[wk4bush2004]

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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Travis McGee]

All hail KING COURT!

[Fruit of the Spirit]

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?"

[The Spirit Of Allegiance]

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.

[tahiti]

I can tell by your post you are not going to like what I have posted below, but the bottom line is the "federal" judge ruled correctly, constitutionally.

Is that not what we want the judges to do?

Article VI

2. This constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the CONSTITUTION OR LAWS OF ANY STATE to the contrary notwithstanding.

Lawrence v. Texas has established that "gayness" is a right "retained by the people," as enumerated in Amendment IX.

A "federal" constitutional amendment is going to be needed to accomplish your goal of banning gay marriage.

Why wouldn't a "conservative," who believes in the principle of limited, delegated power given from the people to a government, not support that principle by insisting our government has no constitutional, enumerated power to interfere in the sexual preference or partnership decisions of fellow citizens.

Most "conservatives" would support the proposition that the decision to be a homosexual, as well as heterosexual, is in fact a decision, not genetic.

With that being the case, why is a human not free to choose their sexual preference without negative consequences from their, limited power government?

[PhilipChandler]

It is absolutely clear from your impassioned rant that you have no understanding of the manner in which our judiciary works. Certain rights, some of which are enumerated in the text of the US Constitution, and others which have been derived from interpretations of the US Constitution, are considered to be fundamental and **cannot** be stripped from Americans citizens merely because the majority of the American people wish to do so. I should have thought that this would be something that you would understand before throwing a hissy fit. These rights include the right to intimate and expressive association (have you read the First Amendment, or any of the long line of US Supreme Court cases that deal with interpretations of this Amendment?), the right to petition the legislature for redress of grievances, and the right of all persons to enjoy the equal protection of the laws. Any state constitutional amendment that classifies one group of people and declares that they, as a group, cannot avail themselves of the same right to petition their legislature for redress of grievances as is enjoyed by all other groups of people, is unconstitutional on its face (see Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620). Your comments also indicate that the district court was absolutely correct when it found, as a matter of law, that Section 29 of the Nebraska constitution was enacted as the direct result of animus directed towards the group impacted by the amendment. Clearly, you harbor animus towards gay people and wish to inscribe this animus into state constitutional law.

Let me ask you this: Using your own logic, were the overwhelming majority of the citizens of Nebraska to amend their constitution to permit the summary execution of people determined to be gay, would this be acceptable? I am not being facetious -- I want to know your answer to this question. Please be honest -- tell us what you think should be done with, or to, gay people.