U.S. Judge Rejects Nebraska Gay-Marriage Ban

AP ^ | 5/12/05 | Kevin O'Hanlon

[Crackingham]

A federal judge Thursday struck down Nebraska's ban on gay marriage, saying the measure interferes not only with the rights of gay couples but also with those of foster parents, adopted children and people in a host of other living arrangements. The constitutional amendment, which defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman, was passed overwhelmingly by the voters in November 2000.

U.S. District Judge Joseph Bataillon said the ban "imposes significant burdens on both the expressive and intimate associational rights" of gays "and creates a significant barrier to the plaintiffs' right to petition or to participate in the political process."

Bataillon said the ban beyond "goes far beyond merely defining marriage as between a man and a woman."

The judge said the "broad proscriptions could also interfere with or prevent arrangements between potential adoptive or foster parents and children, related persons living together, and people sharing custody of children as well as gay individuals."

Forty states have laws barring same-sex marriages, but Nebraska's ban is the only one that prevented homosexuals who work for the state or its university system from sharing health insurance and other benefits with their partners.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

Did I read this right?

A judge was able to overturn a state constitutional ammendment?

How on Earth is that even possible?

[FormerLib]

That's the way, judge! Let these peons know that you Annointed types will makes these decisions for us. Democracy be damned!

I do believe the tree of Liberty grows thirsty...

[visualops]

expressive and intimate associational rights

?????????????

More made up rights.

[prairiebreeze]

Nebraska's ban is the only one that prevented homosexuals who work for the state or its university system from sharing health insurance and other benefits with their partners.

Sounds like that was the straw the broke the judges back.

[So Cal Rocket]

Bataillon, Joseph F.

Born 1949 in Omaha, NE

Federal Judicial Service:
U. S. District Court, District of Nebraska
Nominated by William J. Clinton on January 7, 1997, to a seat vacated by Lyle E. Strom; Confirmed by the Senate on September 11, 1997, and received commission on September 18, 1997.

[visualops]

passed overwhelmingly by the voters

Voters, shmoters, who cares what the people want.

[AmericanInTokyo]

We are getting our EIGHT LONG YEARS OF CLINTON right back at us, alright! On the installment plan!

[MeanWestTexan]

"A judge was able to overturn a state constitutional ammendment? How on Earth is that even possible?"

In theory, only when the US Constitution forbids the state action --- for example, the right under some states constitutions to own slaves (I kid not).

In practice, whenever the little pagan dictators in robes say.

[goldstategop]

Yep. Apparently, you CAN ban gay marriage - but it must have no real teeth. That's how this liberal federal judge read it in striking down Nebraska's same sex marriage state constitutional ban.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)

[topher]

Seems like the good people of Nebraska need to get on the band wagon to stop the filibuster and start ringing the phones off the off of their Democratic Senator.

Basically, what the filibuster in the US Senate is trying to do is keep more stupid judges like this in office or put them in office.

Why won't the people of Nebraska take action against their Senator about the filibuster?

[wk4bush2004]

It isn't. But these tyrants think that they can. We must stop them!

[cripplecreek]

I guess that voting thing is just for show these days.

[Steve_Seattle]

Another dictator in black robes. Another POS.

[Cboldt]

Nebraska's ban is the only one that prevented homosexuals who work for the state or its university system from sharing health insurance and other benefits with their partners.

Sounds like that was the straw the broke the judges back.

A number of other state's are similarly afflicted. Quite predictable. What the law is aiming to do is create two labels, "marriage" and "civil union," where eventually both have substantially the same rights and priviliges and legal status. Opposite sex? Married. Same sex? Civil Unioned. "But they aren't married!"

Nebraska - Passed 70-30%
"Marriage ; same-sex relationships not valid or recognized. Only marriage between a man and a woman shall be valid or recognized in Nebraska. The uniting of two persons of the same sex in a civil union, domestic partnership, or other similar same-sex relationship shall not be valid or recognized in Nebraska." (Nebraska Constitution Article I, section 29)

http://www.alliancealert.org/aa2004/2004_11_03.htm

[diverteach]

And the libs wonder why there needs to be a constitutional amendment. All the supporters of it said that this is exactly what was going to happen.

[sdpatriot]

in case anyone missed this one:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1402039/posts


we have here a literal plague of judicial tyrany

[rwilson99]

What part of the 10th amendment does this idiot not understand?

[Myrddin]

In theory, only when the US Constitution forbids the state action --- for example, the right under some states constitutions to own slaves (I kid not).

I don't see this judge striking down anti-gun laws that violate the 2nd amendment. Pretty selective.

[BigFinn]

Looks like Nebraska has it's very own "9th Circus Court". I think all these judges have evolved from the same infected gene pool.

[mmercier]

>> A judge was able to overturn a state constitutional amendment?

You should come to Massachusetts, but here they prevent them from ever appearing on the ballot beforehand...

"Law" is whatever the "judge" says in contemporary America...

"You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you mad." - Huxley

[Luddite Patent Counsel]

No, no no. It's in the Constitution. You just need to look under the emanation, right next to the penumbra over there...

[Cboldt]

Seems like the good people of Nebraska need to get on the band wagon to stop the filibuster and start ringing the phones off the off of their Democratic Senator.

I'd like to see the good people of all of the USA climb on the backs of their Reps and Senators and get some of these judges impeached. They (Congress-critters) have the unqualified constitutional power of impeachment. Sure, there will be arguments about whether the judges have violated "good conduct." But it doesn't make sense to give Congress a limited impeachment power where "good conduct" means "not breaking the law" - it can already cause judges to be arrested for breaking the law ;-)

[TalBlack]

"......these tyrants think that they can. We must stop them!"

If they are not stopped they WILL, one day, go to far. Then, what happens will be out of anyones control. Last election the SCOFLA went too far but was struck down.

[Always Right]

This is why we need a US Constitutional Amendment. A sad state of affairs.

[BlurBlog]

I read about this coming months ago. A federal judge would overturn Nebraska's State Ammendment.

Looks like this is the one that will go to the U.S. Supreme Court. Do you wonder what they will do? Not me. Kill the Fillibuster, NOW!

[mlc9852]

You can associate with whomever you wish - you just can't marry them. You can't marry your parent or sibling or first cousin or your dog. But it doesn't matter. Judges rule America.

[RoseofTexas]

"We are getting our EIGHT LONG YEARS OF CLINTON right back at us, alright! On the installment plan!"


The scriptures state..."If a Nation elects a wicked leader(clinton) it reap much wicked fruit!" Yep, God did warn us...:(
But God goes on farther and says, "A Nation that elects a righteous leader(Bush) reaps much good fruit!" I believe the latter will bare fruit, only to have the BEAST of NY get credit for it in the long run if she is elected prez!! :(

[weegee]

BUMP

[Search4Truth]

If the traditional American marriage of man and woman needs the protection of the US government, then it is already dead. Killed by feminism and every person who embraced it. We are now only protecting the memory of what was.

The homosexuals are never far behind the feminists in their assault on everything American. Neither are their communist attack dogs the ACLU. These vultures always work together to the destruction of all that is godly. We are seeing the very same thing happening in the Christian churches now.

This is all the result of decades of compromising with evil. All that is left now is tradition and the law.

[Centurion2000]

A federal judge Thursday struck down Nebraska's ban on gay marriage, saying the measure interferes not only with the rights of gay couples but also with those of foster parents, adopted children and people in a host of other living arrangements

Not f^&king possible. I hate judges now ... these idiots are destroying our country and wiping out the respect for the law that used to be so prevalent in the United States.

[GLDNGUN]

A judge was able to overturn a state constitutional ammendment?

How on Earth is that even possible?

I don't know. It boggles the mind. Since the idea of "balance of powers" is now just a theory or ideal, and the judicial branch is most powerful, why do we have the people vote on anything or a legislature? I guess we should just have judges look at proposed laws and make rulings, up or down. End of discussion.

[inquest]

Confirmed by the Senate on September 11, 1997

And the Senate was controlled by...?

[Luna]

I guess it really doesn't matter what the voters want. They're just stupid, anyway, right?. Don't know what's good for them. Let the little tyrants in black robes sitting on a bench tell the masses what laws they should or should not have.

Impeach these judges that legislate from their high and mighty benches. I'm sick of them.

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

and creates a significant barrier to the plaintiffs' right to petition or to participate in the political process."

What about our right to participate? We haven't been able to participate unless we get these amendments because the courts are deciding these issues. So that's where we stand. Gays have more rights than everyone else.

I hate these activist judges.

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

expressive and intimate associational rights

Even if they were "rights," why does that obligate me to provide insurance for them -- if I were a resident of Nebraska. I am resenting these activist judges BIG TIME!

[Dante3]

Judges in this country are trying to take on the powers of dictators and disregard laws and the Constitution at their whim.

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

What gets me too is the perversity-diversity crew always says "you don't need an amendment because the law already bans it..." So if the AMENDMENT is unconstitutional, the judge would also find the laws unconstituitonal. They want to trap us. We can't win.

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

Yep. Apparently, you CAN ban gay marriage - but it must have no real teeth. That's how this liberal federal judge read it in striking down Nebraska's same sex marriage state constitutional ban.

So we worry about their right to use the legislative process while we ban our use of same. All roads lead the same direction -- gay marriage or its equivalent. No choice.

[goldstategop]

Of course. "Rights" invented out whole cloth. For the record the judge is dead wrong about homosexuals' rights being abridged or denied. All the amendment simply said was same sex marriage or civil unions would not have legal status in Nebraska law. It did not prevent same sex couples from living together or investing or saving for the future. DUH.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)

[goldstategop]

Exactly. The aim is to prevent the people from taking a social direction liberals wish to block.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)

[Cboldt]

This is why we need a US Constitutional Amendment. A sad state of affairs.

Language is a flexible thing. A Constitutional amendment only stalls the process while a new label is developed, and maybe until about one generation passes.

Campaign Finance Reform law prohibits some organizations from buying air time for politically-motivated advocay ads, yet SCOTUS ruled no infringement on the 1st Amendment.

Or slightly more arcane and less weighty, the VI Amendment recites "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed ..." but see Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 US 145 (1968) ,which holds there is no right to a jury trial if the maximum penalty is less than 6 months imprisonment.

It is doubtless true that there is a category of petty crimes or offenses which is not subject to the Sixth Amendment jury trial provision and should not be subject to the Fourteenth Amendment jury trial requirement here applied to the States. Crimes carrying possible penalties up to six months do not require a jury trial if they otherwise qualify as petty offenses.

[goldstategop]

Don't forget international jurisprudence, increasingly adopted by U.S Courts, that's tilted to the Left. Expect rulings from liberal judges sanctioning every wish list item of the liberal agenda by means of interpreting constitutional law as a "living tree" that grows new branches of law to fit a given era's new needs.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)

[AuH2ORepublican]

"This is why we need a US Constitutional Amendment."

---

Absolutely. Anyone who still thinks it isn't necessary is sticking his head in the sand.

[planekT]

...U.S. District Judge Joseph Bataillon struck down Thursday Nebraska's constitutional provision prohibiting gay marriage or civil unions....

Hey, that's great. Thanks Judge. By the way, you're retired.

---

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1378491/posts

From the article:

"In 1802, the Jeffersonians, faced with courts deliberately packed by the Federalists, passed the Judiciary Act of 1802, which abolished over half of all the sitting federal circuit judges. The act didn’t impeach them; it simply said their jobs didn’t exist. They wouldn’t be paid, so they shouldn’t bother to show up. The judges were deeply offended. They promptly went to court, and the remaining federal judges essentially said, if we overrule the Congress, they’re going to abolish our jobs".

---

What we need to do does not require an amendment to the Constituion. It requires our Congress to act as they once did when faced with a hostile judiciary. No messy time consuming impeachments are needed. Just get rid of a few of them, starting with the two clowns at the Ninth Circus (pedge of allegiance case) an maybe a few dozen more, like this Clintoon appointee.

If that doesn't get their attention, then liquidate the positions of a bunch more and keep it up until they either get the message or are all filling out applications at McDonalds.

planekT

[Always Right]

Absolutely. Anyone who still thinks it isn't necessary is sticking his head in the sand.

Yep, you look pretty stupid when you call it a state issue while the federal courts are turning over the state's laws.

[Always Right]

Campaign Finance Reform law prohibits some organizations from buying air time for politically-motivated advocay ads, yet SCOTUS ruled no infringement on the 1st Amendment.

I am still shocked over that ruling. I figured old ACLUer Ginsburg was a sure thing to come over to the right side. Most surpised I've ever been over a ruling.

[madprof98]

Neither Google nor Yahoo News lists this as a top story. I suspect it will be back-paged (and left unmentioned on network news) in the hope that nobody will notice a federal judge has put down the people again.

[XR7]