AP: Court Restores Neb. Same-Sex Marriage Ban

[Eugene]

Court Restores Neb. Same-Sex Marriage Ban

By KEVIN O'HANLON, Associated Press Writer

Friday, July 14, 2006

(07-14) 09:11 PDT Lincoln, Neb. (AP) --

Supporters of banning gay marriage won two major court rulings Friday, with a federal
appeals court reinstating Nebraska's voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage and
the Tennessee Supreme Court ruling that voters should have a say on the issue.

<snip>

In the Nebraska case, U.S. District Judge Joseph Bataillon had ruled that the ban
was too broad and deprived gays and lesbians of participation in the political process,
among other things.

The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed, saying in its ruling Friday that the
amendment "and other laws limiting the state-recognized institution of marriage to
heterosexual couples are rationally related to legitimate state interests and therefore
do not violate the Constitution of the United States."

Seventy percent of Nebraska voters approved the ban in 2000.

<snip>

Full article: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2006/07/14/national/a083531D14.DTL

[soleft]

1. legitimate state interests? This is freaking scary

[Heidi]

2. What "legitimate state interests" trump the right to participate

in the political process and, indeed, in the institution of marriage? As a straight, married person, I believe my marriage would be _stronger_ if the right to marry were extended to any adult couple who want to commit to one another. I believe the institution of marriage is _weakened_ by bigotry. :grr:

[im10ashus]

4. Well said.

"I believe the institution of marriage is _weakened_ by bigotry."

I think you just "underscored" my beliefs. :-)

[karlrschneider]

3. No doubt the right-wingers will be complaining about "activist judges"

here, right?

No?

[Biernuts]

5. I doubt it - the activist judge lable is normally used when a judge or

justice overturns laws passed by legislatures and propositions. On occasion, it works the other way around, but that's the exception, not the norm. The most prominent recent exception is the Kelo case concerning public taking of private property. Legislatures, counties and cities would love to be able to do whatever they want and the USSC in a 5-4 ruling last year pretty much wrote them all a blank check.

In Kelo, opponents were expecting the court to protect the little guy against the power of the state unless is was for a public use but instead got case law expanding the term to mean public benefit as well. Unpopular with conservatives & expecially libertairians & anarchists, it's ruling is nonetheless consistent with the court normally deferring to elected bodies unless fundamental rights are affected.

If a state legislature or election proposition passes gay marriage, I'd fully expect the court to uphold it within the boundaries of that state absent a federal constitutional amendment to the contrary.