[Gabz]

It would seem that in defending John Roberts involvement in this case, many FReepers are either forgetting or overlooking the facts.

You are right - many are.

One of the upteen other threads on this subject had more details regarding this. the argument had more to do with the specific wording of the amendment, rather than the issue of homosexual rights (or whatever).

Improperly worded amendments are worth about as much as unconstitutional ones. Just because you agree with a particular amendment does not mean it can not be struck down for legitimate reasons.

[AntiGuv]

Well, I've read the Romer v Evans ruling and by no stretch did it hinge on some technicality. The ruling overruled precisely what Amendment 2 was meant to accomplish.

[ModelBreaker]

Improperly worded amendments are worth about as much as unconstitutional ones. Just because you agree with a particular amendment does not mean it can not be struck down for legitimate reasons.

Here's a link to the Romer decision.

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/romer.html

Read the decision and Scalia's dissent and see if you can find any constitutional basis for the Court's decision other than, 'we're the Supremes and we think this is a bad law. Therefore, it has to be in the constitution.'