Nebraska attorney general Jon Bruning argued Thursday that Nebraska's ban on same-sex marriage should be restored. In a 110-page brief filed with the eighth U.S. circuit court of appeals, Bruning said that U.S. district judge Joseph Bataillon was wrong to strike down Nebraska's five-year-old ban. Bataillon ruled in May that the measure was too broad and deprived gays and lesbians of participation in the political process, among other things. Seventy percent of Nebraska voters approved the constitutional amendment in 2000. The ban "does not violate any person's freedom of expression or association," Bruning wrote.
Opponents of the ban "are free to gather, express themselves, lobby, and generally participate in the political process however they see fit," he said. "Plaintiffs are free to petition state senators to place a constitutional amendment on the ballot. Plaintiffs are similarly free to begin an initiative process to place a constitutional amendment on the ballot, just as supporters...did." Bataillon's ruling did nothing to change the status of same-sex marriage in Nebraska. It was not allowed before the ban's adoption, and it remains against the law.
The lawsuit challenging the ban was filed by New York City–based Lambda Legal and the American Civil Liberties Union's Lesbian and Gay Project. David Buckel, senior staff attorney at Lambda Legal, has called the ban one of "the most extreme anti-gay-family laws in the nation." Forty states have so-called defense of marriage laws.
Opponents of same-sex marriage have pointed to Bataillon's ruling as a reason to seek a national ban. While the amendment specifically banned same-sex marriage, it went further than similar bans in many states by prohibiting same-sex couples from enjoying many of the legal protections that heterosexual couples enjoy. Gays and lesbians who work for the state or the University of Nebraska system, for example, were barred from sharing health insurance and other benefits with their partners.
Bataillon said the amendment interferes not only with the rights of gay couples but also with foster parents, adopted children, and people in a host of other living arrangements. The judge said the ban amounted to punishment by going beyond merely defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman, noting that it also says the state will not recognize two people in a same-sex relationship "similar to marriage."
Bruning said "the presence of advocacy groups willing to file this case seems ample evidence that advocacy has not been impaired." "Plaintiffs' members enjoy all the benefits and protections of Nebraska law that any other person has," Bruning said. "Their homosexual members have the same right to lobby for change as their heterosexual members." (AP)
These comments are reproduced as written by visitors to this Web site. They have not been edited for content, grammar, or spelling. The viewpoints appearing here are those of the writer, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion or views of advocate.com, The Advocate, or its affiliates.
Be the first to comment on this story.
If you would like to submit a comment for posting, please fill out the form above.
All comments submitted via this form are subject to posting or publication. (To send a private letter to an Advocate editor or writer, please use the e-mail button at the top of the page, or use snail mail.) If you would like your comment considered for publication in The Advocate magazine, please include your full name, your city of residence, and a phone number where you can be reached during business hours so that we can confirm your identity. Your e-mail address and telephone number are strictly confidential and will not be shared or used for any purpose other than to contact you about your comment.
See the Contact page for sending comments for reasons other than responding to Advocate editorial and news stories.
Please note that comments sent by fax or snail mail are unlikely to be posted, although they will be considered for publication along with all letters received via e-mail or via this Web page. Comments that chiefly concern Advocate.com content will be considered for posting only on the Web site. The Advocate reserves the right to edit submitted comments for grammar, spelling, obscenities, or libel; we will, however, do our best to preserve the original comment's style and intent. Comments considered for publication in The Advocate magazine may also be edited for length.