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...

[judgeandjury]

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.

Yes, it is indeed the proverbial slippery slope. That's why we must keep up the fight against legalizing same-sex marriage.

[coffeebreak]

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

Hey, can't ban bestiality either.

[Amerigomag]

Two subjects dear to our hearts and the scourage of the Bush administration.

LIBERAL, ACTIVIST JUDGES

THE 14TH AMENDMENT

Thank Franklin Roosevelt for the demise of our republic.

[drt1]

Could not have said it any better! It is WE who are being denied rights by these ideologues and activists masquerading as judges.

[Borges]

Actually those rights are available to anyone through right of contract. My concern is that a ban on civil unions would interfere with the individuals right of contract so spare me the DU crap.

[drt1]

Sorry. I hate repeat posts too! I did a search a 'Gay', 'Marriage' and 'Ban' and nothing came up. Between the Search function and Spell check methinks some improvements in software are needed.

[Brilliant]

These Clinton appointees who the GOP blocked from being confirmed sure have caused a lot of damage.

[Borges]

That's OK! I just wanted to point anyone intertested in this to a very lively thread.

[Brilliant]

Why ban beastiality? Why ban polygamy? Why ban sex with children?

[trebb]

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...

Soon, I expect to se this same lame argument when these Godless, evil judges try to defend pedophiles and their "right" to have gratifying sex with kids. Satan is doing much of what the terrorists in Iraq are doing and going on a spree as he sees good people trying to stand up against the evil.

[Borges]

See the first part of the second sentence of Post 25.

[bill1952]

Look at Sweden.

[Blood of Tyrants]

But Justice Sandra Day O'Connor has said that it is perfectly okay to ignore the 14th Amendment if you want.

[Brilliant]

Hmmmm... So hire someone to commit murder, that's OK because it would otherwise be an interference with my right of contract?

[Brilliant]

Hmmmm... So if I hire someone to commit murder, that's OK because it would otherwise be an interference with my right of contract?

[Accidentally omitted some words]

[Borges]

I'm not sure I follow. Murder is already illegal. Homosexuality is not. Marriage is something sanctioned by the government therefore we have a right as a people to decide what Marriage is. However, the right of adults to contract something not already illegal cannot be curtailed based on something unrelated to why they are contracting. (ie sexuality). Are you actually suggesting that if some gay guy dies and leaves property to some other gay guy then the government invalidate the contract and seize the property?

[coffeebreak]

Actually those rights are available to anyone through right of contract. My concern is that a ban on civil unions would interfere with the individuals right of contract so spare me the DU crap.

Homosexuality is a mental disorder, understand now?! Both homosexual marriage and civil unions should be banned.

I don't talk to anyone who supports any aspect of the homosexual agenda, so bye.

[quantim]

My concern is that a ban on civil unions would interfere with the individuals right of contract

This is indeed a big can of worms when dealing with employee benefits like 'state union employees' that are funded by taxpayers.  I honestly don't think most people care about homo bonds but many are concerned on how much it will cost them in increased state taxes for their benefits.  I'm one of them.

[rwfromkansas]

Why?

[Borges]

Thanks for not addressing my concern about the 'Right of contract' issue which I regard as a fundamental part of the conservative agenda.