Equal Protection, Romer v. Evans

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

This is the one of those "wet" is "dry" activist decisions that is truly repugnant.  Invoking Harlan I in defense of a law that establishes a class among citizens is truly standing the plain meaning of what he said upside-down.  However, if one accepts that the Civil Rights Act of 1968 and title II and VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 are constitutional due to the Equal Protection Clause, then consistency forces one to conclude that Amendment 2 is unconstitutional.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I don't know about the 1968 act.

The 1968 act basically did for equal housing on a Federal level what had already been tackled by California law and that law had been the subject of Reitman v. Mulkey (1967) which was decided based on the Equal Protection Clause.  I haven't read the Romer decision, but if didn't cite Reitman it should have a least cited a decision that cited Reitman as there are a number of parallels between the two cases.