Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Federal judge rules gay marriage ban unconstitutional (Nebraska)
Omaha World Herald ^ | 5/12/05 | Todd Cooper

Posted on 05/12/2005 1:32:13 PM PDT by jebanks

U.S. District Judge Joseph Bataillon struck down Thursday Nebraska's constitutional provision prohibiting gay marriage or civil unions.

The constitutional amendment, known as Initiative 416, passed in 2000 with 70 percent of the vote. It prevents homosexuals who work for the state or the University of Nebraska system from sharing health insurance and other benefits with their partners.

A group of lesbian and gay couples sued the state of Nebraska, contending the act barred "lesbian, gay and bisexual people from using the ordinary political process to seek important legal protections that all other Nebraskans already have."

Forty states have so-called "Defense of Marriage'' laws, but Nebraska's ban is the only one that explicitly prohibits same-sex couples from enjoying many of the legal protections that heterosexual couples enjoy.


TOPICS: News/Current Events; US: Nebraska
KEYWORDS: cary; clintonlegacy; homosexualagenda; josephbataillon; judicialactivism; judiciary; marriage; marriageamendment; nebraska; ruling
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-189 next last

1 posted on 05/12/2005 1:32:15 PM PDT by jebanks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: jebanks

NO!!!!!! The people of Nebraska voted for this!

YOU LIBERAL TYRANT!!!!!!!!!!!!

THE PEOPLE VOTED!!!!!!!!!!

YOU CANNOT UNDERMINE THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!

THIS JUDGE MUST BE IMPEACHED NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


2 posted on 05/12/2005 1:34:28 PM PDT by wk4bush2004
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jebanks

Here it comes, as predicted.


3 posted on 05/12/2005 1:34:29 PM PDT by mikeus_maximus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jebanks

Betcha he's a Clinton Nominee! We need a list of all the judges who've ruled "against the mainstream" on the liberal side and send it up to Washington to have made into a CHART for those damn senators!


4 posted on 05/12/2005 1:34:29 PM PDT by princess leah (\)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jebanks

I would love to read the actually ruling on this. Why don't we all just give up and tell the homosexuals that they win. Take over our schools and tell our kids homosexuality is wonderful and leads to a happy, fulfilling life. Let them get married and live happily ever after. We are wasting our time trying to fight. We are obviously losing.


5 posted on 05/12/2005 1:35:00 PM PDT by mlc9852
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jebanks
Liberal federal judge just invalidated Nebraska's state constitutional ban on gay marriage. Expect the SCOTUS to invalidate ALL state constitutional bans on gay marriage. The federal judiciary is out of control. We need to abolish judicial review!

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
6 posted on 05/12/2005 1:35:33 PM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jebanks

No surprise hear. That's what liberals do, sooner or later they find their judge.


7 posted on 05/12/2005 1:35:36 PM PDT by JZelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: princess leah

U.S. District Judge Joseph Bataillon was nominated to the bench in January of 1997 and confirmed by the Senate nearly 10 months later.


8 posted on 05/12/2005 1:36:15 PM PDT by kcvl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: jebanks
I predicted this long ago. The ONLY way to put a stop to this nonsense is through the ratification of a Federal Marriage Amendment.

Period.

9 posted on 05/12/2005 1:36:24 PM PDT by B Knotts (Viva il Papa!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

Everyone e-mail their Senators now. Joseph Bataillon MUST BE IMPEACHED!!!! WE MUST NOT ALLOW THIS TYRANNY!!!!!!!!!!!


10 posted on 05/12/2005 1:36:44 PM PDT by wk4bush2004
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: jebanks

"U.S. District Judge Joseph Bataillon was nominated to the bench in January of 1997 and confirmed by the Senate nearly 10 months later."

Clinton appointee. Why am I not surprised?


11 posted on 05/12/2005 1:37:48 PM PDT by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mikeus_maximus

What did you predict?


12 posted on 05/12/2005 1:37:49 PM PDT by KC_Conspirator (This space outsourced to India)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: jebanks
6/2/2003

U.S. District Judge Joseph Bataillon issued a midnight order temporarily restraining the U.S. Department of Agriculture from shutting down Nebraska Beef Company in Omaha for alleged violation of meat safety rules.

13 posted on 05/12/2005 1:37:59 PM PDT by kcvl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wk4bush2004

All hail KING COURT!


14 posted on 05/12/2005 1:38:01 PM PDT by Travis McGee (----- www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com -----)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: jebanks

The DemoRats pucker everytime this issue comes up. This is one they just can't win. The more it is in the news the better for the GOP.


15 posted on 05/12/2005 1:38:11 PM PDT by txkev
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jebanks
Question: If I was an employee of the State of Nebraska (a guy can dream can't he) could I share benefits with someone who was just a good friend?
16 posted on 05/12/2005 1:38:15 PM PDT by escapefromboston (manny ortez: mvp)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

We need to appoint better judges. Judicial Review is right out of the Federalist Papers.


17 posted on 05/12/2005 1:38:19 PM PDT by Borges
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
I thought I read somewhere that if a State Constitution is amended the courts could not challenge. Something about States rights where the State Const is concerned.

Was I mistaken and can this be appealed to the USSC?
18 posted on 05/12/2005 1:38:28 PM PDT by JoeV1 (Democrat Party-The unlawful and corrupt leading the blind and uneducated)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: mikeus_maximus

Well, this could be the spark to get conservatives angry enough to stop the judicial madness and put and end to the judicial tyranny. This judge is a modern day Roland Freiseler.


19 posted on 05/12/2005 1:40:07 PM PDT by KC_Conspirator (This space outsourced to India)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: B Knotts
Its not just gay marriage. This judge's ruling strengthen the case for a constitutional amendment abolishing judicial review. When a single judge takes it on himself to disregard the views of 70% of the voters in the American heartland, we are heading for a constitutional crisis. I stated yesterday my conviction judges have no business deciding questions of a social or political nature. Their only duty ought to be to see how the law is enforced and to punish offenders.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
20 posted on 05/12/2005 1:40:24 PM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: jebanks

Judge declares mistrial after making Mexican joke

September 28, 2001

OMAHA, Neb. - A federal judge declared a mistrial in a civil case against two police officers accused of using excessive force after the plaintiffs' attorney objected to a joking comment the judge made about Mexicans.

U.S. District Judge Joseph Bataillon ordered a mistrial Monday in the case brought by relatives of Guadalupe Vallesillo Jr. against Omaha Police Officers Alan Reyes and Brian Heath.

A coroner's report said Vallesillo, 20, died of an asthma attack while struggling with the officers in 1997. The family alleges the officers used excessive force and did not give Vallesillo the proper medication.

During jury selection Monday, a juror told Bataillon that her husband had been arrested in Mexico, and had been jailed wearing little or no clothing.

Bataillon responded that people traveling in Mexico should carry extra cash.


He later told the Omaha World-Herald that he was trying to make a joke about some Mexican officials' reputation for taking bribes. But the plaintiffs, who are Mexican-American, complained.

"The message telegraphed to the jury by a person of authority was: It is OK to apply a lesser standard to people of Mexican heritage," Vallesillo family attorney Dorothy A. Walker said.

Bataillon apologized.

"It was inappropriate in the context of this jury trial to say anything that could be disparaging to people of Mexican descent," Bataillon told the newspaper. "I apologize. It just wasn't very smart."

Assistant City Attorney Tom Mumgaard said the remark was innocuous and drew laughs in the courtroom.

A new trial date has not been set.

By Associated Press


21 posted on 05/12/2005 1:40:34 PM PDT by kcvl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wk4bush2004

Surprised!?!?

This has been going on in CA for at least the last twenty years. It's one of the reasons some voters have stopped going to the polls. "What's the point in voting for or against anything if the court is going overturn it anyway?"


22 posted on 05/12/2005 1:40:58 PM PDT by Fruit of the Spirit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
I agree, but I don't think we're heading for a constitutional crisis; we're already there.

The judiciary is out of control.

23 posted on 05/12/2005 1:41:49 PM PDT by B Knotts (Viva il Papa!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Borges
I do not trust judges with unchecked powers. Judicial review is not even mentioned in The Federalist Papers. Its time to get rid of it so the ultimate say about our values rests with the people.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
24 posted on 05/12/2005 1:42:20 PM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: B Knotts
The ONLY way to put a stop to this nonsense is through the ratification of a Federal Marriage Amendment.

I must agree with you. I see no other way around the courts. At times it is not even worth voting because a judge will just rule whatever you voted on as unconstitutional....

25 posted on 05/12/2005 1:43:08 PM PDT by yellowdoghunter (Liberals should be seen and not heard.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: kcvl

How much did he pay the Clinton's for that judgeship?


26 posted on 05/12/2005 1:44:11 PM PDT by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Fruit of the Spirit

I just e-mailed my senators asking for this judge's impeachment. I suggest that everyone else do the same.


27 posted on 05/12/2005 1:45:44 PM PDT by wk4bush2004
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: JoeV1
A state court cannot overrule its own Constitution. This ruling will be appealed to the appellate level and then to the USSC. A federal judge can strike down state constitutional provisions inconsistent with the federal Constitution, which is the Supreme Law Of The Land. This decision is not too surprising. It is after all, the progeny of Lawrence Vs Texas. By the reasoning of that decision, ANY prohibitions on homosexual conduct are "irrational and discriminatory." So here we are.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
28 posted on 05/12/2005 1:45:47 PM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

Comment #29 Removed by Moderator

To: KC_Conspirator

I wouldn't count on that Backstabbing, "Judges are our Masters", Frist to propose doing anything. The threat of CWII gets closer and closer everyday it seems.


30 posted on 05/12/2005 1:46:08 PM PDT by JustAnAmerican (Being Independent means never having to say you're Partisan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Borges

This is exactly the reason the dems are so crazy about the filibuster. They have made the judges and judiciary branch into the be-all,end-all of our legal system and stacked them with people who agree with the dems.

Its a disgusting power play by the minority to try and enforce their will on such a huge majority here, but it is entierly unsurprising.


31 posted on 05/12/2005 1:46:18 PM PDT by Personal Responsibility (Why is it that the wackiest people get to define reality?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: jebanks
"U.S. District Judge Joseph Bataillon was nominated to the bench in January of 1997 and confirmed by the Senate nearly 10 months later."

Surprise, surprise - - this liberal activist judge is a Clinton appointee.
This scumbag Bataillon is corrupt to the core.

32 posted on 05/12/2005 1:46:41 PM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Ping to self for later pingout.


33 posted on 05/12/2005 1:46:51 PM PDT by little jeremiah (Resisting evil is our duty or we are as responsible as those promoting it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
In FP #78, Hamilton said that Judges would have the power to declare a law void. The Constitution gives the USSC jurisdiction over 'all cases in law and Equity'. Even Justice Scalia doesn't want to get rid of Marbury Vs Madison which he rightly notes as a plagiarism of Hamilton in the FP.

Leaving Legislative bodies in charge of the Constitution is like leaving wolves in charge of the Hen house. It's a document that lists the sort of laws they are not allowed to pass. The Judicial branch is there to make sure they don't. The answer is to appoint good judges.
34 posted on 05/12/2005 1:47:33 PM PDT by Borges
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: B Knotts

You are absolutely right - but I don't see it happening any time soon.


35 posted on 05/12/2005 1:47:48 PM PDT by mlc9852
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: jebanks
A group of lesbian and gay couples sued the state of Nebraska, contending the act barred "lesbian, gay and bisexual people from using the ordinary political process to seek important legal protections that all other Nebraskans already have."

So much for Roe v Wade.

36 posted on 05/12/2005 1:48:24 PM PDT by Libertarianize the GOP (Make all taxes truly voluntary)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jebanks
A group of lesbian and gay couples sued the state of Nebraska, contending the act barred "lesbian, gay and bisexual people from using the ordinary political process to seek important legal protections that all other Nebraskans already have."

Since when is a vote of the people not considered the "ordinary political process?"

37 posted on 05/12/2005 1:48:45 PM PDT by PeoplesRepublicOfWashington (Re-elect Dino Rossi in 2005!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yellowdoghunter
The courts are the last stranglehold of the Left. What the ACLU and the Gay Lobby could not persuade Nebraska voters to accept, they managed to get a federal judge to do it for them and impose leftist social doctrine against the will of 70% of the people of Nebraska. This ruling is going to have an effect on Ben Nelson's re-election next year and do not be surprised if he comes out against Judge Battailon's ruling.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
38 posted on 05/12/2005 1:48:54 PM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: jebanks

This guy is only making matters worse for the gays. It's going to throw kerosene on the fire. Those floozies are in trouble!!!


39 posted on 05/12/2005 1:49:27 PM PDT by No Dems 2004
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jebanks

Someone 'splain it to me--it was a constitutional provision that he then called unconstitutional... how does that work?


40 posted on 05/12/2005 1:49:31 PM PDT by jcb8199
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jebanks

But of course we shouldn't amend the US constitution to prevent judges from doing this...


41 posted on 05/12/2005 1:50:09 PM PDT by Unam Sanctam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: princess leah

This reminds me of something that happened in Colorado with Proposition 2, or similar.....my memory is foggy.

The nature of the argument was that you could allow somebody to ask for something, then turn them down; but, you could not prohibit their asking for it in the first place. Prohibiting the request is unconstitutional; denying it isn't.

It was tricky. So are those who want to change the dominant culture of the US.


42 posted on 05/12/2005 1:50:52 PM PDT by Loud Mime (Liberals are all heart, they care for everybody they care for and hate the rest.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: escapefromboston
Question: If I was an employee of the State of Nebraska (a guy can dream can't he) could I share benefits with someone who was just a good friend?

Short answer, Yes.

Also, you may have hit upon the method to turn this around.

If all single state and federal employees would find a friend with whopping health problems and "marry" them the government and business would have to either remove spouses and children from employee health plans or remove gays from same by restricting gay "marriage".

43 posted on 05/12/2005 1:51:07 PM PDT by Navy Patriot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: jebanks

Does anyone know which Constitution this judge said was violated -- Nebraska's or the US Constitution? Either way, I'd expect him to be overruled by a higher federal court.


44 posted on 05/12/2005 1:51:26 PM PDT by december12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jebanks
Reading through all sorts of news on this case (some even from gay periodicals) it doesn't look as though the judge has done anything particularly noteworthy to assist gays. He is not exciting their little hearts.

What happened is that Nebraska passed a law that had more in it than the usual "no gay marriage" stuff. That additional material gave the plaintiffs (the ACLU as usual, and in this case them alone since NO ONE HAS COMPLAINED OF BEING HARMED) a hook.

In the future it would be a good idea to leave the extra stuff out.

This whole thing, though, demonstrates that we need a federal constitutional amendment to deal with the issue.

45 posted on 05/12/2005 1:51:38 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: princess leah
Betcha he's a Clinton Nominee!"""

Maybe he is, but don't be surprised if a Republican president put him in. A lot of liberal judges were appointed by Nixon, Ford and Bush Sr.

46 posted on 05/12/2005 1:52:31 PM PDT by churchillbuff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: jebanks

I'm buying stock in tar and feathers


47 posted on 05/12/2005 1:53:00 PM PDT by Radioactive (I'm on the radio..so I'm radioactive)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Borges
Hamilton said no such thing. The Framers assured the public they would not have to fear from judicial despotism because the courts were dependent on the public purse. Little did they see the courts would gain through Marbury the right to literally make the law as they saw fit. And judicial review has allowed judges to express contempt for the will of the people by reading into the law their own personal or ideological preferences. The answer is not to appoint judges but rather to restore the final say about what the law means to the elected representatives of the people. That can be brought about only through abolishing judicial review.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
48 posted on 05/12/2005 1:53:33 PM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

Comment #49 Removed by Moderator

To: wk4bush2004; kcvl; goldstategop; Brilliant; Congressman Billybob

IMPEACHMENT TIME OUTRAGE!

Yes, we need a chilling effect on these #$%^&*( robed anarchists!

Chilling down to room temperature, with a hangman's noose for TREASON.


50 posted on 05/12/2005 1:55:23 PM PDT by The Spirit Of Allegiance (SAVE THE BRAINFOREST! Boycott the RED Dead Tree Media!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-189 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