Subject: Amici Briefs Submitted in Romer v. Evans
From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 30 Jun 1995 12:40:16 -0400

Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund
News Release

Arsenal of Briefs Opposing Colorado's Anti-Gay Measure
Submitted to U.S. Supreme Court

(NEW YORK, June 19, 1995) Adding their legal and political weight to 
one of the most important civil rights cases in a decade, a broad
coalition of states, cities, bar associations, law professors, civil
rights organizations and religious groups today filed friend-of-the-
court (or "amicus") briefs, and joined Lambda Legal Defense and
Education Fund and others in challenging an anti-gay ballot initiative
under review by the U.S. Supreme Court.

At issue in the case is whether Amendment 2,  a Colorado ballot measure
designed to invalidate any state  or local law prohibiting discrimina-
tion against lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals, violates the U.S.
Constitution.

The measure, approved by voters in 1992, was struck down by the state's
highest court last October for denying gay citizens an equal voice in
government.

"Anti-gay measures like Amendment 2 are an affront to the civil
liberties of all Americans," said Suzanne B. Goldberg, staff attorney
at Lambda, a national lesbian and gay legal organization which has
challenged similar measures across the country.  "This powerhouse
coalition of organizations and community leaders highlights the
important constitutional and democratic issues at stake in this
case.  While Amendment 2 fences out lesbian and gay citizens from
participating fully in our democracy, it also threatens to undermine
the foundation upon which the rights of every citizen is built."

More than a dozen states and cities-- including Oregon, Iowa,
Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, Washington, and the
District of Columbia--submitted briefs in opposition to Amendment 2.
Their briefs argue that measures like Amendment 2 lack any rational
basis or legitimate state objective, and should be struck down for
violating the fundamental rights of lesbian and gay citizens.

Oregon Solicitor General Virginia Linder, who helped coordinate the
brief on behalf of the states, wrote: "Amendment 2 stands as nothing
more refined than a blanket endorsement of discrimination for the
sake of discrimination, one that elevates public and private
discrimination against one group of citizens to the status of a
constitutional right."

Other groups signing on as amici include the American Bar Association,
the bar associations of more than fifteen states, over a dozen
Christian groups and Jewish congregations, the American Federation of
Teachers, the American Psychological Association, legal scholars from
Harvard and Stanford Law School, and a diverse coalition of civil
rights organizations.  (For full list of states, cities, and organiza-
tions, ask for Lambda's Amendment background briefing.)

"Blacks and Jews, along with farmers, smokers, joggers and redheads,"
writes Stephen V. Bomse , whose  brief was submitted on behalf of the
various state bar associations, "can seek protection against discrimi-
nation from the Colorado state legislature, executive departments,
[and] courts....  As a result of Amendment 2, lesbians and gay men
cannot."

Two weeks ago, Attorney General Janet Reno announced that the Clinton
Administration will not join in challenging the measure, a move that was
widely criticized by many including the Leadership Conference on Civil
Rights, a prominent coalition of civil rights organization which lobbied 
Reno to file a brief, and the New York Times, which  called the
"diffidence" of the Administration "distressing" in a June 12 editorial.

Over the past several years, radical right groups have orchestrated a
nationwide campaign to cut back civil rights protections through ballot
initiatives that seek to write lesbians and gay men out of state and
local constitutions.  Using the misleading rhetoric of  "special rights"
to generate voter support, these groups have sponsored more than 35
separate initiatives that seek to repeal existing legislation prohibit-
ing discrimination based on sexual orientation, and to bar lawmakers
from passing such legislation in the future.  

Colorado's Amendment 2 was the first and only statewide measure to
pass, though court rulings have thus far prevented its enforcement.
In another Lambda case, a federal appeals court last month reversed
a lower court's ruling and permitted a similar ballot measure in
Cincinnati, passed by voters in 1993,  to take effect.

The legal team challenging the Colorado amendment consists of attorneys
from Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, the ACLU, the Colorado
Legal Initiatives Project, and several Colorado attorneys including
former state supreme court justice Jean Dubofsky.  A decision in the
case, expected to be argued before the Court in October, will likely
be handed down sometime next spring.  (Romer v. Evans, U.S. Supreme
Court, No. 94- 1039)

 Press Contact: Denny Lee, (212) 995-8585/0085