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 ...
SEVENTY(70) PERCENT of the voters put the ban into law.
why the hell even both with the pretense of voting if a single judge can overrule the people because he feels they choose... poorly.
when did the feds get a say into STATE laws?
what’s next? change the states vote for senate? congress? potus?
The Federales were conceived to be an invention of the states. Not the other way around.
An existential epiphany is required. Someone please begin to pull the plug on the Frankenstein’s monster, and if it is Nebraska then it is Nebraska.
What is going on here is political hypnotism.
The 14th amendment violated again by a federal judge.
70% of the voters just had their 14th amendment rights raped by a federal thug.
Where are their EQUAL RIGHTS UNDER THE LAW?
What has happened is that the thing called marriage by that incompetent steward, the government, has long been dumbed down to a joke.
So when the “same sexers” waltzed in and made a case that it would not be an even worse joke to include themselves in it, they had an actually plausible case.
That’s how we arrived here. That’s the track to hell on which the handcart plopped.
“How long will America put up with usurping judicial bullies?”
Until the last week of June 2015.
What happens then?
SCOTUS makes it’s decision on Gay Marriage and the states can decide if they will comply.
The states will comply.
I figured that’s what you meant, but thought I would ask you to clarify.
It’s hard to argue with your conclusion.
Do you believe that states will not comply with a SCOTUS decision on Gay Marriage?
No. Like I said, you’re almost certainly correct.
The judicial supremacist lie has done its destructive work throughout our political and legal worlds.
Now they’re finishing off the republic.
The only way to avoid Gay Marriage nation wide is to pass a constitutional amendment in the next 84 days.
That’s about as likely as the elected officials in our states standing against the usurpation of the judicial oligarchs.
We’re not going to save the country until and unless we have educated and motivated a sufficient mass of the people.
The actions of Judge Moore and the county probate judges have at least produced a flicker of hope that people will get it.
you seem very intelligent. But intelligence and law interpretation do nothing.
Do you really think, considering what we have seen the last 10 years, if a Church only married men/women, that the Feds would crush that quick as a denial “of Civil Rights”? Or whatever legal “fairness” phrase they come up with.
Christians don’t like to face a simple fact. At some time, it all comes down to has the hardest fist and who is willing to use it. Laws are cute and are for the decent and civil minded. Power laughs at laws, especially once they see no one willing to stop them.
I understand and tend to agree sort of, which is why I have been advocating for STATES to start standing up to the Feds for a long long time. But they don’t have the stones to do it, too busy listening to “Legal Advisors” instead of doing what is right.
and to add eyeamok, then the whole Church tax exempt status comes into play.
And then when a church divorces itself from it’s tax exempt status, the Feds will still come after the private church with whatever grounds they want.
I sound like a broken record here on FR, but its either 1) succumb, 2) be like Paul and do not fight and be arrested (and so will your family, friends), or 3) decide to go to war.
All the debate of what’s legal and what’s not is no longer applicable today.
A major concern with these 10th Amendment-ignoring federal judges overturning state bans on gay marriage is the following. What points are the state’s attorneys arguing to protect their respective state laws prohibiting gay marriage? It seems like these attorneys don’t know the Constitution and its history well enough to defend such laws.
Or are state attorneys possibly working in cahoots with activist justices in an Alinsky-type deception to trick the states to accept gay marriage?
As mentioned in related threads, pro-gay activist judges are evidently relying on PC interpretations of 14A’s Equal Protection’s Clause (EPC) to strike down bona-fide state laws prohibiting constitutionally unprotected gay marriage. And if such is the case then these thug judges are wrongly ignoring that the Supreme Court has historically decided at least two relevant cases in the states’ favors, the justices deciding these cases properly rejecting naïve interpretations of the EPC. This is evidenced by the following references.
Note that Minor v. Happersett (Minor) contains an important key for understanding the EPC. More specifically, regardless that pro-gay activist judges are wrongly interpolating the so-called right to gay marriage from the EPC, the Minor justices had clarified that 14A does not add any new rights to the Constitution. That amendment only strengthens rights which the states have expressly amended the Constitution to protect.
“3. The right of suffrage was not necessarily one of the privileges or immunities of citizenship before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, and that amendment does not add to these privileges and immunities. It simply furnishes additional guaranty for the protection of such as the citizen already had [emphasis added].” —Minor v. Happersett, 1874.
In fact, the Court’s clarification of the EPC in Minor reflects the official clarification of 14A of John Bingham in the congressional record, Bingham the main author of Section 1 of 14A where the EPC is found.
“Mr. Speaker, this House may safely follow the example of the makers of the Constitution and the builders of the Republic, by passing laws for enforcing all the privileges and immunities of the United States as guaranteed by the amended Constitution and expressly enumerated in the Constitution [emphasis added].” — Congressional Globe, House of Representatives, 42nd Congress, 1st Session. (See lower half of third column.)
So in Minor, since the states had never amended the Constitution to expressly protect voting rights on the basis of gender, EPC didn’t automatically establish such rights when 14A was ratified as activist judges seem to be arguing concerning the so-called “right” to gay marriage versus state prohibitions on gay marriage.
And just as Minor showed that the states were constitutionally free to make voting laws which discriminated on the basis of sex regardless of the EPC (this right later protected by the 19th Amendment), Pace v. Alabama (Pace) showed that the states are likewise free to make marriage laws which discriminate on the basis of other constitutionally unprotected “rights” regardless of EPC.
Here’s a commentary concerning Pace.
FR: Chief Alabama judge would defy Supreme Court in gay marriage ruling
Also, note that regardless that the corrupt media evidently wants everbody to think that the Supreme Court ruled the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) unconstitutional, Section 2 of DOMA is evidently still in effect.
DOMA Section 2. Powers reserved to the statesNo State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.
Section 2 is appropriately based on Congress’s constitutional authority, under Full Faith and Credit Clause (4.1), to regulate the effect of one states records in the other states, Section 2 clarifying that the states are not obligated to respect gay marriages by other states.
But regarding Section 2, also consider that the corrupt Court is now seemingly doing a complete turnaround with respect to wrongly ignoring 10th Amendment protected state power to prohibit gay marriage.
Getting back to the Nebraska issue, I’d be very interested to know what points that state attorneys are arguing to defend state prohibitions on gay marriage. I wouldn’t be surprised if they don’t have a grip on Supreme Court case precedents concerning 10th Amendment protected state powers versus EPC versus constitutionally unprotected “rights.”
Why do all these homosexual marriage stories have to have photos of the homosexuals who sued, &, even worse, a lot of the times, they have gross, disgusting pictures of them kissing. Makes me ill.
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.