• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Judge strikes down Nebraska gay marriage ban

shuamort

Pundit-licious
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
7,297
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Saint Paul, MN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7834478/

WASHINGTON - In the first time that a federal judge has struck down a state constitutional provision limiting marriage to heterosexual couples, U.S. District Judge Joseph Bataillon on Thursday declared void a provision of the Nebraska constitution that defined marriage as only between a man and a woman and that banned same-sex civil unions, domestic partnerships and other similar relationships.

Bataillon declared in his ruling that under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, Nebraska cannot ban same-sex marriages and civil unions.

The ruling may call into question similar provisions in other states’ constitutions.

In a statement, Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning said the state would appeal Bataillon’s ruling.

“Seventy percent of Nebraskans voted for the amendment to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman, and I believe that the citizens of this state have a right to structure their constitution as they see fit,” Bruning said.

Bataillon, who was nominated to the federal bench by President Clinton in 1997 and unanimously confirmed by the Senate, based his ruling on two Supreme Court decisions, Romer v. Evans in 1996 and Lawrence v. Texas in 2003, with the majority opinion in both written by Justice Anthony Kennedy.

Nebraska could not limit the rights of gays and lesbians “to obtain legal protections for themselves or their children in a ‘same-sex’ relationship ‘similar to’ marriage,” said Bataillon.

The Nebraska constitutional provision, he said, “attempts to impose a broad disability on a single group” and the Romer decision bans such disabilities, he said.

The Nebraska provision “is at once too broad and too narrow to satisfy its purported purpose of defining marriage, preserving marriage, or fostering procreation and family life,” Bataillon wrote.

He called it “too narrow” because “it does not address other potential threats to the institution of marriage, such as divorce.”

And it is “too broad in that it reaches not only same-sex ‘marriages,’ but many other legitimate associations, arrangements, contracts, benefits and policies.”

The judge said the amendment’s “broad proscriptions could also interfere with or prevent arrangements between potential adoptive or foster parents and children, related persons living together, and people sharing custody of children as well as gay individuals and people inclined to align with them to promote changes in legislation.”

:2usflag: :ind: :july_4th:
 

Schweddy

Benevolent Dictator
Administrator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2004
Messages
12,176
Reaction score
6,279
Location
Plano, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Direct evidence of an activist Judge.

It's sad when even voters are unable to change the law but a single guys political and personal opinion can...
 

shuamort

Pundit-licious
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
7,297
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Saint Paul, MN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
vauge said:
Direct evidence of an activist Judge.

It's sad when even voters are unable to change the law but a single guys political and personal opinion can...
So you're saying that if a state decided by constitutional amendment that they would be ruled under a communist dictatorship, that you'd be fine with that?
 

Schweddy

Benevolent Dictator
Administrator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2004
Messages
12,176
Reaction score
6,279
Location
Plano, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Big difference between voting on a type of government vs a priviledge.
 

shuamort

Pundit-licious
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
7,297
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Saint Paul, MN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
vauge said:
Big difference between voting on a type of government vs a priviledge.
W-w-wait. Answer the question. The people of Nebraska voted for a state constitutional amendment to have their state run under a communist dictatorship. Do you have a problem with the majority of people of NE doing that?
 

Schweddy

Benevolent Dictator
Administrator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2004
Messages
12,176
Reaction score
6,279
Location
Plano, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
shuamort said:
W-w-wait. Answer the question. The people of Nebraska voted for a state constitutional amendment to have their state run under a communist dictatorship. Do you have a problem with the majority of people of NE doing that?
Of course I would have an issue if a state voted to opt into communism. That is NOT what happened. They voted to maintain the marriage priviledge for couples that are opposite sex.

I have issue with the judge going against the will of the people - what should be constitutional.
 

Gandhi>Bush

Non-Passive Pascifist
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
2,742
Reaction score
0
Location
Mesquite, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
I'm for gay marriage and what this judge did scares me. This is 70% that voted on an issue. Whether he agrees or not he shouldn't just say, "Nope. Screw 'em. It's void."

That's ridiculous. That's not very democratic.
 

26 X World Champs

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2005
Messages
7,536
Reaction score
429
Location
Upper West Side of Manhattan (10024)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
vauge said:
Direct evidence of an activist Judge.

It's sad when even voters are unable to change the law but a single guys political and personal opinion can...
Wrong, sorry! This judge ruled based on his understanding of the Constitution. To broadly categorize him as "activist" as if to prove what, exactly? Because you disagree with a ruling it's activist, but if you agree it's right?

You see, that's why we have a judicial branch of government, to rule on laws as to their legality. Nebraska can now appeal the decision, and it can eventually end up with the Supremes. That is not a broken system, that IS the system.

The amount of independent thinking amongst people who disagree with a court's ruling is just too weird. The fact that 70% voted for whatever is irrelevant. Judge's do not rule based on what the majority of voter's want but on what they think is legal or Constitutional. If this were not true we'd still have Jim Crow laws and live in a segregated society.

Why can't people accept court rulings and then use the court system to appeal rather than rabble rousing about "activist" judges?
 

jAk

New member
Joined
May 13, 2005
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
Nebraska must be a pretty bigoted state. They actually voted to limit the rights of gay people? That is just evil.
 

Schweddy

Benevolent Dictator
Administrator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2004
Messages
12,176
Reaction score
6,279
Location
Plano, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
jAk said:
Nebraska must be a pretty bigoted state. They actually voted to limit the rights of gay people? That is just evil.
Since when is marriage a "right"?

Why can't people accept court rulings and then use the court system to appeal rather than rabble rousing about "activist" judges?
Because for 100's of years we have accepted the system and what folks vote on per STATE. Now, some lame brain spits on our constitutional right to have say in the matter.

This is why I don't like the idea, but I think we need an amendment. Put it to a national vote even. But, people for gay marriage will not do that cause they know they will loose.
 

Gandhi>Bush

Non-Passive Pascifist
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
2,742
Reaction score
0
Location
Mesquite, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
26 X World Champs said:
Wrong, sorry! This judge ruled based on his understanding of the Constitution. To broadly categorize him as "activist" as if to prove what, exactly? Because you disagree with a ruling it's activist, but if you agree it's right?

You see, that's why we have a judicial branch of government, to rule on laws as to their legality. Nebraska can now appeal the decision, and it can eventually end up with the Supremes. That is not a broken system, that IS the system.

The amount of independent thinking amongst people who disagree with a court's ruling is just too weird. The fact that 70% voted for whatever is irrelevant. Judge's do not rule based on what the majority of voter's want but on what they think is legal or Constitutional. If this were not true we'd still have Jim Crow laws and live in a segregated society.

Why can't people accept court rulings and then use the court system to appeal rather than rabble rousing about "activist" judges?
It's strange how you're so quick to come to the aid of the minority, yet without blinking you throw away everything the majority has done.
 

26 X World Champs

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2005
Messages
7,536
Reaction score
429
Location
Upper West Side of Manhattan (10024)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Gandhi>Bush said:
It's strange how you're so quick to come to the aid of the minority, yet without blinking you throw away everything the majority has done.
You're confused me thinks? I defended the judicial system. I didn't know that defending our form of government is the minority point of view? You see the thing is about the Judicial branch is that majority has nothing to do with THE LAW. The law is determined by it's interpretation by a judge, and if the losing party disagrees they appeal...what about that do you not understand?

BTW - The majority of Americans are also anti-war and pro-abortion...and are PRO JUDICIARY. Are you for or against our judicial system? If you're against it, what does that mean?
 

Gandhi>Bush

Non-Passive Pascifist
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
2,742
Reaction score
0
Location
Mesquite, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
I'm for a judicial system and what the hell does anti-war and pro-abortion have to do with this.

I don't believe that most Americans are anti-war(sadly) or pro-abortion(thankfully).

I'm for the judicial system, but when the judicial system obsturcts democracy I think that is a problem. I don't have a problem with gay marriage, but I do have a problem with a judge giving the finger to 70% of his state, not to mention democracy in general.
 

shuamort

Pundit-licious
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
7,297
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Saint Paul, MN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
vauge said:
Of course I would have an issue if a state voted to opt into communism. That is NOT what happened. They voted to maintain the marriage priviledge for couples that are opposite sex.

I have issue with the judge going against the will of the people - what should be constitutional.
So, you would not have a problem with a judge ruling that Nebraska couldn't go communist dictatorship on the basis that it's unconstitutional, even if that were the will of the majority of the state? (sorry, if I'm repeating that, just wanna make sure I'm clear here).
 
Top Bottom