. . . . . . "Scalia"@en . "32197"^^ . . . . "Romer v. Evans,"@en . "Romer v. Evans"@fr . . . . . . . . "--05-20"^^ . . . "Romer v. Evans"@en . "Roy Romer, Governor of Colorado, et al. v. Richard G. Evans, et al."@en . . . "17280.0"^^ . . . ""@en . . . . . . . "Roy Romer, Governor of Colorado, et al. v. Richard G. Evans, et al."@en . . . "L'arr\u00EAt Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996), est un arr\u00EAt de la Cour supr\u00EAme des \u00C9tats-Unis rendu le 20 mai 1996, concernant l'orientation sexuelle et les lois des \u00C9tats. Il s'agit de la premi\u00E8re d\u00E9cision relative aux droits LGBT depuis l'arr\u00EAt Bowers v. Hardwick de 1986, confirmant les constitutionnalit\u00E9 des lois anti-sodomie."@fr . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . "L'arr\u00EAt Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996), est un arr\u00EAt de la Cour supr\u00EAme des \u00C9tats-Unis rendu le 20 mai 1996, concernant l'orientation sexuelle et les lois des \u00C9tats. Il s'agit de la premi\u00E8re d\u00E9cision relative aux droits LGBT depuis l'arr\u00EAt Bowers v. Hardwick de 1986, confirmant les constitutionnalit\u00E9 des lois anti-sodomie. La Cour juge, six votes contre trois, que l'amendement 2 \u00E0 la Constitution du Colorado, qui interdit les l\u00E9gislations contre la discrimination envers les personnes homosexuelles et bisexuelles, ne satisfait pas \u00E0 la clause d'\u00E9gale protection pr\u00E9vue par le XIVe amendement de la Constitution des \u00C9tats-Unis. L'opinion majoritaire affirme que l'amendement manque d'un \u00AB lien rationnel avec les int\u00E9r\u00EAts l\u00E9gitimes de l'\u00C9tat \u00BB, et l'opinion dissidente rel\u00E8ve que la majorit\u00E9 \u00AB de tout \u00E9vidence est d'accord que le fondement rationnel \u2014 le test normal pour la conformit\u00E9 \u00E0 la clause d'\u00E9gale protection \u2014 est le standard dirigeant \u00BB. L'amendement ne passe pas l'analyse du \u00AB fondement rationnel \u00BB. La d\u00E9cision Romer v. Evans est annonciatrice d'autres arr\u00EAts importants pour les droits des personnes homosexuelles : Lawrence v. Texas, effectuant en 2003 un revirement de la jurisprudence Bowers, (en), annulant en 2013 la section 3 du Defense of Marriage Act, et Obergefell v. Hodges l\u00E9galisant en 2015 le mariage homosexuel \u00E0 l'\u00E9chelle du pays. Dans ces quatre arr\u00EAts, l'opinion majoritaire est r\u00E9dig\u00E9e par Anthony Kennedy."@fr . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . "172800.0"^^ . . . . . . . . . "Rehnquist, Thomas"@en . . . . . . . . . . . "Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996), is a landmark United States Supreme Court case dealing with sexual orientation and state laws. It was the first Supreme Court case to address gay rights since Bowers v. Hardwick (1986), when the Court had held that laws criminalizing sodomy were constitutional."@en . . . . . . "1995"^^ . . . "1996"^^ . . . . . . . . . . . . . "Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996), is a landmark United States Supreme Court case dealing with sexual orientation and state laws. It was the first Supreme Court case to address gay rights since Bowers v. Hardwick (1986), when the Court had held that laws criminalizing sodomy were constitutional. The Court ruled in a 6\u20133 decision that a state constitutional amendment in Colorado preventing protected status based upon homosexuality or bisexuality did not satisfy the Equal Protection Clause. The majority opinion in Romer stated that the amendment lacked \"a rational relationship to legitimate state interests\", and the dissent stated that the majority \"evidently agrees that 'rational basis'\u2014the normal test for compliance with the Equal Protection Clause\u2014is the governing standard\". The state constitutional amendment failed rational basis review. The decision in Romer set the stage for Lawrence v. Texas (2003), where the Court overruled its decision in Bowers; for the Supreme Court ruling striking down Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act in United States v. Windsor (2013); and for the Court's ruling striking down state bans on same-sex marriage in Obergefell v. Hodges (2015). Justice Anthony Kennedy authored all four opinions, and was joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer in every one."@en . . . . . . . . . . . "620"^^ . . . "1117368514"^^ . . . . . . . "Kennedy"@en . "517"^^ . . "An amendment to the Colorado Constitution that prevents protected status under the law for homosexuals or bisexuals violates the Equal Protection Clause because it is not rationally related to a legitimate state interest. Supreme Court of Colorado affirmed."@en . . . "Stevens, O'Connor, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer"@en . . . . . . . . . "--10-10"^^ . . "Romer v. Evans"@en . . . . . . . "U.S. Const. amend. XIV; Colo. Const. art. II, \u00A7 30b"@en . . . . "None"@en . . . "146577"^^ . . . . . .