Communications and Legislation Intern
I am going to say right off the bat that I am a constitutional law nerd (really: I carry around a pocket-sized Constitution in my backpack and often read court opinions for fun) so forgive me in advance; there will be a lot of references to Supreme Court cases and precedents while I’m writing this blog. This semester, I’m taking a course called “Equal Protection,” which focuses on the constitutionality of laws in relation to the Equal Protection Clauses of the of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.
I find these ever-evolving issues fascinating, and love studying cases that are legally complex and intellectually stimulating. In our first lesson, we discussed four cases that considered the constitutionality of laws and statutes that discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation, one of which is Romer v. Evans. This was a case that was heard by the Supreme Court in 1996 that reviewed an amendment to the Colorado Constitution which prohibited any state government action from creating provisions that would protect people that were involved in "homosexual, lesbian or bisexual orientation, conduct, practices or relationships." The Court struck down the amendment, saying it was a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.
The discussion in our class focused more on the language of the amendment, specifically, trying to identify what the lawmakers at the time considered “homosexual conduct.” We came to the general consensus that one, it is quite difficult to define homosexual conduct for lawmaking purposes, and two, that whatever that conduct is, it does not affect the ability of a person to be a contributing member of society and people who partake in “homosexual conduct” should not be barred from doing so.
On first read, I believed the decision in Romer was completely out of date and thought it ridiculous that a law of this nature would ever arise again; I was wrong. While there will never be a law on the books that explicitly prohibits protection of a class of people because of the precedent set in Romer, there is no law--state or federal--that mandates the protection of the LGBTQ community. While many municipalities and states have implemented protections of their own for their constituents, there are too many people in this country who are not afforded the protections that they deserve as human beings who live in the United States of America, a country that prides itself on “liberty and justice for all.”
PFLAG National is an organization that is fighting to end the two types of inequalities that we see in society: social and political inequality. People tend to be afraid of what they do not know, and PFLAG National is dedicated to bringing about social equality through support and education. As for political equality, PFLAG is a fierce advocate for equality in the political sphere, and it is because of this that I knew that PFLAG was where I wanted to be. Over the next two and a half months, I will write about what I am learning and experiencing at PFLAG and the impact of the changes that are taking place in the LGBTQ community almost daily. I am thrilled to be working with such an incredible organization to both further my beliefs in a way that could never be taught in a classroom and to help PFLAG further their goals for making society a more equal, affirming, and safe place for everyone.