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.
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.
Just another case of the out-of-control judges legislating from the bench. The people's voice (vote) doesn't mean squat!
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.
WE may not "elect" THEM , but we certainly elect those who appoint them.....duh
>>> 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?
>>>>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.
A B.S. decision and a logical nullity. Nebraska should enforce the ban vigorously.
How crude and politically incorrect!
I COULDN'T HAVE SAID IT BETTER!
Same sex marriage and custody of children are two separate issues
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.
Since when is the ordination of the Constitution and its Amendments subject to Judicial Review?
I thought a constitutional amendment was supposed to overrule a judge's decision. Did I miss something?
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.
If it protects that, then it protects prostitution and incest.
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.
Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here
Scalia's dissent says something similar.
So basically it's unconstitutional to do anything the fags or the libs don't like.
Bump to read later
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.