Posted on 03/02/2015 8:02:27 AM PST by GIdget2004
A federal judge on Monday blocked Nebraska's gay marriage ban, but the decision will not take effect for a week and the state plans to appeal.
U.S. District Judge Joseph Bataillon ordered the state not to enforce its ban. Last week he heard arguments for and against a motion for an injunction to block enforcement of the ban while a lawsuit challenging the ban is pending. Bataillon said the order will be effective March 9.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Nebraska sued the state in November on behalf of seven same-sex couples challenging the ban, which passed with the approval of 70 percent of voters in 2000. In addition to prohibiting gay marriage, the ban also forbids civil unions and legalized domestic partnerships.
The Nebraska Attorney General's office has said it will appeal any decision blocking or overturning the voter-approved ban on gay marriage.
(Excerpt) Read more at csmonitor.com ...
Obama and the demos love this being all the news while we’re $18 trillion in debt.
Oh come on let Gays get Married , let them be Miserable Too ,LOL
Another day, another federal judge declares that states do not have the right to define marriage within their borders. This has become so routine it’s not even news anymore.
OH NO
People who think there is no need for a Federal marriage amendment or law have been kicked in the teeth again by our black-robed overlords.
The Supremacy Clause demands that state law yield to federal law, but neither federal supremacy nor any other principle of federal law requires that a state court’s interpretation of federal law give way to a (lower) federal court’s interpretation. In our federal system, a state trial court’s interpretation of federal law is no less authoritative than that of the federal court of appeals in whose circuit the trial court is located.
Lockhart v. Fretwell, 506 U.S. 364, 375-76 (1993) (Thomas, J., concurring). See also Steffel v. Thompson, 415 U.S. 452, 482, n. 3 (1974) (Rehnquist, J., concurring) (noting that a lower- federal-court decision “would not be accorded the stare decisis effect in state court that it would have in a subsequent proceeding within the same federal jurisdiction. Although the state court would not be compelled to follow the federal holding, the opinion might, of course, be viewed as highly persuasive.”).
the only “trend” is that of judges disregarding the will of the voters with regards to a sexual BEHAVIOR. There is no momentum.
I suspect many of these judges have staff infested with leftists.
If we use the Robert’s contortion priniciples to justify any passed law, this law approved by the electorate should stand as prohibiting this behavior to the public. Adults are free to do “whatever” in the sanctity of their own closet.
Appreciate the information.
But, what exactly is the federal definition of marriage?
In 2013, The Supreme Court declared that the federal government must recognize same sex marriages from states which allowed same. The Court declared that the federal government could not define marriage as a man and a woman as had been done in the Defense of Marriage Act.
I think that, as of right now, there is no federal definition of marriage. Though we see federal judge after judge declaring traditional marriage in the states to be unconstitutional, there really is no federal definition of marriage as such which they are violating.
Well, Nebraska has been buggered by meanies.
Marriage is and always has been a Religious Ceremony, the State didn’t get involved til the turn of the century so as to prevent blacks from marrying whites. There is No Such thing as a Federal Marriage License, the STATE could abolish all such licenses tomorrow, and leave it up to Churches to the Marrying, JUST LIKE BEFORE and the Feds can do NOTHING about it.
That is the only option FREE STATES have at the moment if they refuse to exercise their Constitutional Role and buck the inferior federal Courts.
I think they should do it just to piss the feds off.
I heard last week some State was considering dropping all marriage laws and just eliminate the term to avoid allowing gays to marry. The liberals with their gay agenda have so screwed the tradition and meaning of marriage. It is just a matter of time that the gay agenda will force all States to allow gay marriage. Maybe the States should come up with a term like civil unions and eliminate the marriage term from all laws. Let the Church’s issue real marriage certificates.
I’m just curious what state will have its sheriffs deny the Federales access to enforce this perverted perversity? That will rediscover its constitutional moxie? Will it be the cornhuskers, who insist that corn be used for decent things?
Ping
You are correct and stated it much better than I did!
Article 3, section 2
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make
A new Law or Amendment is unnecessary, all we need is for STATE’S to follow the Constitution and tell the inferior Court’s to pound sand.
How long will America put up with usurping judicial bullies?
The government has long shown itself incompetent in management of things marital. I’m sure a vestige will remain, as in tax law. But to force a split between government “marriage” and religious marriage may be the only choice left. C. S. Lewis long ago proposed this.
States’ rights is another thing the usurper has deleted from the Constitution.
Federal judge imposes "homosexual marriage" on Nebraska
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.