In this transcript of the June 13, 1996, broadcast of "The Lawyers Guild Show" James Lafferty hosts Lorri Jean, the Executive Director of the Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Center, Jon Davidson, Supervising Attorney of the L.A. office of the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund and Prof. Christine Littleton, UCLA Law School, in a discussion regarding the significance and implications of the Romer decision. The conversation includes a brief discussion of the background of Amendment 2, the arguments made by the State of Colorado and a commentary on Justice Scalia's use of the term "Kulturkampf," concluding that the decision, although a major victory for gays and lesbians, the end of the "gay and lesbian exception" to the Constitution, is not likely to herald the end of discrimination against gays and lesbians in other legal areas.

In this piece, Prof. Adams considers the likely effect of the Romer decision on existing anti-gay ballot initiatives. After reviewing the holding, Prof. Adams discusses the ballot measure process, the impact of the decision on initiatives and referendums, and how the gay and lesbian community should respond to such ballot measures. Prof. Adams concludes that, despite Romer, ballot measures will likely continue to be used against the gay and lesbian community, and that therefore the community should develop strategies to deal with them.

In this piece Prof. Cox discusses the impact of the Romer decision on statutes denying recognition of same-sex marriages. Prof. Cox reviews such legislation, passed in anticipation of the legalization of same-sex marriage in Hawaii, and explains how choice-of-law rules apply. She then reviews the Romer decision and applies its principles to anti-recognition statutes concluding that these statutes violate the Equal Protection Clause in the same way the Court found Amendment 2 violated it.

In this piece Prof. Fajer discusses the relationship between the Bowers v. Hardwick and Romer decisions, arguing that Justice Scalias assertion that Bowers provides a rational basis for Amendment 2 ignores (1) reality, including non-enforcement of sodomy statutes (2) that those perceived to be gay, whether correctly or incorrectly , can suffer discrimination and (3) that anti-discrimination laws protect both gay and straight individuals. He concludes that, contrary to Scalias position, Bowers in no way resolves the issues raised by Romer.