At the constitutional crossroads: Gays, lesbians and the failure of class-based equal protection

This dissertation examines the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution. It focuses on the following three questions: (1) Why has the Court created an equal protection jurisprudence that divides citizens into different categories such as "suspect classes", "quasi-suspect classes", and nonprotected classes, and which varies the level of constitutional protection depending upon class membership? (2) what effect does this jurisprudence have on how courts have responded to the constitutional rights claims of gays and lesbians? (3) what effect does this jurisprudence have on how the general public thinks about the issue of gay and lesbian rights?;The thesis of the dissertation is that current equal protection doctrine is flawed because it divides people into different classes with different levels of constitutional rights. This has produced a jurisprudence which fails the promise of equal justice for all.;The dissertation also includes an empirical study of the public debate in Colorado leading up to the vote over Amendment 2, the amendment to the Colorado Constitution which nullified laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. It concludes that legal terminology became an important part of the public debate over Amendment 2 and that constitutional doctrine had a significant effect on how Colorado voters viewed the issue of gay and lesbian rights.;The dissertation also includes suggestions for reforming equal protection jurisprudence so that all citizens receive the same level of constitutional protection from discriminatory laws.