Judge illegally strikes down part of the Nebraska Constitution as Unconstitutional

[Avatar4321]

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.

 

[SmarterThanYou]

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.

 

[Mr. P]

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.

Yep, what he said.

 

[Nienna]

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."

Wish they would have explained this a little better. This would, IMO be a reason to draft a new law, but not just because

Gays and lesbians who work for the state or the University of Nebraska system were banned from sharing health insurance and other benefits with their partners.

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.

 

[SmarterThanYou]

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 people do not have a legal family relationship.

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.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

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.

I have to say, when you put it that way...

 

[Avatar4321]

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.

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.

 

[Nienna]

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.

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.

 

[Nienna]

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.

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

 

[SmarterThanYou]

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.

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.

 

[Annie]

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.

ALWAYS the federal constitution trumps states.

 

[Avatar4321]

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.

Problem is there isn't any basic rights afforded to people under the US constitution in question here. Nor are insurance benefits a basic right to any individual. The liberal agenda has everything to do with this decision and its blatantly dishonest to claim otherwise.

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

Bosh. A constitutional amendment can encompass as many issues as the people vote it to encompass. If that weren't true than the 14th amendment of the Federal Constitution would have to be deemed unconstitutional by the same judge because it encompasses multiple issues and not just the equal protection clause. And considering the 14th amendment is the only amendment that gives the federal government power to interfer in state matters the judge has inadvertedly destroyed his entire unconstitutional argument.

 

[NATO AIR]

this reminds me of the arkansas gay rights case a few months ago. (I commented on it a while back when Bully was hyping it up)

The gay rights folks were hyping it up, the homophobes and the homosexual conspiracy folks were freaking out and slamming liberal judges...

but in actuality, all the judge was doing was his job. the legislature had overstepped its bounds by writing a law that was not legally sound. said legislature went back to the drawing board and fixed the problem and now gays can't adopt in arkansas. a lot of these laws getting struck down by so called "liberal, elitist, anti-american" judges are just all in all, bad laws. once they're remade into a legally sound, procedure correct law, then its back to normal.

 

[SmarterThanYou]

Problem is there isn't any basic rights afforded to people under the US constitution in question here. Nor are insurance benefits a basic right to any individual. The liberal agenda has everything to do with this decision and its blatantly dishonest to claim otherwise.

I disagree with the first part of this. This was all about basic rights being infringed upon which WOULD be a direct violation of the 14th that you've brought up below.

Bosh. A constitutional amendment can encompass as many issues as the people vote it to encompass. If that weren't true than the 14th amendment of the Federal Constitution would have to be deemed unconstitutional by the same judge because it encompasses multiple issues and not just the equal protection clause. And considering the 14th amendment is the only amendment that gives the federal government power to interfer in state matters the judge has inadvertedly destroyed his entire unconstitutional argument.

this is debatable, the 14th is a subject of citizens rights with several sections including elected representation for the entire population and restrictions on who can represent. As I had stated before several months ago, it's important to remember the history of how and why the 14th was created to get a sense of its 'one subject'. To prevent southern states from treating blacks as second class citizens, or 'separate but equal', the 14th was created to protect a race, not an individual citizen as was done with the schiavo case.

 

[5stringJeff]

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.

All rhetoric aside, who has really recommended this?

 

[no1tovote4]

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.

A State's Constitutional Amendment can be struck down if it violates the Rights of the US Citizen regardless of the amount of people that have voted for it in that particular State.

Amendment 14 made it so that the Rights specified to the Individual supercede the State's Rights and therefore Constitutional Amendments at a State level can be struck down. This happened in Colorado as well with Amendment 2 that stated that Homosexuals could not get "special" rights or be afforded Civil Protection just for their sexual proclivities. This was struck down because it singled out a specific class of people to deny them Civil Rights according to legal precedence.

I would wish the story would go more into exactly how it would prevent certain things such as a private company from providing benefits as they see fit, etc. The story is woefully low on actual information other than the Amendment was struck down in Federal Court. I am sure that Nebraska will take this to a higher court until they have exhausted all of their options.

 

[nakedemperor]

If the people's will (that is, the choice of the majority of the people) is unconstitutional, I don't see how the majority can enact an unconsitutional law simply for being the majority; this is the legislative's check against an unconsitutional (albeit majority) view, is it not?