pass strict scrutiny, which the Colorado Supreme Court agreed with upon review.<ref name=Evans2>{{cite court |litigants= Evans v. Romer |vol=882 |reporter=P.2d |opinion=1335 |court=Colo.  |date=1994 |url=https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1297252/evans-v-romer/ |access-date=2018-05-11 }}</ref> Both times, the Colorado Supreme Court rendered 2–1 decisions.<ref name=Evans1 /><ref name=Evans2 />

The state supreme court held that Amendment 2 infringed on the fundamental right of gays to participate equally in the political process.  Regarding the trial court's finding that homosexuals were not a [[suspect class]], the Colorado Supreme Court said: "This ruling has not been appealed and thus, we do not address it."

The majority of the Colorado Supreme Court acknowledged that Amendment 2 would not affect Colorado law that generally protects people from discrimination:

{{quote|Colorado law currently proscribes discrimination against persons who are not suspect classes. ... Of course Amendment 2 is not intended to have any effect on this legislation, but seeks only to prevent the adoption of anti-discrimination laws intended to protect gays, lesbians, and bisexuals.<ref name=Evans2 /><ref>{{cite journal |last= Walsh |first= Kevin |title= Throwing Stones: Rational Basis Review Triumphs over Homophobia |journal= Seton Hall Law Review |volume= 27 |page= 1064 |year= 1997}}</ref>}}

The dissenting justice on the Colorado Supreme Court argued that neither a suspect class nor a fundamental right was involved in the case, and thus he would have applied a rational basis test instead of strict scrutiny.<ref name=Evans2 />