Judge Strikes Down Nebraska Gay Marriage Ban

MSNBC ^ | 05/12/2005 | Tom Curry

[drt1]

Ruling says measure interferes with rights of gays, others. WASHINGTON - In the first time that a federal judge has struck down a state constitutional provision limiting marriage to heterosexual couples, U.S. District Judge Joseph Bataillon on Thursday declared void a provision of the Nebraska constitution that defined marriage as only between a man and a woman and that banned same-sex civil unions, domestic partnerships and other similar relationships.

Bataillon declared in his ruling that under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, Nebraska cannot ban same-sex marriages and civil unions...

[drt1]

"Nebraska voters enacted the provision five years ago, with 70 percent approving it." Here we go again. An unelected Federal Judge substituting his will for that of the people all in the name of 'Upholding The Constitution' (Oh yeah, I remember the part where the Constitution guarantees everyone the right to marry anyone - or anything /sarc)

[andyk]

Bataillon declared in his ruling that under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

Whoa! How on earth is this a violation of equal protection? Everyone shares exactly the same rights to marry.

[PhiKapMom]

Perfect! What a great time to have a federal judge make this ruling -- the RATs are going to wish they had never filibustered judicial nominees before this is over.

Nebraskans are not going to take this lying down -- this may be the ticket to defeating Nelson in the Senate from Nebraska.

[ArmyBratproud]

So a judge thinks he has the power to override the people...who are the ones who set law through their legislators....

Its official....Judges have gone off the deep end.

But then, they are just lawyers with a hammer.

[Borges]

Long thread about this...

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1401997/posts?q=1&&page=1#1

[coffeebreak]

This sort of garbage ruling is why we need a federal marriage amendment that bans homosexual marriage and civil unions. This crap will go on forever until the amendment is passed. READ MY TAGLINE!!!!

[Borges]

Why ban civil unions?

[Pride in the USA]

More evidence of Judicial tyranny.

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

The joke is that the gay activists claim they are being barred from the legislative process. What? They are not participating in the legislative process now. If they did we would have no problem. They SUE for what they want. So the only means WE have of participating in a legislative way is through amendments. What a joke! We are the ones being denied due process. Furthermore, even under the amenment, Nebraska gays could petition their legislature to propose a repeal of the amendment and have another statewide vote. They were not barred from the legislative process. The amendment barred judges from legislating, or so it was supposed to.

Okay states' rights liberals. Where's the outrage? I thought this was a "states rights issue." Bunch of phony, fakey, lying, scamming, manipulators.

[judgeandjury]

Bataillon declared in his ruling that under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, Nebraska cannot ban same-sex marriages and civil unions...

If this is Bataillon's argument, then by default he is also declaring that polygamous marriages can't be banned.

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

Why ban civil unions?

Because they are marriage by another name.

[Malesherbes]

If you Google this Clintonoid judge you get an interesting track record. He has declared electrocution unconstitutional, and once declared a mistrial afer he himself had made a joke that some Mexican plaintiffs deemed insensitive.

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

Frankly, why ban marriage if you don't ban civil unions. Marriage is its substance, not the word.

[Borges]

Well people should be able to establish a legal relationship with someone else for inheritance and right of medical decisions.

[tommix2]

Everyone shares exactly the same rights to marry. Exactly. You have pointed out the fallacy in this ruling. Every man has the right to wed a woman. No man has the right to marry a man. All men have equal rights.

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

You can draw up a contract with someone without calling it marriage or civil union (same thing). That hasn't changed. Pervert A can leave to Pervert B any property he wants via a will. Medical decisions can be legally assigned to whomever you want.

[bill1952]

Sir, you have hit the nail right on the head.

I have quite a few friends in the legal profession, and they all say *exactly* that.

And that is next.

[SALChamps03]

The judge should be removed from the bench for subverting the will of the people.

[coffeebreak]

Well people should be able to establish a legal relationship with someone else for inheritance and right of medical decisions.

Only if the two people are of the opposite sex and the legal relationship is marriage.

Are you sure you're posting in the right group? This isn't DU.

[jwalburg]

yes, but i want to marry my computer! It's not fair!!!!