Editing Romer v. Evans (section)

==Dissenting opinion==
Justice [[Antonin Scalia]] wrote the dissent, joined by Chief Justice [[William H. Rehnquist]] and Justice [[Clarence Thomas]]. Scalia asserted that Amendment 2 did not deprive anyone of the "protection [afforded by] general laws and policies that prohibit arbitrary discrimination in governmental and private settings", which he said was confirmed by the Colorado Supreme Court and not disputed by Justice Kennedy's opinion.<ref>''Romer'', 517 U.S. at 637 (Scalia, J., dissenting).</ref>  Scalia's dissent said Amendment 2 merely provided that homosexuals "cannot as readily as others obtain preferential treatment under the laws".  His objections also included these:

* Regarding the Court's earlier decision in ''[[Bowers v. Hardwick]]'',<ref name=Bowers/> Scalia wrote: "If it is rational to criminalize the conduct, surely it is rational to deny special favor and protection to those with a self-avowed tendency or desire to engage in the conduct."
* ''[[Davis v. Beason]]'' (1890)<ref>{{ussc|name=Davis v. Beason|volume=133|page=333|pin=|year=1890}}.</ref> had held that laws against polygamy were not an "impermissible targeting" of polygamists, and Scalia asked: "Has the Court concluded that the perceived social harm of polygamy is a 'legitimate concern of government', and the perceived social harm of homosexuality is not?"
* The Court, Scalia said, was engaged in [[judicial activism]]; as the Constitution says nothing on the topic, it should be decided by democratic processes.  The dissent added: "it [is] no business of the courts (as opposed to the political branches) to take sides in this culture war. But the Court today has done so, not only by inventing a novel and extravagant constitutional doctrine to take the victory away from traditional forces, but even by verbally disparaging as bigotry adherence to traditional attitudes."<ref name=opinion />

The dissent concluded as follows:
{{quote|Today's opinion has no foundation in American constitutional law, and barely pretends to. The people of Colorado have adopted an entirely reasonable provision which does not even disfavor homosexuals in any substantive sense, but merely denies them preferential treatment. Amendment 2 is designed to prevent piecemeal deterioration of the sexual morality favored by a majority of Coloradans, and is not only an appropriate means to that legitimate end, but a means that Americans have employed before. Striking it down is an act, not of judicial judgment, but of political will.<ref>''Romer'', 517 U.S. at 653 (Scalia, J., dissenting).</ref>}}