Posted on 05/13/2005 11:21:53 PM PDT by goldstategop
Pro-family groups across the nation accused a federal judge in Nebraska of judicial activism after he became the first in the U.S. to strike down a state amendment barring same-sex marriage or civil unions, nullifying a Nebraska measure passed by 70 percent of voters in 2000.
"This is a blatant display of judicial arrogance where a non-elected federal judge has shown a total disregard for what 70 percent of Nebraska voters stated, marriage is between one man and one woman," said Tony Perkins, President of Family Research Council.
"This unfortunate act of judicial activism makes it very clear that marriage is at risk in the federal courts and Congress must pass, and the people of this country must ratify, an amendment to the U.S. Constitution defining marriage as being between one man and one woman," Perkins said.
U.S. District Judge Joseph Bataillon ruled the amendment significantly burdened both the "expressive and intimate associational rights" of homosexuals and "creates a significant barrier to the plaintiffs right to petition or to participate in the political process."
The challenge was filed by the gay rights organization Lambda Legal and the ACLU's Lesbian and Gay Project.
Brian Fahling, senior trial attorney for the American Family Association Center for Law & Policy, said the "outrageous character of the decision is summarized in the court's assertion that the 'intent and purpose of the amendment is based on animus against [homosexuals].'"
Fahling said not only is Judge Bataillon's assertion "demonstrably wrong, it is saturated with an all-too-familiar judicial contempt and antipathy for the moral norms of our culture."
"We are no longer permitted to govern ourselves in the most fundamental areas of life," he said. "Instead, we are called names by unelected judges who deconstruct our written constitution and our society with all the subtlety of a wrecking ball."
Donald Wildmon, chairman of American Family Association, says the landmark ruling is evidence the country desperately needs a federal marriage amendment and judges who are not activists.
"The action of Judge Bataillon is exactly the situation we have been warning the public about," he said. " ... Liberal judges have usurped the rights of the people. It is time to kill the filibustering of the liberal Democrats."
In his ruling, Bataillon said the Nebraska measure interferes not only with the rights of gay couples, but its "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 also prevented same-sex couples from having many of the legal protections accorded traditional couples.
State Attorney General Jon Bruning said he will appeal the ruling.
"Seventy percent of Nebraskans voted for the amendment to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman, and I believe that the citizens of this state have a right to structure their constitution as they see fit," he said.
Rev. Louis P. Sheldon, chairman of the Traditional Values Coalition, said the judge's "irrational decision strikes at the very heart of the democratic process."
"It appears we now only have two branches of government in this nation: the ACLU and leftist federal judges who impose their undemocratic views upon an unwilling public," Sheldon said. "This decision is a dangerous one and it cannot stand. Our founding fathers carefully devised a system of checks and balances for the federal government -- and no federal judge should have the legal authority to overturn a voter-passed amendment to a state constitution."
Concerned Women for America chief counsel, Jan LaRue, noted similar recent rulings she believes should prompt actions from lawmakers.
"Three federal judges have struck down the ban on partial-birth abortion. In January, a federal judge ignored decades of Supreme Court precedent and declared the federal obscenity statutes unconstitutional. Yesterday, another federal judge ignored 6,000 years of human history to toss marriage out the window," she said. "Can it get more obvious that it's past time for the Senate to stop fiddling around and confirm some judges who don't think the Constitution is their personal Play Dough?"
Robert Knight, director of CWA's Culture & Family Institute, said, "Until we get judges who understand that their job in a government of balanced power is to apply the law, not trash it, we will see more judicial tyranny,"
Knight said the people of Nebraska were "slapped right across the face by this arrogant federal judge."
"You can see why Senate liberals are also trashing democracy by denying an up-or-down vote on judicial nominees; they like their little monopoly, and don't want the people to have any say, unless it fits their radical liberal agenda, of course," Knight said.
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
Now there's a demented group of social losers if I ever saw one. What a sick bunch they are.
Yep. Other states are going to know about this, and they'll be demanding that shield. Bush really has to bring this one back to the front of his list while it's hot!
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
Frist HAS to use the Constitutional option on judges. The American people will be behind him by at least 70% according to other states that voted down fetish "marriage." This is a huge victory for Republican judges, but a huge loss for democracy and the poor people in Nebraska.
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
ping to self for later pingout.
"Seventy percent of Nebraskans voted for the amendment to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman, and I believe that the citizens of this state have a right to structure their constitution as they see fit,"
It is definitely time to pass a Constitutional amendment that defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman. A judge does not have the right, or authority, to strike down a state amendment that a majority of the voters ratified.
They're not "family groups" at all. They're effectively heteronormative fascists as obsessed with homosexuals as those parading around in San Franscico bathhouses.
LOL!
Here come da judge!...here come da judge!
Liberal smear artist.
People with normal morals are not "fascists"; and the word "heteronormative" is gay-propaganda BS. Heterosexuality is normal: that's biology. It's mathematics, too. Norming on the normal isn't "fascist" -- you are, for sliming people with odious-sounding names because they disagree with your pervy agenda.
Try redefining deviancy up for honest people somewhere else. People around here know better.
NATURE (human biology) is a "heteronormative" fascist.
And since when is it somehow a disparaging thing to stand up to the Malakhim Raoth in a civil process? Would you rather have the alternative - - dragging them into the streets and beating them to death?
This fixation by the media for mutilation of and deviance with human anatomical function, generated by Palovian behavioral conditioning in popular culture, is what gives us the Michael Jackson's of the world.
The next thing you'll try to tell us, is that it is "heteronormative fascism" to have laws against rape or pederasty.
PING
First, as Mark Levin has pointed out, the judiciary needs an overhaul, and the judges will cooperate in promoting that idea. This is what has happened here, more fuel to the fire that our judicial system is out of control.
Second, I'm sure that another amendment will come before Nebraska voters on this same issue. Because of all the hoopla, more voters who will vote with conservatives, will come out at that election. The effect will be that the Republican candidate will have an easier time winning over the Godless Democratic who runs. The Democratic will also have to defend his/her/it's opposition to the amendment.
You left out bestiality; there's already a movement afoot to desensitize us to that taboo.
I am taking my two male lab retrievers (Duke & Dirty) to get married next week. I trust I should have no problems!
Then I will take my two female cows (Barb and June) to get married the following week. Again I trust I will have no problems.
Speak now ACLU if you have a problem with this!
This got nary a mention in the Atlanta paper. Nothing at all. I cannot help but wonder if the "news" is all on conservative sites, with the majority left comletely in the dark about the latest development in the war of hte judges against the rest of America.
What makes this really special is that the ACLU's Lesbian and Gay Project is most likely supported by the same tax payers that it is stabbing in the back. It is well past time for the ACLU to be disbanded. What an incredible waste of tax dollars.
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.