Federal judge rules gay marriage ban unconstitutional (Nebraska)

Omaha World Herald ^ | 5/12/05 | Todd Cooper

[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.

[goldstategop]

Of course if liberals approved of traditional marriage, this same judge would have found plenty of reasons to uphold Nebraska's constitutional amendment. I guess it all depends on what side of the fence you're on.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)

[EternalVigilance]

Bookmarked.

[tahiti]

"Constitutional law is ONLY possible with judicial review. You apparently confuse Democracy with a Republic."

Well said. Are you a "student" of Prof. Randy Barnett?

[atrocitor]

Yeah, let Congress and the President decide what is constitutional. And if they ever disagree, they can flip a coin. That's fair and makes sense too.

[goldstategop]

Good point. When you define marriage out of existence, what's the point of preserving marriage for future generations? Its not one I expect an idiot liberal judge with an axe to grind to appreciate.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)

[johnb838]

Clinton really, REALLY screwed us on the judges. It gets worse every day. Clintonian sleeper cells.

[goldstategop]

Why not? If they do get it wrong, vote 'em out. Judges flip a coin and if lands the wrong way, we can't exactly overrule them except through a time-consuming process. And by then, the damage is done.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)

[IronJack]

How can a constitutional provision be unconstitutional? Unless is was an amendment to the state constitution that somehow violated the federal constitution, or that contradicts some other section of the existing state document. And if any of those scenarios are true, then exactly what provision did this violate? Was this invalidated on 14th Amendment "equal protection" grounds? Did a new judge find a new "penumbra" for us to deal with? What makes this unconstitutional?????

[montag813]

Uh, since when do judges of any kind have authority over a state's constitutional amendment??>

[atrocitor]

Exactly. What were the founding fathers thinking when they came up with this third branch thing.

[freedumb2003]

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"

A better attack would be for brother-sister, father-daughter, polygamist (easier to do) to line up and ask why they are being denied the same "rights" as gays. If I was single, I swear I would get a group together and petition the hell out of Mass. courts.

[goldstategop]

I think its the 14th Amendment and Roe, Casey, and Lawrence. You know, equal protection of the laws and the relevant privacy and mystery of life penumbras. Typical liberal legal reasoning. As I said, if homosexual behavior is legal, then you can't ban gay and lesbian couples from getting married. Bastard decisions but then again Sen. Santorum observed this was exactly how it would turn out. No one should be shocked.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)

[paul_fromatlanta]

>>Do you see me overreacting emotionally? I replied with facts, logic and good datum. Of course there's also an element of righteous anger. If you were one of the 70% in Nebraska, how does it feel to have ONE judge tell you that your views are outdated, reactionary, and unenlightened? I don't hate gays and lesbians; I just happen to think their lifestyle is NOT good public policy for the survival of our nation.<<

It's an emotional issue -it natural to feel emotion...

Here's an attempt to be rational.

1. Why does the state recognize marriage at all? Because society has found it the best way raise children.

2. So what about gay marriage? Just because they are adults and have the right to interact how they choose doesn't mean the state has an obligation treat their union the same since society has not found gay relationships to be the best way to raise children.

3. What about civil unions? If people are going to live in non-traditional families it is societies best interest to all stability and protection so they don't become a burden on society. This could apply to unmarried hetero couples as well - it's not a gay-only issue. If they are going to be responsible for kids in spite of being non-traditional the kids should have as stable of a household as possible.

4. What if I don't want to endorse the gay lifestyle? With civil unions it's not about endorsements or special rights - it's equal protection as specified in the constitution. You don't have to like someone or approve of them to recognize that the constitution guarantees them equal protection. Older people who want to co-habitate without a marriage could also benefit.

So, I think the court did the right thing. And I know they can't consider this but it's also the Christian thing to do to give the opportunity of equal protection to everybody, even if you don't like the way they live.

[johnb838]

Yeah, I think polygamy is a much better example to use in an argument about what Lawrence will lead to than bestiality, because bestiality is ludicrous, polygamy is right around the corner. Along with continued downward pressure on age of consent.

[shellshocked]

If I were the Nebraska gov, I'd tell that judge to stick it.

[johnb838]

Then I oppose marriage and I think it should be abolished. I propose an Abolition of Marriage Amendment. If it is going to include steers and queers, then there is no reason for a single fellow like me to subsidize it with my tax dollars. I grudgingly am ok with it between a man and a woman because I think it is good for society, but if society is going to champion something that I believe will contribute to its downfall, then lets get rid of it all together.

[demkicker]

Expect the SCOTUS to invalidate ALL state constitutional bans on gay marriage.

This will happen ONLY if conservatives lose the majority on the Supreme Court. That's why Dems are going nuts over the possiblity of the GOP eliminating their ability to filibuster judge nominees, keeping them from getting a vote.

This is a defining time in our history and make no mistake, God is watching......

[paul_fromatlanta]

>>Then I oppose marriage and I think it should be abolished. I propose an Abolition of Marriage Amendment. If it is going to include steers and queers, then there is no reason for a single fellow like me to subsidize it with my tax dollars. I grudgingly am ok with it between a man and a woman because I think it is good for society, but if society is going to champion something that I believe will contribute to its downfall, then lets get rid of it all together<<

All the state can do is decide what official recognition to give to marriage..people would still get married no matter what. I just don't see why we should not have something other than marriage for people who want to form a household together.

[RJL]

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.

Nebraska Beef Company, a Clinton campaign donor?

[johnb838]

YEah, I think it should be a straight up partnership, almost like a business partnership. But no federal tax breaks. You can get a break if there are minor childern, but nothing just for being coupled. That sucks anyway.