The eight days of testimony heard during the Amendment 2 trial in Denver were a rare, in-depth examination of the basis for legal limits on protection of homosexual behavior.

Denver District Judge Jeffrey Bayless’s courtroom featured a parade of experts from Harvard, Princeton, Yale, and Duke universities. Homosexuality was scrutinized from every conceivable angle—legal, political, historical, medical, and scientific.

At the conclusion of the trial in late October, Bayless was not saying how soon he would render a verdict on Amendment 2, the Colorado initiative that struck down existing homosexual-rights legislation.

Bayless spoke for many state residents who are growing tired of the protracted legal battle when he said, “The sooner I will be able to rule, the happier I will be.” An appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court is likely regardless of the judge’s ruling.

Last November, 53 percent of Colorado’s voters supported Amendment 2, the first successful statewide effort to counteract what many conservative Christians see as a growing wave of homosexual activism. The amendment struck down homosexual-rights ordinances previously passed in Denver, Boulder, and Aspen and said that no future state laws could grant “protected status” or quota preferences “based on homosexual, lesbian or bisexual orientation.”

A suit was filed last November alleging that Amendment 2 violated the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution. Bayless has issued an order preventing the state from enforcing the amendment.

Throughout the testimony, Bayless heard complicated and often contradictory opinions on the origins of sexual orientation and the status of homosexuals in America. Colorado Attorney General Gale Norton, leading the state’s defense of the ...

Subscriber access only You have reached the end of this Article Preview

To continue reading, subscribe now. Subscribers have full digital access.

Have something to add about this? See something we missed? Share your feedback here.

Our digital archives are a work in progress. Let us know if corrections need to be made.