Posted on 05/12/2005 9:50:55 PM PDT by neverdem
LINCOLN, Neb., May 12 (AP) - A federal judge on Thursday struck down Nebraska's ban on same-sex marriage, saying the measure interfered not only with the rights of gay couples but also with those of foster parents, adopted children and people in a variety of other living arrangements.
The amendment to the state's Constitution, which defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman, was passed overwhelmingly by the voters in November 2000.
The Nebraska ruling is the first in which a federal court has struck down a state ban on same-sex marriage, and conservatives in the United States Senate pointed to it as evidence of the need for a federal constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.
"When we debated the merits of a federal marriage amendment on the Senate floor, opponents claimed that no state laws were threatened, that no judge had ever ruled against state marriage laws," said Senator John Cornyn, Republican of Texas. He added, "After today's ruling, they can no longer make that claim."
The drive for a constitutional amendment stalled out after the last election as Senate leaders said they would await court rulings on the many state constitutional amendments that already ban same-sex marriage.
The judge in the Nebraska case, Joseph F. Bataillon of Federal District Court, said the ban "imposes significant burdens on both the expressive and intimate associational rights" of gay men and lesbians "and creates a significant barrier to the plaintiffs' right to petition or to participate in the political process."
Judge Bataillon said the ban went "far beyond merely defining marriage as between a man and a woman." He 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 went further, prohibiting same-sex couples from enjoying many of the legal protections that heterosexual couples enjoy. Gay men and lesbians who work for the state or the University of Nebraska system, for example, were banned from sharing benefits with their partners.
Nebraska has no state law against same-sex marriage, but Attorney General Jon Bruning said it was not allowed before the ban and would not be permitted now. Mr. Bruning said he would appeal the ruling.
The challenge to the marriage law was filed by the gay rights organization Lambda Legal and the Lesbian and Gay Project of the American Civil Liberties Union.
A lawyer for Lambda Legal, David Buckel, has called the ban "the most extreme anti-gay family law in the entire nation."
Massachusetts has allowed same-sex marriages since last May; Vermont has offered civil unions since 2000. The actions came after courts ruled that gay couples were being discriminated against.
Those court decisions spurred the move last year for a federal constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, a move President Bush has said he supports. A subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee has scheduled a May 19 hearing on the need for such an amendment.
Another case of "the will of the people don't mean squat".
It was inevitable that it would come to this: Judges declaring part of the constitution unconstitutional.
Lambda, who drafted a sodomy legislation with NAMBLA
I can't say I was surprised by this judicial decision.
These black robed activists need to be hammered hard. People need to wake up!!!!
Fine people of Nebraska - ignore the federal judge's ruling! You voted to change your constitution - don't let a federal judge rule over your state rights.
and in doing so, stole from the people something more valuable than gold or silver; their constitutional right to vote and decide how the government is to act. In so doing the judge mad them subjects, no longer citizens.
"I can't say I was surprised by this judicial decision."
Me neither. Judicial arrogance would eventually reach a point where they would not even make a pretext at being bound by the constitution and would merely impose their will by fiat. This is a good example of that.
>>> People need to wake up!!!!
We people are awake. FR even hosted a march on Wasington about them.
We don't elect the judges. What would you suggest?
Impeachment!
Amazing. And we hear the DemocRATS screaming that Bush appointees are out of the mainstream.
This judge has sided with peter puffers his entire career.
" And we hear the DemocRATS screaming that Bush appointees are out of the mainstream."
Great point!
Yeah judge, why should it interfere with the corruption of young innocent minds.
Some people shouldn't be allowed to breed.
How is that done? I would love to know since I'm a blue state denizen.
That's right...we NEED more queers adopting kids and foster parenting about as much as we NEED open borders.
I agree. The governor of Nebraska should just issue an executive order to all state agencies to enforce/observe the law enacted by a vote of the people and tell the judge he is free to try and enforce his ruling.
The time has come for State Gov'ts to tell the Federal Judiciary to stuff it. There is not a damn thing that judge can do except issue a bunch of meaningless orders to obey. If an entire state from the Governor on down refuses to co-operate, what exactly is going to happen?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.