<body><script type="text/javascript"> function setAttributeOnload(object, attribute, val) { if(window.addEventListener) { window.addEventListener('load', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }, false); } else { window.attachEvent('onload', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }); } } </script> <div id="navbar-iframe-container"></div> <script type="text/javascript" src="https://apis.google.com/js/platform.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript"> gapi.load("gapi.iframes:gapi.iframes.style.bubble", function() { if (gapi.iframes && gapi.iframes.getContext) { gapi.iframes.getContext().openChild({ url: 'https://www.blogger.com/navbar.g?targetBlogID\x3d11341962\x26blogName\x3dGay+Rights+Watch\x26publishMode\x3dPUBLISH_MODE_BLOGSPOT\x26navbarType\x3dBLACK\x26layoutType\x3dCLASSIC\x26searchRoot\x3dhttps://grwtemp.blogspot.com/search\x26blogLocale\x3den_US\x26v\x3d2\x26homepageUrl\x3dhttp://grwtemp.blogspot.com/\x26vt\x3d-6683271145376970135', where: document.getElementById("navbar-iframe-container"), id: "navbar-iframe" }); } }); </script>

BREAKING: U.S. judge rejects Neb. gay-marriage ban

LINCOLN, Neb. -- A federal judge Thursday struck down Nebraska's ban on gay marriage, saying the measure interferes not only with the rights of gay couples but also with those of foster parents, adopted children and people in a host of other living arrangements.

The constitutional amendment, which defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman, was passed overwhelmingly by the voters in November 2000.

U.S. District Judge Joseph Bataillon said the ban "imposes significant burdens on both the expressive and intimate associational rights" of gays "and creates a significant barrier to the plaintiffs' right to petition or to participate in the political process."

Bataillon said the ban beyond "goes far beyond merely defining marriage as between a man and a woman."

The judge said the "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."

Forty states have laws barring same-sex marriages, but Nebraska's ban is the only one that prevented homosexuals who work for the state or its university system from sharing health insurance and other benefits with their partners.

Nebraska has no state law against gay marriage, but state Attorney General Jon Bruning said same-sex marriages were not allowed before the ban and would not be permitted now.

Bruning said he will appeal the 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.

The challenge was filed by the gay rights organization Lambda Legal and the ACLU's Lesbian and Gay Project.

Lamba Legal attorney David Buckel has called the ban "the most extreme anti-gay family law in the entire nation."

Carla Petersen, a member of Metropolitan Community Church in Omaha, which advocates for gay rights, hailed the ruling.

"Every step is a good step," Petersen said. "It really will get the ball rolling again."

The ruling did not surprise the executive director of the Nebraska Family Council, which led the petition drive to get the ban on the ballot. Al Riskowski said the decision will renew the call to pass a constitutional amendment defining marriage as only between a man and a woman.

Massachusetts has allowed gay marriage since last May. Vermont has offered civil unions to gays since 2000; Connecticut will begin offering civil unions in October.

Source: AP

« Home | Previous | Next »
| Previous | Next »
| Previous | Next »
| Previous | Next »
| Previous | Next »
| Previous | Next »
| Previous | Next »
| Previous | Next »
| Previous | Next »
| Previous | Next »

By Blogger Daniel, at 5/13/05, 9:51 PM

Does anyone doubt that Nebraska voters will change their constitution now? Don't think that judges overturning the will of the people is helping your cause.

Daniel's Political Musings    



By Blogger Gavin S., at 5/15/05, 12:14 PM

The court concluded that the amendment, which is exceptionally broad, violated several constitutional protections including the 1st Amendment right to petition the government, and the 14th Amendment guarantee of equal protection.

It is just too extreme and the courts realize this. One of the benefits of our checks and balances. Daniel, if we left issues like this up to you, all races other than your own (white), all gays and lesbians and I'm sure all people different than you, would be in concentration camps.

Joe Solmonese from HRC put it perfectly... “Any law that evicts citizens from the political process is bad for America. Section 29 banned the state Legislature and elected officials from ever considering even the most basic protections for same-sex couples.

“This ruling restores the basic rights of all citizens to engage in the political process.

Section 29 went FAR beyond banning marriage for same-sex couples — it banned everything from civil unions and domestic partnerships to making funeral arrangements for a deceased partner. It also jeopardized the rights of employers to offer domestic partner benefits and even called into question the rights of gay and straight people from making legal arrangements — including things as basic as leases on housing and businesses.

While we celebrate the District Court for its common-sense ruling, we recognize that the same extremists who pushed this measure in the first place will continue their efforts. The truth is, if the ultra-conservatives who championed this amendment really wanted to protect families, they would work to strengthen schools, fight for health care and support all families equally."    



» Post a Comment