Federal judge rules gay marriage ban unconstitutional (Nebraska)

Omaha World Herald ^ | 5/12/05 | Todd Cooper

[jebanks]

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

The constitutional amendment, known as Initiative 416, passed in 2000 with 70 percent of the vote. It prevents homosexuals who work for the state or the University of Nebraska system from sharing health insurance and other benefits with their partners.

A group of lesbian and gay couples sued the state of Nebraska, contending the act barred "lesbian, gay and bisexual people from using the ordinary political process to seek important legal protections that all other Nebraskans already have."

Forty states have so-called "Defense of Marriage'' laws, but Nebraska's ban is the only one that explicitly prohibits same-sex couples from enjoying many of the legal protections that heterosexual couples enjoy.

[johnb838]

It only takes a majority of both houses and the president to declare an act out of the jurisdiction of the court. The constitution is extraordinarily clear on this. Of course the emanations and penumbras may say something different, not to mention international law.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Who knows what you may have read but ignorance of the constitution is rampant. Of course a state constitutional amendment can be challenged. You think NY could pass a law making slavery legal again?

So Yes you are mistaken and Yes it can be appealed to USSC and likely will be.

[goldstategop]

That's why the ACLU is jubilant about today's ruling out of Nebraska. To them, its just a matter of time before all the Christian homophobes and fag haters are put in their place. And they have plenty of allies in the judiciary to assist them towards this endeavor.

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

[johnb838]

They will say it meant something other than what it plainly states.

[goldstategop]

I don't see the point of the distinction. If you like living under rules made up by liberals you can't change, then by all means, accept judicial review for what is in that regard. Don't expect the rest of us to just sit there and take more of it.

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

[justshutupandtakeit]

Judicial review was assumed by the founders and Hamilton, for one, had been involved in one of the major cases of judicial review by a local court in NY, Rutgers v. Weddington. It would be impossible to have a Law of the Land without jr.

[JoeV1]

Thanks.

[justshutupandtakeit]

The Founders were very careful to ensure that the Law was NOT decided by popularity contests and direct votes of the people. They were completely opposed to Democracy (a negative term to them) precisely because judges should not rule based upon populatity. This was why they mandated lifetime appointment for federal judges and called for judicial independence.

[justshutupandtakeit]

This is not an impeachable offense.

[chs68]

Gee, I sort of remember John Kerry, John Edwards, Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, and all the other "more enlightened" philosoophers kings reassuring all of us last Fall that no Amendment to the United States Constitution banning same-sex marriages was necessary.

As I recall, they said it would be just "cluttering up" the Constitution.

They said is was a mere "political stunt", if I recall correctly.

Guess the judge who ruled in the Nebraska case proved them all wrong.

[goldstategop]

That was to limit the powers of the federal government vs. the states. The Framers wanted to ensure the elected branches of government could not assume more power than the Constitution granted them. This was the original intent of judicial review. Now, if that's all it was, no one would now seek to get rid of it. Since that time, its been changed and disfigured into an instrument of liberal supremacy over the interests of society. Since liberals can't win elections at the ballot box, they rely increasingly on judges to muscle through their agenda for them. Judicial review is then, no longer about limiting government power but about ensuring liberal ideology is victorious in the law even when its rejected by the voters. That's why its got to go.

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

[Borges]

Thanks for your rationality on this issue. Part of me understands the emotional overreaction of many when it comes to these matters but it certainly isn't anymore becoming.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Marshall's reasoning was always based upon Hamilton. He said that compared to Hamilton's judicial understanding Marshall's was "like a taper to the sun." It is unfortunate that H could not accept a nomination to the USSC because of his financial needs (he had 8 children.)

[goldstategop]

No one says judges should not rule objectively. But they can't do that when they are captives of liberal interest groups. These judges have no accountability and that's why lifetime tenure and judicial review have to be revisited.

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

[wk4bush2004]

But he undermined the will of the people.

[goldstategop]

Do you see me overreacting emotionally? I replied with facts, logic and good datum. Of course there's also an element of righteous anger. If you were one of the 70% in Nebraska, how does it feel to have ONE judge tell you that your views are outdated, reactionary, and unenlightened? I don't hate gays and lesbians; I just happen to think their lifestyle is NOT good public policy for the survival of our nation.

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

[Borges]

Violating the 'Will of the People' is an impeachable offense in communist dictatorships not Constitutional Republics.

[johnb838]

I expect the polygamists to get a test case up very soon. Very soon. I mean, muzzies have rights too, and if the homos can marry, why can't a good muzzie man of means have up to four wives as prescribed by his holy book? It's not fair, and not right, if you're going to have homo-marriage.

[Borges]

I wasn't so much reffering to you as those who called for immediate impeachment and or lynching. There was already a post deleted from this thread for that reason.

[wk4bush2004]

But we can't allow these judges to go rampant.