ROMER V. EVANS: THE IMPACT OF A CLINTON PRESIDENCY? WASHINGTON, Oct. 10, 1995 -- "Today, pro-family Americans saw a powerful repercussion of the Clinton Presidency," Family Research Council attorney Melissa Wells-Petry said Tuesday, following oral arguments in the homosexual related case Romer v. Evans. "Justices Ginsberg and Breyer, Clinton appointees, led the charge against the people of Colorado in the Supreme Court hearing on the contentious Amendment 2 case." Wells-Petry filed a "friend-of-the-court" brief on behalf of Family Research Council and attended the oral arguments. Her involvement follows on the heels of FRC Director of Communications Robert Knight who testified at the trial court level on behalf of the people of Colorado's right to make a democratically agreed upon statement about homosexuality. In the brief before the Supreme Court, Wells-Petry argued that to throw out Amendment 2 and overthrow the people of Colorado's decision was to cut off democratic options, such as legal referendum, and make homosexuality the law of the land. The Clinton administration appointees were clearly aggressive in their questioning of the people of Colorado, Wells-Petry noted. She made the following statement: "The Clinton appointees used 80% of the air time during the one-hour hearing. They sat in super judgment of the people of Colorado, apparently undisturbed at the prospect of substituting their judgment for that of the over 1,524,000 Colorodans who exercised their constitutional right to vote on this issue. "Moreover, these two justices in particular seemed completely unconcerned about the implications, both for the law and society, of 'discovering' a new fundamental right that obviously was created to award homosexuals special rights even though homosexuality does not fall under established legal analyses of classes requiring special protection. In fact, in this very case the lower court held that homosexuals are not a suspect class. "In short, during oral arguments before the high court, little was said about the bizarre impact this case could have on the democratic process. "We have seen the future of a Clinton court," Wells-Petry said. "This is another wake up call on the implications of the presidency. How many justices will be nominated by the next president? It's time for a national conversation on whether Americans want the right to vote on the laws of the land, or to allow liberal judges to overrule democratic decisions."