Another Marriage Victory: Appeals Court Upholds Nebraska Marriage Amendment

Lincoln, NE - A federal appeals court has reversed a ruling that stuck down Nebraska's same-sex marriage ban. U.S. District Judge Joseph Bataillon ruled last year that the measure was too broad and deprived homosexuals of participation in the political process. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals today reversed that ruling. Nebraska voters approved the amendment by 70% in 2000. The Court said the amendment "and other laws limiting the state-recognized institution of marriage to heterosexual couples are rationally related to legitimate state interests and therefore do not violate the Constitution of the United States." Liberty Counsel filed a brief in the case, arguing in favor of the amendment.

At the time of its passage, the Nebraska marriage amendment was the broadest in the country. The amendment not only states that marriage is the union of one man and one woman, but it also prohibits same-sex marriage arrangements under another name. It thus prohibits same-sex civil unions and domestic partnerships. Same-sex marriage advocates targeted Nebraska in hopes of striking down the state marriage amendment under the U.S. Constitution.

Today's defeat is a major blow to the same-sex marriage movement because if the broadest kind of amendment is upheld, as it was today, then the more narrow amendments can also be upheld.

In yet another victory for marriage, yesterday a judge in Connecticut denied the request of eight same-sex couples to marry. That state already allows civil unions for same-sex couples. The couples plan to appeal, saying they are not satisfied with civil unions.

Also today, rejecting a challenge by the ACLU, the Tennessee Supreme Court ruled that voters in November will be allowed to consider a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage.

In a special session held this week, Massachusetts lawmakers put off debate on a proposed constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriages. Lawmakers could have voted to extend the day and consider this important citizen initiative, but instead put off the vote until November 9. Massachusetts is the only state to legalize same-sex marriages. On Monday the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that a proposed state constitutional amendment that would overrule the court decision sanctioning same-sex marriage is permissible.

Mathew D. Staver, Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel, commented: "We are pleased that this latest attempt by the homosexual agenda to radically redefine our culture has been stopped dead in its tracks. The state has an undeniable interest in protecting marriage. Common sense and human history underscores that marriage is distinct from other personal relationships. Procreation and raising children in an optimal environment with a mom and a dad are obvious interests the state may prefer and protect. The same-sex marriage movement must be saying, 'Thank goodness it's Friday.' For the past two weeks, the same-sex marriage movement has been rocked backward by stunning court decisions in favor of traditional marriage."

In agreeing with this principle, the court sets a precedent that allows the state to define moral practices where it can establish a compelling public interest.

It was landmark U.S. Supreme Court precedent Reynolds v. United States in 1878 that made "separation of church and state" a dubiously legitimate point of case law, but more importantly; it confirmed the Constitutionality in statutory regulation of marriage practices.

Congress, state legislatures and public referenda have statutorily determined polygamous, pederast, homosexual, and incestuous marriages are unlawful. No Constitutional Amendment restricting marriage is required to regulate "practice" according to the Reynolds decision.

“Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices...”
Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 8 Otto 145, 24 L. Ed. 244 (1878).
- - See also:
Late Corporation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. United States, 136 U.S. 1, 10 S.Ct. 792, 34 L. Ed. 478 (1890). Revised as 140 U.S. 665, 11 S.Ct. 884, 35 L. Ed. 592 (1891).

Marriage is a religious "rite," not a civil "right;" a secular standard of human reproductive biology united with the Judaic Adam and Eve model of monogamy in creationist belief. Two homosexuals cannot be "monogamous" because the word denotes a biological procreation they are not capable of together; human reproductive biology is an obvious secular standard.

All adults have privilege to marry one consenting adult of opposite gender; therefore, Fourteenth Amendment "equal protection" argument about "privileges and immunities" for homosexual marriage is invalid. Driving, marriage, legal and medical practices are not enumerated rights; they are privileged practices that require statutory license. Nothing that requires a license is a right.

Homosexual monogamy advocates are a cult of perversion seeking ceremonious sanctification for voluntary deviancy with anatomical function and desperately pursuing esoteric absolution to justify their guilt-ridden egos. This has no secular standard; it is an idolatrous fetish. Why not properly apply the adjudicated Reynolds 'separation of church and state' here?

I had a long reply underway when we took a power hit and I lost it all. Suffice it to say that if you can prove that "marriage" has an inherent religious dimension to it, then the state can no more require a recognition of homosexual "marriage" than it can prescribe certain litanies. At that point, the Reynolds argument of church and state applies as an excluding agent, preventing any secular definition of a religious institution.

The hard part is limiting the definition. The state already requires a license to marry, which already imposes a state oversight on what you're trying to construe as a religious institution. However, it can certainly be argued that the state's compelling interest in marriage is limited to its secular extensions: finances, childrearing, property ownership, liabilities, etc.. In that sense, a "marriage" to the state is nothing more than a civil union, a contract, a partnership between business entities. It must be conceded that the state has a right to manage those aspects. However, it is equally true that the state has no right whatsoever to define any religious requirement for marriage or any other commerce between individuals.

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.