Judge illegally strikes down part of the Nebraska Constitution as Unconstitutional

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Avatar4321, May 14, 2005.

  1. Avatar4321
    Offline

    Avatar4321 Diamond Member Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2004
    Messages:
    70,550
    Thanks Received:
    8,163
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Ratings:
    +12,175
    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2005/05/12/national/a141548D35.DTL

    You know for all the liberal talk about the states being allowed to determine whether they are for gay marriage or not rather than going for the federal constitutional amendment, they don't seem to have any problem with having judges overturn the will of the people of those states.

    This is why we need the federal constitutional amendment, because judges are going to violate the states rights and the federal government has an obligation to step in and back up the states on this matter. The fact is that there is no state in the union where the people have decided to allow gay marriage (Massachusetts does not count since the people did not decide to allow gay marriage the Courts told them they had to recognize it). Gay marriage is only being made part of our society by tyrannical acts of a few elite judges who think they can force their will on the people. And quite frankly the people aren't going to take it much longer. I hope the gay community realizes the extent of the backlash that is coming. Cause it wont be pretty.
     
  2. SmarterThanYou
    Online

    SmarterThanYou Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    before you go completely insane over the 'elite liberal judge' issue, take a moment to read what it was that was ruled upon. He didn't make gay marriage suddenly legal and constitutional, he ruled that particular bill unconstitutional because of the broad proscriptions written in to the amendment, which i'm sure that the religious discriminatory group of the national family council had a hand in writing it, that most of the citizens of nebraska just assumed they were voting on banning gay marriage and not all the extra crap that some religious fanatics wrote in to the bill.

    I realize that some of you on here would like to see america go back to the victorian era and maybe would like to see women wearing burka like dresses but get a grip already.
     
  3. Mr. P
    Offline

    Mr. P Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Messages:
    11,329
    Thanks Received:
    618
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    South of the Mason Dixon
    Ratings:
    +620
    Yep, what he said.
     
  4. Nienna
    Offline

    Nienna Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2005
    Messages:
    4,515
    Thanks Received:
    333
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Ohio
    Ratings:
    +333
    Wish they would have explained this a little better. This would, IMO be a reason to draft a new law, but not just because
    This is no reason to strike down the law. To be fair, the taxpayer would be required to provide health benefits to any people living together. Gay couples do not have a legal family relationship.
     
  5. SmarterThanYou
    Online

    SmarterThanYou Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    sharing health insurance benefits does not cost the taxpayer. The bill that was struck down prevented private insurance companies from offering policies for same sex couples. The last that I heard a free market was just that, free to provide the policies and coverage they felt could make a profit.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  6. rtwngAvngr
    Offline

    rtwngAvngr Guest

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    15,755
    Thanks Received:
    511
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +511
    I have to say, when you put it that way...
     
  7. Avatar4321
    Offline

    Avatar4321 Diamond Member Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2004
    Messages:
    70,550
    Thanks Received:
    8,163
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Ratings:
    +12,175
    I am sorry that you who lean left seem to have a problem with this. But by definition a constitutional amendment cannot be struck down because the only reason a law can be struck down is if its unconstitutional. I know you might not like this because it doesn't help you with your agenda, but the fact is a judge has decided that the people don't get to choose what laws they make. That is flat out wrong.
     
  8. Nienna
    Offline

    Nienna Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2005
    Messages:
    4,515
    Thanks Received:
    333
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Ohio
    Ratings:
    +333
    I thought that the example was "gays and lesbians who work for the state or the university system." I assumed that these were funded by the taxpayer, thus taxpayer money would go toward the health benefits. If it prevented private companies from offering the benefits, that should be struck down, IMO.
     
  9. Nienna
    Offline

    Nienna Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2005
    Messages:
    4,515
    Thanks Received:
    333
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Ohio
    Ratings:
    +333

    I missed that! I thought they were talking about a DOMA! How in the world could they do that?
     
  10. SmarterThanYou
    Online

    SmarterThanYou Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    no, a judge ruled that a state constitutional amendment cannot override a basic right afforded to people under the US constitution. It wouldn't matter a hill of beans whether every voting citizen in nebraska voted FOR the amendment or not. Agenda, wether left or right, had nothing to do with the decision nor what I posted.

    It was also ruled unconstitutional because a constitutional amendment may only encompass ONE issue and not any others. This is why a couple of others were ruled unconstitutional in other states and had to be rewritten later.
     

Share This Page