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?
Well that's from Schumer and his ilk. What did you expect?
I'm not exactly sure but I believe it can be done through Congress. Another option would be for Congress simply to eliminate those judges positions, pending the creation of new positions. Failing every other remedy we have the call to arms and rebellion against an unyielding tyranny. That is of course a last resort, but one which has been used before. First the people must demonstrate a clear political will. It may come in conjunction with this issue of gay marriage or possibly the illegals issue. Else we can just kiss our Republic goodbye and get used to sucking hind tit to every special interest that the fertile mind of these folks can come up with.
I M P E A C H
The obvious thing is to change the US Constitution.
...Another case of "the will of the people don't mean squat"...
Perhaps the money of the people will mean something, when we put our foot down.
Imagine Justice so and so, without a job.
More Judicial activism. If the three branches of government are equal, why do the judges always get the last word? And why does their last word become law?
Ping!
Hmmm... the Slimes didn't say who appointed this guy. They do that for judges appointed by Republicans...
http://clinton6.nara.gov/1996/03/1996-03-06-bataillon-named-to-us-district-court.html
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
I'm almost glad. Let's have this fight. It's go time.
Good, another ballot measure will have to be written and voted on in 06. These ballot measures do draw out the base and that ain't good for demoRATS.
This is not meant to sound in any way impudent, but exactly who the hell is running the bloody show over there?
I know. I figured it was either the bent one or the Nobel Prize winner. When it's in breaking news or front page news, you should scan the thread for links. You might save yourself some work. Thanks for the link anyway. ;^)
The black robes think they have the final word since the Madison versus Marbury decision in the early 1800s.
Any chance the people might get a say any time soon?
I'm not optimistic that the U.S. Constitution will be amended any time soon. It would need a two thirds vote in both the House and Senate and ratification by three quarters of state governments, i.e. 38 states. That's a tall order. The people have no direct say. It's just through their legislators. This court decision might be vacated on appeal. God knows how this will play out.
Judicial activism gone wild.
Those who are complaining about judicial activism should start eliminating judicial activism in their own states. It is much easier to do that in your state rather than taking on the entire federal government.
That's not quite true. The 18th Amendment, Prohibition was repealed by the 21st Amendment in 1933 in what was then record time for a proposed Amendment. The 21st Amendment was ratified by the neccessary three-fourths of the States by the OTHER method for State ratification that is in the Constitution, State Conventions. Once it could get out of the Congress (very long shot), it was done by State Conventions there is a good chance that it would pass since it would (in most States) only take a majority popular vote to ratify the proposed Amendment.
In fact, I think that so-called 'social' Amendments to the Constitution should be by State Convention, with the Legislature used for other types of Amendments...
dvwjr
Amazing, the opinion of one wacko Judge overturns the will of the people. I know that even the liberals can see that this is wrong
Michael Savage is right. Is isn't one man, one vote. It is one judge, no votes. In another era, this judge would be tarred, feathered and ridden out of town on a rail . . . if he were lucky.
Just another case of the out-of-control judges legislating from the bench. The people's voice (vote) doesn't mean squat!
Actually this is a good thing because it won't stick and it serves as a great reminder of what has to be done to get control of the judges. These mutts can't help themselves. They do what low lifes do and this will keep the fire burning.
WE may not "elect" THEM , but we certainly elect those who appoint them.....duh
>>> WE may not "elect" THEM , but we certainly elect those who appoint them.....duh
WE do? Do you need the links to the voter fraud bump lists?
>>>>Another option would be for Congress simply to eliminate those judges positions, pending the creation of new positions.
That would be nice. I doubt that would happen though. Did you see the thread yesterday with Byrd and Frist going at it about the filibustering? I can't wait until Deep Throat is finally out of there.
>>> Failing every other remedy we have the call to arms and rebellion against an unyielding tyranny.
The Minutemen Project will be starting in Texas and ideally spreading to all the border states. They work unarmed for now; but the force will send a message.
A B.S. decision and a logical nullity. Nebraska should enforce the ban vigorously.
How crude and politically incorrect!
I COULDN'T HAVE SAID IT BETTER!
Same sex marriage and custody of children are two separate issues
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.