Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Judge Voids Same-Sex Marriage Ban in Nebraska
NY Times ^ | May 13, 2005 | THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

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.


TOPICS: Breaking News; Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Extended News; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: District of Columbia; US: Nebraska
KEYWORDS: 1996; amendment; buttbuddies; children; defense; dma; doma; family; father; federal; flyovercountry; fma; fostercare; gay; glsen; homosexual; homosexualagenda; homosexuality; hrc; josephbataillon; judiciary; lambda; lamnda; legal; marriage; molester; mother; pedophile; pflag; samesexmarriage
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-120 next last
To: neverdem
Just what Mark Levin describes in "Men in Black"--a federal judiciary raising itself above all other branches of government. Sickening.


41 posted on 05/13/2005 2:37:59 AM PDT by Recovering_Democrat (I'm so glad to no longer be associated with the Party of Dependence on Government!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: garylmoore

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.


42 posted on 05/13/2005 4:01:43 AM PDT by Vigilanteman (crime would drop like a sprung trapdoor if we brought back good old-fashioned hangings)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Just another case of the out-of-control judges legislating from the bench. The people's voice (vote) doesn't mean squat!


43 posted on 05/13/2005 4:44:30 AM PDT by Road Warrior ‘04 (Kill 'em til they're dead! Then, kill 'em again!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

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.


44 posted on 05/13/2005 4:50:38 AM PDT by jmaroneps37 (Dealing with liberals? Remember: when you wrestle with a pig, you both get dirty and he loves it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Calpernia
We people are awake. FR even hosted a march on Washington about them. We don't elect the judges. What would you suggest?

WE may not "elect" THEM , but we certainly elect those who appoint them.....duh

45 posted on 05/13/2005 4:59:10 AM PDT by lula (Starving the disabled is OK, go to jail if you do the same to an animal...go figure)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: lula

>>> 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?


46 posted on 05/13/2005 5:13:36 AM PDT by Calpernia (Breederville.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: claudiustg

>>>>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.


47 posted on 05/13/2005 5:18:39 AM PDT by Calpernia (Breederville.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

A B.S. decision and a logical nullity. Nebraska should enforce the ban vigorously.


48 posted on 05/13/2005 5:43:33 AM PDT by Mmmike
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: andie74
That's right...we NEED more queers adopting kids and foster parenting about as much as we NEED open borders.

How crude and politically incorrect!

I COULDN'T HAVE SAID IT BETTER!

49 posted on 05/13/2005 5:53:00 AM PDT by bored at work (Barack Obama . . . Iraq Osama . . . ?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
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."

Same sex marriage and custody of children are two separate issues

50 posted on 05/13/2005 5:55:13 AM PDT by Mo1 (Hey GOP ---- Not one Dime till Republicans grow a Spine !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vigilanteman

Vigilantism is about all that's left to us, if the votes are liable to be brushed off at the flick of a judge's wrist.

The torch-and-pitchfork approach---very loud, very angry protests---should not be abandoned, though, since there is always a possibility that real mayhem might arise therefrom. And we badly need some mayhem to wake people up and get their circulation going.

As for impeachment, there's no hope. You couldn't get a majority to approve of that if you counted the Republicans per testicle.


51 posted on 05/13/2005 6:29:29 AM PDT by Graymatter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Graymatter

Since when is the ordination of the Constitution and its Amendments subject to Judicial Review?


52 posted on 05/13/2005 6:41:46 AM PDT by massgopguy (massgopguy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

I thought a constitutional amendment was supposed to overrule a judge's decision. Did I miss something?


53 posted on 05/13/2005 6:49:36 AM PDT by shekkian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: shekkian; P-Marlowe; xzins
The 14th Amendment trumps Nebraska's Constitution.

The 14th Amendment Due Process Clause is interpreted to guarantee the fundamental liberty of intimate associations (Lawrence v. Texas), so the Nebraska's Constitutional provision hindering those intimate associations cannot withstand Federal Constitutional scrutiny, unless it is narrowly tailored to a compelling governmental interest - which, apparently, this law was not.

That, more or less, is the argument under modern Constitutional Law. Doesn't mean I like it or agree with it, but such it is.

54 posted on 05/13/2005 6:59:24 AM PDT by jude24 ("Stupid" isn't illegal - but it should be.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: jude24; shekkian; xzins
The 14th Amendment Due Process Clause is interpreted to guarantee the fundamental liberty of intimate associations (Lawrence v. Texas)

If it protects that, then it protects prostitution and incest.

55 posted on 05/13/2005 7:04:20 AM PDT by P-Marlowe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Sterrins

Well, this is a federal judge declaring a state constitutional amendment federally unconstitutional. Not quite the same.

In Arizona, the state supreme court actually did declare an amendment to the state constitution unconstitutional because another part of the state constitution was more important.


56 posted on 05/13/2005 7:05:46 AM PDT by frgoff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Abram; Annie03; Baby Bear; bassmaner; Bernard; BJClinton; BlackbirdSST; blackeagle; BroncosFan; ...
Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here
57 posted on 05/13/2005 7:08:08 AM PDT by freepatriot32 (If you want to change government support the libertarian party www.lp.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe
If it protects that, then it protects prostitution and incest.

Scalia's dissent says something similar.

58 posted on 05/13/2005 7:11:16 AM PDT by jude24 ("Stupid" isn't illegal - but it should be.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

So basically it's unconstitutional to do anything the fags or the libs don't like.


59 posted on 05/13/2005 7:15:43 AM PDT by FierceKulak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Bump to read later


60 posted on 05/13/2005 7:22:28 AM PDT by hattend (Alaska....in a time warp all it's own!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-120 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson