In the Supreme Court case Romer v. Evans in 1996, voters in the state of Colorado approved in a referendum a Second Amendment to their state's Constitution, in order to prevent homosexuals from becoming a protected minority. Before the referendum took place, many of Colorado's major cities passed laws prohibiting people from being discriminated against based on their sexuality, including whether or not they were homosexual. Colorado citizens who disapprove of homosexuality then created a petition to put the Second Amendment to a vote, and won with a majority of 53% of the vote. Richard Evans, with the support of many others, took the amendment to court arguing that it was unconstitutional and should be removed from the Constitution, winning in the Colorado Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court. The court's opinion was held by Justice Kennedy, as the Colorado Amendment was held to be unconstitutional as it violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution. Kennedy argued that the amendment singles out a specific group in which it would ensure that only homosexuals could not receive the protection rights that everyone else has. This idea makes homosexuals unequal to everyone else because they are not afforded the same protection that anyone else could get if they needed it. Furthermore, the amendment burdens the homosexual community by not allowing them to seek protection against discrimination through the use of legislation. Furthermore, Kennedy states, “In an ordinary case, a law will be supported if it can be said to advance a legitimate government interest…” (632). By this he means that a law will be considered valid as long as it has a... .... middle of paper ...... argument because it shows the problems with the amendment and its argument complies with the constitution. Furthermore, Kennedy raises more valid points, while Scalia relies primarily on the reasoning that Kennedy's argument lacks evidence of sufficient legal citations. Furthermore, Kennedy believes that the amendment is unconstitutional on the grounds that it violates the Equal Protection Clause because it denies homosexuals special rights that any other minority has access to and singles out one class that affects rather than creating a general law that affects everyone. . Therefore, Kennedy's argument should prevail because it relies on the Constitution as the primary evidence to show that the amendment is invalid and should not be allowed, and Kennedy believes that the amendment violates the rights of homosexuals, which it clearly does by singling them out as a specific class.