[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 72 (Tuesday, May 21, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H5302-H5303]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           ROMER VERSUS EVANS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of May 
12, 1995, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady] is recognized during 
morning business for 5 minutes.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, yesterday was a sad day in our 
Nation's history. In one fell swoop, the U.S. Supreme Court managed to 
seriously undermine our tradition of democratic self-governance, and, 
at the same time, to deliver a harsh slap-in-the-face to all Americans 
who seek to preserve traditional moral standards regarding 
homosexuality. I hope and expect that American citizens share my sense 
of outrage at the Court's action.
  I'm referring to the Court's decision in the case of Romer versus 
Evans. The case involves an amendment to the Colorado State 
Constitution adopted in 1992 by the citizens of that State. The 
amendment, known as amendment 2, would have prevented the State or any 
of its political subdivisions from enacting, adopting, or enforcing any 
law granting homosexuals protected status or other preferential 
treatment. Amendment 2 was adopted in response to the actions of 
several Colorado cities that had adopted so-called gay rights 
ordinances, which had added homosexuals to the list of protected 
persons under local antidiscrimination laws.
  By a 6-to-3 vote, the court yesterday ruled that amendment 2 violates 
the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution. The Court held 
that amendment 2 ``lacks a rational relationship to legitimate state 
interests, and so could only be understood as an expression of 
animosity toward homosexuals.''
  That might sound like stale legal doctrine, but don't be deceived. 
What the Court did yesterday has profoundly troubling implications for 
our democracy and for our civilization. As Justice Antonin Scalia, 
writing for himself, Chief Justice Rehnquist, and Justice Thomas, 
pointed out in his dissenting opinion, the Court has unleased a new 
constitutional doctrine that has no rational limitation.
  We must be clear on one important fact: Notwithstanding the 
majority's portrayal of amendment 2 as an effort to make homosexuals 
``stranger[s] to [Colorado's] laws,'' the measure did no such thing. 
All amendment 2 would have accomplished is to prevent the government 
from making homosexuals a protected class, or otherwise to make 
homosexuality the basis for any preferential treatment. Every Colorado 
law of general applicability applies fully to homosexuals. This case, 
no matter what the majority held, was about whether or not homosexuals 
could be given special protections under the law.
  I quote from Justice Scalia's dissent:

       The only denial of equal treatment [the majority] contends 
     homosexuals have suffered is this: They may not obtain 
     preferential treatment without amending the state 
     constitution. That is to say, the principle underlying the 
     Court's opinion is that

[[Page H5303]]

     one who is accorded equal treatment under the law, but cannot 
     as readily as others obtain preferential treatment under the 
     laws, has been denied equal protection of the laws.

  It is tough to argue with Justice Scalia's conclusion that the 
Court's constitutional jurisprudence ``has achieved terminal 
silliness.''
  Confessing itself unable to fathom a rational, legitimate 
governmental purpose that might be served by amendment 2, the Court 
concluded that the amendment thus raised ``the inevitable inference 
that the disadvantage imposed is born of animosity'' toward 
homosexuals. The Court characterized it as ``a bare desire to harm a 
politically unpopular group.''
  This conclusion, which lies at the core of the Court's opinion, is as 
puzzling as it is offensive. It's puzzling because, just 10 years ago, 
the Supreme Court held that nothing in the Constitution prevents States 
from enforcing laws criminalizing homosexual sodomy. In Bowers versus 
Hardwick, the Court expressly held that government can put citizens in 
prison for engaging in homosexual conduct.
  Now, however, we learn that the same Constitution forbids States from 
deciding that homosexuals should not be granted protected or 
preferential status under their laws. I defy anyone to explain how 
these two results can be reconciled.
  In a truly amazing display of intellectual dishonesty, the Court 
majority didn't even attempt such a reconciliation, and indeed, it 
didn't even mention the Bowers case.
  So there are some serious legal flaws in the Court's decision. But 
what truly offends me--and, I would expect, a great many Americans--is 
the Court's conclusion that amendment 2 was motivated by ``animosity'' 
toward homosexuals. Again, I quote from Justice Scalia's dissent: ``To 
suggest,'' he writes, ``that [Amendment 2] springs from nothing more 
than `a bare desire to harm a politically unpopular group' is nothing 
short of insulting.''
  And so it is. For 2,000 years, our Judeo-Christian ethic has taught 
that homosexual conduct is wrong. Accordingly, our laws have always 
embodied some moral disapproval of homosexuality. Sometimes that 
disapproval takes the form of criminal sanction, as with antisodomy 
laws. But often it is expressed in much more subtle ways. Here, for 
example, the voters of Colorado decided simply not to extend their 
antidiscrimination protections to homosexuals as a discrete protected 
class. The Supreme Court has now pronounced that decision to be the 
result of rank bigotry, motivated only by animosity toward homosexuals. 
Such a crass dismissal of our moral and religious heritage should 
provoke outrage on the part of the American people.
  I do not come to the floor lightly to criticize our Supreme Court. I 
have deep respect for the institution of the Supreme Court, and I have 
been quick to praise the Court when it has performed its assigned 
constitutional role. But yesterday's decision, Mr. Speaker, does not 
deserve our praise; in striking down amendment 2 and in labeling as 
``bigots'' adherents to traditional moral values, the Court deserves 
our disapproval.

                          ____________________