Judge Voids Same-Sex Marriage Ban in Nebraska

NY Times ^ | May 13, 2005 | THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

[Calpernia]

Now that is an interesting approach!

Bump!

[jude24]

What about the Supreme Court, whose jurisdiction the Congress cannot remove?

[jcb8199]

How can it be unconstitutional if it is an amendment to the constitution?

[longtermmemmory]

the law has devolved into mere doublespeak.

Ignorance is strength.

Though not published, judges have been "whispering" how they will bypass the amendments to force homosexual mariage on the public.

For example since the first marriage amendments were silent as to civil unions, they would impose civil unions 100% equal to marriage (in all but child bearing) by saying the homosexual marriage was not marriage.

This just has just done that by declaring that sexual satisfaction must be accomondated as a matter of law. Love has NEVER been part of the law of marriage, love is just a homo talking point to justify their orgasm fetish.

This now goes to appeal.

[Calvinist_Dark_Lord]

What about the Supreme Court, whose jurisdiction the Congress cannot remove?

Re-read the Constitution. i think you'll find an interesting clause there dealing with "and such lesser courts..." While it has been interpreted so as to refer the lower level Federal Judiciary, one could easily argue that it can also mean "instead of", referring to special tribunals. In the event of national emergency where martial law is declared, this would certainly be the case, as the military takes over all judicial function.

AT any rate, the SCOTUS is a managable problem. After all, there are only nine Justices at any one time. It is much easier to impeach and remove (at the most) nine Judges, rather than review the ENTIRE federal Judiciary. It would certainly be cheaper, and far more expedient to act as i propose earlier, remove the court, and retain the Judge, who becomes, at this point, a figurehead with no authority.

Radical, i admit, however not illegal, and practical, given our present times.

Please also note FOR THE RECORD, that this idea has not originated with me. Rather, it was pubically articulated by Newt Gingrich recently.

All of which begs the question of how SCOTUS can presume to rule on an issue which they are party to. By any definition, it would be a blatant conflict of interest, and SCOTUS would have to recuse itself.

[concerned about politics]

The judge was appointed by Clinton and worked for the pro-homo DNC in Nebraska before coming a judge.
The people of Nebraska have just suffered under the heavy hand of a left wing activist dictator.
NOW they know first hand why Bush's judges have to be approved. NOW they understand personally why the republicans are right.I hope the entire nation gets to hear this because they're next!

[concerned about politics]

thats why federal marriage amendment is needed, to stop this nitpicking gayctivist judges from picking apart states' marriage laws,

I agree. The fags are trying to force their dysfunctional sex fetish on the rest of the country as "normal" and equal to marriage. That would make a man having sex with a dog a "marriage."

[neverdem]

How can it be unconstitutional if it is an amendment to the constitution?

This federal robe has decided that the state's amendment violates previous federal penumbras.

[Luke21]

You think it's a coincidence that you pass through metal detectors to get within a stone's throw of these black robed dictators?

[paul_fromatlanta]

>>How can it be unconstitutional if it is an amendment to the constitution?<<

State constitutions cannot violate the Federal constitution.

[paul_fromatlanta]

>>I agree. The fags are trying to force their dysfunctional sex fetish on the rest of the country as "normal" and equal to marriage. That would make a man having sex with a dog a "marriage."<<

That, has to be most negative and least true post I've seen on Freep.

These are human beings and American citizens we are talking about.

[Skybird]

One solitary man...trumping the Nebraska hundred member legislature and negating the constitution of its million people.

Actually there's only 49 senators in the single-house Unicameral legislature and we have about 1.6 million in population.

[lentulusgracchus]

Here's the Clinton Administration's squib on the judge when he was appointed in January 1997 (right after Slick beat Dole):

Joseph F. Bataillon is an attorney with the Omaha law firm of Sodoro, Daly & Sodoro, where he has practiced since 1980. Previously, he was a Deputy Public Defender for Douglas County and a Defense Counsel Judge Advocate General in the United States Army Reserve. Bataillon earned his J.D. and B.A. degrees from Creighton University. He and his wife, Pamela, have five children and reside in Omaha.

Press release here:
http://clinton6.nara.gov/1997/01/1997-01-07-names-of-twenty-two-for-federal-bench-resubmitted.html

[lentulusgracchus]

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.

Actually, you don't need the Congress and the legislatures to amend the Constitution. If the People are hot enough about it, they can do it by convention.

[lentulusgracchus]

Read your homepage. Hi there, liberal. Welcome to FR.

That, has to be most negative and least true post I've seen on Freep.

Really? Let me link you to some drive-by posts by gay "seminar" posters on FR.....oh, wait, they usually get zotted. Well, they say things like "you people are so negative" and "you people are so small and mean and obsessed with homosexuality" (translation: back off, stupid, we're doing our propaganda and we don't need your comments, and if you stick around I'm going to make sure everyone suspects you're a closet case).

So I had to post one of their attacks for them, since they get spotted and zotted pretty quickly as seminar disruptors usually do.

But they're quick to supply you with links to sites like Poppy Dixon's standing assault on received Christianity (she's a lipstick lesbian from the Coast who was raised Christian and hated every minute of it), and the latest "interesting study" that tries to sell the "essentialist" POV that this Clintonoid judge was buying in this case, even though other gays retailing Queer Theory are very quick to tell you how subjective and fluid sexual identity really is.......

IOW, the Gay Propaganda Machine doesn't have its act together -- but it doesn't need to, with so many friends appointed to the federal bench by Bill and Hillary. And that's what's really happening. The arguments, the reasoning, is all just a sideshow. It's all about the judges -- and they think they've got five on their side on the Supreme Court, thanks to the wonderful social skills at introduction that the late Pamela Harriman put to work for the liberals, handing around Republican Supreme Court appointees.....helping Justice Souter get dates.....helping Justice Kennedy understand how appreciated he was by People Who Really Understand the Issues......and thanks, too, to the back-stairs influence of Professor Tribe of Harvard with his former students, the Supreme Court clerks, and the access they afford him to the Justices on cases before the Court. (A cite here, an interesting argument there.....clerks can do a lot of good....)

But then, I'm just repeating what bad old Bob Novak said a few years ago, and everyone knows how dyspeptic he is. Can't possibly be true, can it, that liberals are cribbing two or three votes on every case that comes before the High Court through improper influence? Naaaaaahhh, they wouldn't do that -- that'd be unethical!

[lentulusgracchus]

What about the Supreme Court, whose jurisdiction the Congress cannot remove?

Congress can indeed restrict their jurisdiction. It can also vacate every seat on the Supreme Court bench by impeachment.

[ohhhh]

["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."]

War, ohhh,uuhhh, what is it good for? Absolutely everything we believe in and upon which the foundation of our nation was built.Remember the war of independence our founding forefathers fought for our benefit? Did not American citizens break away from a ruthless king in our early history? Lord Jesus Christ be praised and worshipped for the brave men who gave themselves to make a Christian nation that tolerated other peoples belief or non belief rights.
I just found out yesterday that no previous pagan nation throughout all human history has ever legalized homosexual marriage, though many turned a blind eye to the evil practice.
America would be the first nation to mock God and our LORD and Saviour Jesus Christ by doing this.
And who made these renegade black robed terrorist judges lawmakers?
And where are the congressional lawmakers when these unjust judges legislate from the bench?
And is it possible that these unelected judges are in cahoots with the elected legislators of America?
Is it at all possible that we are at the crossroads in America that Nazi Germany was in the early 1930's when a young renegade socialist named Adolph Hitler was consolidating his renegade judges and politicians?
And if so, will the citizens of America follow along as these foolish and arrogant judges and politicians destroy our sovereign nation and continue to brainwash children in the public schools and universities of America?

[paul_fromatlanta]

>>Read your homepage. Hi there, liberal. Welcome to FR.<<

Thank you for the welcome.
Since when did one have to believe that that the right of the individual to live his life as he chooses stops at the bedroom door in order to be a conservative?


>>Really? Let me link you to some drive-by posts by gay "seminar" posters on FR.....oh, wait, they usually get zotted. Well, they say things like "you people are so negative" and "you people are so small and mean and obsessed with homosexuality" (translation: back off, stupid, we're doing our propaganda and we don't need your comments, and if you stick around I'm going to make sure everyone suspects you're a closet case).<<

First, I'm sorry you have so many trolls here and I really do understand that it keeps the place on edge about new posters. But if the trolls get Freepers to lower themselves then the trolls win.


>>So I had to post one of their attacks for them, since they get spotted and zotted pretty quickly as seminar disruptors usually do.<<

I had not considered your post in this light. I want to apologize for making a snap, sweeping judgment. I will try to be more careful in the future.


>>But then, I'm just repeating what bad old Bob Novak said a few years ago, and everyone knows how dyspeptic he is. <<

I like Bob Novak. And if he said the words you did, I'm disappointed. No matter what spin you put on it, it's wrong to be mean to people who aren't hurting you.... and thinking they set a bad example, is not enough to justify meaness in my opinion.

I'm not suggesting that people need to change their beliefs, I'm only talking about how we treat each other. There is a lot of depersonalization going on around this issue on both sides and that's bad because it makes the next step of treating each other badly that much easier.

There was a lot of sin in Jesus' time too and he wanted us to love and forgive back then...I don't imagine he would feel any different today.

But anyway, thanks for the welcome and thanks for the civil reply in spite of our difference around this issue.

[lentulusgracchus]

Since when did one have to believe that that the right of the individual to live his life as he chooses stops at the bedroom door in order to be a conservative?

That's a gay-propaganda chestnut whose hollowness is revealed by reflecting for moment on whether I'd get a knock on my door if I were, in the sanctum sanctorum of my bedroom:

1. Buggering little boys,
2. Producing perfect copies of $20 bills,
3. Having a perfectly civil conversation about killing the President of the United States,
4. Disciplining my wife with my fists,
5. Converting my CAR-15 carbine to a suppressed ("silenced") and fully automatic weapon (to be stored not used, of course),
6. Storing 500 pounds of Composition B, RDX, Semtex, dexedrine, morphine, rohypnol, heroin, and other fun chemical compounds, or
7. Xeroxing -- for my own use, of course -- copies of the Defense Intelligence Agency's "NOFORN News", with all the latest inside scuttlebutt classified SECRET - LIMITED DISTRIBUTION - NOFORN.

Now, lest you conclude that I'm in favor of legislating on "just anything", thus invading the spirit of the Ninth Amendment (which can in fact be invaded at liberty by the Congress and the local municipal council whenever they make new laws for public purposes; the force of the Ninth is that there is a presumption in favor of liberty to make or do any thing whenever the law is silent), the point is that deviant sexuality

a) is deviant because there's something wrong with the individual -- he is not normal -- and so a concern arises immediately, whether (or not, it may not be the case) that person is also sociopathic; and

b) has consequences beyond the bedroom in the form of

i) transmissible diseases,

ii) transmissible beliefs and attitudes that are harmful to the partner (we don't need a condom, I don't have a disease, we're young and bulletproof and can't get sick, you're a confused teenager but my gaydar says you're gay, go forth and love all mankind as I loved you, etc. etc.), and

iii) the demoralization (literally) or jading of the public on a subject that touches on family formation, the education of the young, public policy on AIDS, and the ability of a society to defend itself against pathological alien memes (Fabian socialism and its ghastly sibling, liberalism).

And then there's the whole issue of liberal judicial activism and the processual argument that gays are trying to use courtrooms and liberal judges (their lawsuits are all carefully forum-shopped: that is what Lambda Legal, of-counsel and no doubt primary instigator in the case under discussion, exists for) to find a way around the Constitution, viz., the legislative process, in order to impose their 2% will on the nonconsenting 98% whom they -- tactically playing the bleating victim all the way -- hate, despise, and eagerly look forward to trampling underfoot.

But that's a separate issue.

[paul_fromatlanta]

I appreciate the thoughtful reply. Touchee on one point, I did oversimplify the bedroom issue, as there are number of things that could be done in a bedroom that are properly regulated.

I was referring sexual matters between adult, sane consenting humans, but then you knew that.

We may not have as much disagreement as I thought as I am certainly not defending anything sociopathic and I share concerns about disease transmission - particularly since the vast majority of STDs, including AIDS are in the heterosexual community.

So it really comes down to this paragraph

the demoralization (literally) or jading of the public on a subject that touches on family formation, the education of the young, public policy on AIDS, and the ability of a society to defend itself against pathological alien memes

And there I do break from you. Your morals and/or sensitization are not sufficient reason to restrict someone else's liberty, in my opinion - This isn't a new debate in our land - it goes back to the Puritans and it's one of the reasons that separation of chruch and state was written into the constitution.