Editing Romer v. Evans (section)

==Related cases and events==
In 1993, [[Cincinnati, Ohio]], passed Ballot Issue 3, an amendment to the city charter, which forbade the city from adopting or enforcing civil rights ordinances based on sexual orientation, the only municipality in the United States to pass such a restriction. The wording of Cincinnati's amendment was almost identical to that of Colorado's. The amendment was upheld by the [[Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals]] in 1996.<ref name=vacated>{{cite court |litigants= Equality Foundation of Greater Cincinnati, Inc. v. City of Cincinnati ("Equality Foundation I") |vol= 54 |reporter= F.3d |opinion= 261 |court= 6th Cir. |date= 1995 |url= https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-6th-circuit/1104057.html }} vacated, 116 S. Ct. 2519 (1996).</ref> Later, the case was remanded by the Supreme Court for further consideration in 1997 in the wake of the ''Romer'' decision. The Sixth Circuit upheld the amendment a second time, differentiating it from the state-level amendment on the grounds that it was a local government action of the type that Amendment 2 was designed to preempt.<ref name=circuit>{{cite court |litigants= Equality Foundation v. City of Cincinnati |vol= 128 |reporter= F. 3d |opinion= 289 |date= 1997 |url= http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&case=/data2/circs/6th/970318p.html }}</ref> On October 13, 1998, the Supreme Court rejected an appeal, allowing the Sixth Circuit decision and the city amendment to stand.<ref>{{cite news |first= Julie |last= Irwin |title= Law Denying Gay Protection Stands |date= October 14, 1998 |url= http://www.enquirer.com/editions/1998/10/14/loc_gayrights14.html |work= [[The Cincinnati Enquirer]] |access-date= January 3, 2009}}</ref> In 2005, Cincinnati voters overturned the amendment.<ref>{{cite news |title= Cincinnati Gay Rights Amendment Passes |date= March 15, 2006 |url= http://cincinnati.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/stories/2006/03/13/daily40.html |work= [[American City Business Journals|Business Courier of Cincinnati]] |access-date= January 3, 2009}}</ref>

Since ''Romer'' stood in obvious tension with the Court's earlier decision in ''Bowers v. Hardwick'',<ref name=Bowers/> it laid the groundwork for 2003's ''[[Lawrence v. Texas]]'',<ref name=Lawrence/> 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]]'', but the case has not had a much broader impact given the Court's assertion that it was conducting neither a "normal process of judicial review" nor a "conventional inquiry".<ref name=opinion /> In the same niche, ''Romer'' was cited in the decision of [[Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court]] case ''[[Goodridge v. Department of Public Health]]'', wherein the Department's desire to deny marriage licences to same-sex couples was explicitly likened to Amendment 2's attempt to broadly restrict from seeking benefits a narrowly defined class of citizens.<ref>{{cite web |title= Hillary Goodridge & others vs. Department of Public Health & another. |date= November 18, 2003 |url= http://www.boston.com/news/daily/18/sjc_gaymarriage_decision.pdf |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20031123132706/http://www.boston.com/news/daily/18/sjc_gaymarriage_decision.pdf |archive-date= November 23, 2003 |via= [[The Boston Globe]] }}</ref>

In 2007, fifteen years after the referendum on Amendment 2, the Colorado legislature amended its anti-discrimination law by forbidding discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity in employment.<ref>{{cite web |url= https://votesmart.org/bill/4143/12872/sexual-orientation-workplace-discrimination |title= SB 25: Sexual Orientation Workplace Discrimination |publisher= Project Vote Smart |access-date= August 2, 2013}}</ref> In 2008, Colorado further expanded its LGBT protections to include housing, public accommodation, and advertising.

Future Chief Justice [[John Roberts]] donated time [[pro bono]] to prepare oral arguments for the plaintiffs. Speaking during his nomination process, a case leader, Walter A. Smith Jr., praised his work on the case, recalling,  "He said, 'Let's do it.' And it's illustrative of his open-mindedness, his fair-mindedness. He did a brilliant job."<ref>{{cite news |title= Roberts Donated Help to Gay Rights Case |last= Serrano |first= Richard |date= August 4, 2005 |url= https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2005-aug-04-na-roberts4-story.html |work= [[Los Angeles Times]] |access-date= January 3, 2009}}</ref>