The legal case of ROMER, GOVERNOR OF COLORADO, et al. v. EVANS et al. involved a challenge to Amendment 2 of the Colorado Constitution, which prohibited discrimination protections based on sexual orientation. The US Supreme Court found that Amendment 2 violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution, which requires neutrality in the law and does not allow for classes among citizens. The amendment treated gays and lesbians differently and denied them equal protection under the law. The Court affirmed the judgment of the lower court, which had granted a preliminary injunction to prevent enforcement of Amendment 2. The dissenting opinion was filed by Justice Scalia, who argued that the lower court erred in upholding Amendment 2. The amendment had a significant impact on the legal status of gays and lesbians in the private sphere, particularly in light of modern antidiscrimination laws.

The legal case involves a challenge to Colorado's constitutional amendment prohibiting special protection for homosexuals. The US Supreme Court upholds the constitutionality of the amendment, citing Bowers v. Hardwick and arguing that it is motivated by moral disapproval of homosexual conduct rather than animus towards homosexuality. The Court's argument that homosexuals are not denied equal protection under the law is flawed and undermines constitutional jurisprudence. The Colorado court has already resolved the issue, stating that the amendment only prohibits special treatment of homosexuals, not general laws and policies that prohibit arbitrary discrimination. The Court's assertion that it is not within the constitutional tradition to enact laws that disfavor certain groups is false.

The legal case involves a challenge to antipolygamy provisions in state constitutions. The court suggests that these provisions may be unconstitutional and that polygamy must be allowed unless polygamists have fewer constitutional rights than homosexuals. However, criminalizing polygamy and depriving those who engage in it of the vote is still valid. The author disagrees with the court's decision to take sides in the culture war and invent a new constitutional doctrine to strike down traditional values. The dissenting opinion disagrees with the decision to strike down Amendment 2.