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 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-120 next last
To: neverdem
Maybe this is why we need that pesky amendment to the Constitution (and fewer flaky judges).
61 posted on 05/13/2005 7:23:39 AM PDT by Puddleglum (Thank God the Boston blowhard lost)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Revolution Bump.


62 posted on 05/13/2005 7:25:36 AM PDT by stevio (Red-Blooded American Male)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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

One solitary man, a lawyer, an unelected life-tenured activist federal judge, legislating his personal views of how society ought to be ordered in Nebraska, trumping the Nebraska hundred member legislature and negating the constitution of its million people.

There is nothing praiseworthy about that.

63 posted on 05/13/2005 7:33:22 AM PDT by JCEccles (Andrea Dworkin--the Ward Churchill of gender politics.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Beyond blowjobs, this kind of creeping degradation is his legacy......


64 posted on 05/13/2005 7:47:00 AM PDT by anniegetyourgun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: jude24; P-Marlowe

What is the legal counterargument to the finding of the court?


65 posted on 05/13/2005 7:54:48 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Calpernia
WE do? Do you need the links to the voter fraud bump lists?

Are you claiming everyone who is elected, is so fraudulently? You did forget your (/sarcasm), right?

66 posted on 05/13/2005 8:19:58 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 46 | View Replies]

To: lula

In my state, yes. And in NY too, yes.

No, I did not forget my sarc tag.


67 posted on 05/13/2005 8:21:09 AM PDT by Calpernia (Breederville.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: xzins
One could argue that Lawrence v. Texas was wrongly decided, but that's an uphill battle.

I would argue that there is a difference between the sphere of personal autonomy that Lawerence sought to protect, and the demand that the state recognize that autonomy, which is what gay marriage is.

68 posted on 05/13/2005 8:22:34 AM PDT by jude24 ("Stupid" isn't illegal - but it should be.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

This federal judge made a ruling finding a constitutional amendment unconstitutional.

This just also elevated recreational sex as a social institution. IOW you have a constitutional right to achieve (not just pursue) orgasm via any fetish you feeeeeeel.

This is similar to a constitutional "right to have a job". (ussr)

Odd how the federal 1996 DMA did not pop up.


69 posted on 05/13/2005 8:42:08 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem; scripter; DirtyHarryY2K; EdReform; little jeremiah

bump

and

ping


70 posted on 05/13/2005 8:44:04 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jude24; P-Marlowe

I think the legislature has compelling reasons for controlling certain sexual behaviors....rape, for example, and, disease, commerce, etc. MSM, when it doesn't mean MainStream Media, is the acronym used by CDC to designate Male Sex with Males. It is deadly in terms of its causative link to a host of communicable diseases.

In short, Lawrence is wrong


71 posted on 05/13/2005 8:45:23 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: xzins; P-Marlowe
I think the legislature has compelling reasons for controlling certain sexual behaviors

STD's aren't a compelling enough interest to regulate a fundamental liberty. Consensual sex between adults has been considered a fundamental liberty covered by the substance of the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Your point has some logic behind it, but as a legal argument, it is a non-starter.

72 posted on 05/13/2005 8:48:15 AM PDT by jude24 ("Stupid" isn't illegal - but it should be.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: xzins; All

Lawrence may be wrong but it is now the law of the land.

The legal issue here is this judge is essentially saying that the right to orgasm must now supplant the institution of marriage.

There is a reason marriage as an institution is encouraged. Society rewards the institution of marriage because marriage provides for the future of society. NOT the individuals orgasm. This does not exclude childless couples since it is normal and concevable to have a childless couple in the role of mother and father via adoption or unexpected pregnancy.

This judge only proves that judges are quite often lawyers who did not know how to earn a living. This opinion flies in the face of the 11th's appelate opinion which upheld the homosexual adotion of children ban.

This judge is VERBATIM going for HRC talking points that somehow this was going to affect cohabitation contracts. THas is 100% bovine excrement in the strictest legal terms.

There is no contitutional right to adopt, no constitutional right to be a foster mother or foster father. Those are red herrings to this judge jumping through hoops to achieve result over intent.


73 posted on 05/13/2005 8:55:24 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

I don't think the left is trying to poke the "nose" of the folks in flyover country.

This is just part of the whisper effort that state judges said they were going to simply bypass the amendments and force homosexual marriage without the "m" word.

Note how this judge refered to "rights" not marriage.

You can keep the word marriage as long as it is made meaningless by sanctioning "marriage by fetish".


74 posted on 05/13/2005 8:57:51 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

I'm glad the people elected the judge to represent them. Oh, wait, he's not an elected representitive?


75 posted on 05/13/2005 9:07:59 AM PDT by jb6 (Truth == Christ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jude24; xzins
STD's aren't a compelling enough interest to regulate a fundamental liberty. Consensual sex between adults has been considered a fundamental liberty covered by the substance of the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Any activity which causes a detrimental effect on society at large is a legimate target of reasonable regulation even under the strictest scrutiny. The right of consensual sex has been historically limited by every legislature in this country. Even Nevada has regulations regarding prostitution that are designed to protect its citizens from the contracting of STD's and street walkers in Nevada are often treated much worse than street walkers in Nebraska.

AIDS costs the country hundreds of millions of dollars per year. Illegitimate childbirth costs the country billions of dollars per year.

As long as someone's freedom infringes upon the rights of others, in this case the right not to have to pay the consequences of illicit sexual activity, then those whose rights are impacted have as much right to regulate that activity as those who engage in it to practice it.

The 14th amendment was never designed to protect the right of homosexuals to receive the benefits of marriage as homosexual marriage has absolutely no postive impact on society, whereas heterosexual marriage does and always has had a positive rather than a negative impact on society.

This twisting of the words of the constitution to mean things they were never intended to mean undermines the whole principle of constitutional government. We might as well tear the document to shreds and run the country based on what we all think feels right.

If you think the 14th amendment in any way prohibits the states from regulating sexual activity, then I dare say that you have been brainwashed by your law school professors. Don't believe anything any of them tell you. Keep your mind open and your Christian principles forefront. They are no smarter than you, indeed they are trying to make you as stupid as them. Don't let them do it.

76 posted on 05/13/2005 9:09:16 AM PDT by P-Marlowe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Nightshift

ping


77 posted on 05/13/2005 9:12:45 AM PDT by tutstar ( <{{--->< Impeach Judge Greer http://www.petitiononline.com/ijg520/petition.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: claudiustg
The obvious thing is to change the US Constitution.

So they can have a different version to use as toilet paper?

Cordially,

78 posted on 05/13/2005 9:18:56 AM PDT by Diamond (Qui liberatio scelestus trucido inculpatus.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Just more stench from the bench. The Will of the People must not be denied.


79 posted on 05/13/2005 9:24:48 AM PDT by Barte45 (Conservative Christian @ Heart)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe
The 14th amendment was never designed to protect the right of homosexuals to receive the benefits of marriage as homosexual marriage has absolutely no postive impact on society...

It's no accident that the oxmoronic concept of "homosexual marriage" was unheard of in the 1800's; it's about as legitimate a notion as a "square circle".

Cordially,

80 posted on 05/13/2005 9:28:52 AM PDT by Diamond (Qui liberatio scelestus trucido inculpatus.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-120 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