Baby Steps to Justice
May 13, 2005 5:32 AM   Subscribe

A federal court puts an end to Nebraska's ban on gay unions Although it doesn't mean that gay partners can start marrying each other, the court's ruling opens the doors to their appeals. Also, at the NY Times.
posted by Jon-o (43 comments total)
 
A noble step in the right direction, I think...
posted by Jon-o at 5:33 AM on May 13, 2005


As with all social progress towards decency, it's not a question of "if", it's a question of "when".

Man, it must suck to be a conservative. You always lose in the end. The tide erodes all rocks eventually.
posted by Decani at 5:34 AM on May 13, 2005


It must REALLY suck to be gay in Nebraska.....

get out while you can!
posted by stevejensen at 5:39 AM on May 13, 2005


or come out while you can, and file some lawsuits.
posted by VulcanMike at 5:42 AM on May 13, 2005


Those homos are destroying everything!

I wanted to get married and have a family, until the faggits got marriage too. Now marriage is ruined for me.

If those pervs get the right to petition for redress of grievance, they'll taint that with the reek of Sodom too, and I won't want my basic democratic rights!

So get back in your closets, homos! I can't enjoy my freedoms unless I know they're denied to you.

I mean, I haven't enjoyed voting since the Civil Rights Act of 1965 allowed every shiftless Negroe a vote as good as mine. And going to church just ain't the same ever since them Catlickers built their Papist Mary-worshipping cathedral downtown. How can I stand tall and proud unless my boot is on someone's throat?
posted by orthogonality at 6:02 AM on May 13, 2005


Bright side: hooray for sanity! Hooray for the Constitution!

Dark side: Stay tuned for much whining about "activist judges" who take the radical step of upholding equal protection. Things are going to get darker before they get any brighter.

On preview: Damn, XQUZYPHYR. Okay, so, um, hooray for good side effects of protecting the normals?
posted by LittleMissCranky at 6:07 AM on May 13, 2005


I'm just as happy for the little victories as the big ones. This made me smile this morning.
posted by agregoli at 6:45 AM on May 13, 2005


I am kind of concerned by this on purely legal grounds. Mainly, how does a federal court get the power to override a state constitution? If we assume that equal protection clause is 'incorporated' (which to the best of my knowledge it is) then this action is covered. However there still seems to be a separation of federal and state powers issue to be played out here.

I predict a bill to come out of the house called something like 'preservation of states rights act' barring any federal court to hear a case that involved a state constitution.
posted by MrLint at 6:45 AM on May 13, 2005


Damn Feds messing with state rights again!
posted by a3matrix at 6:47 AM on May 13, 2005


LittleMissCranky: "Dark side: Stay tuned for much whining about "activist judges" who takethe radical step of upholding equal protection. Things are going to getdarker before they get any brighter."

I'm wondering if it might not be justified whining in this case. First of all, is there any precedent of a federal court nullifying a part of a state constitution like this? Second, NPR reported this morning that Judge Bataillon said he was going to rule in this direction before the case even took place. That sounds like judicial activism to me, even if I agree with the decision.
posted by Plutor at 6:50 AM on May 13, 2005


I predict a bill to come out of the house called something like 'preservation of states rights act' barring any federal court to hear a case that involved a state constitution.

But that would also prevent the federal government from doing anything to stop the states that do allow gay marriage.
posted by Kellydamnit at 6:53 AM on May 13, 2005


It's good, but it means that Nebraska will do a state amendment like other states have. All the state laws will be challenged like this, but i think state Amendments need a federal Supreme Ct. Ruling to get rid of them.
posted by amberglow at 6:58 AM on May 13, 2005


I thought any rights not explicitly stated in the Cinstitutuion were reserved for states. That also means that in the case of any ruling by a judge showing that a state law is in conflict with a federal one, federal law prevails. Thus, a big "Fuck You" to the bastards here in Michigan who pushed through the anti-gay amendment in our own state constitution.

I'm hoping like hell that this stands, and is not overturned by anyone higher up the chain. It's about time that we USians started to catch up with "backward" countries like Canada in terms of individual rights and civil liberties.

Nice to see this happen in a red state.

On preview: amberglow, wasn't this an amendment to the Nebraska stae constitution to begin with? How can a ruling striking down an amendment be circumvented by another amendment that says the same thing?
posted by caution live frogs at 7:05 AM on May 13, 2005


Plutor, how is that activism? If a traffic court judge heard that I rear-ended someone else in an accident, he wouldn't have to sit there and listen to me explain it in court to know how he'd rule.
posted by grimcity at 7:07 AM on May 13, 2005


Dark side: Stay tuned for much whining about "activist judges" who take the radical step of upholding equal protection.

Exactly the tact taken this morning on NPR by a lawyer from the Family Liberty Traditional Freedom Constitutional Family Liberty Law Center Family (something like that).
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 7:07 AM on May 13, 2005


Exactly the tact taken this morning on NPR by a lawyer from the Family Liberty Traditional Freedom Constitutional Family Liberty Law Center Family (something like that).

Remember, that they only want equal protection for those they think of as equals. Which as they are a bunch of zealot elitists, is a vanishingly small group.
posted by MrLint at 7:16 AM on May 13, 2005


I thought any rights not explicitly stated in the Cinstitutuion were reserved for states.

Yes. But this is the kicker. Is there a right? The Constitution doesn't say "The states can do anything that we don't let the Feds do." It says "The rights enumerated in this constitution are not a complete list, and any right or power not explicitly listed here may devolve to the states." Another factor is extension rights -- when something is an extension of a federal right, it becomes one itself.

For example. Where is the "Right to Privacy?" It was, in fact, created by the courts, as an extension of the right of free speech and the right to refuse self-incrimination, which is why A) it's a federal matter and B) why it's argued about. (Furthermore, a cornerstone of the Right to Privacy is this little known case called Roe vs. Wade....)

Where is the right to marry? Is there such a right? If so, is it a federal right (which means that it belongs to all US citizens,) or has it devolved to the States -- or the People?

That's the question. If there is no right to marry, there's no case. If there is, but it isn't protected by the constitution, states may do as they please, unless someone can get the courts to devolve it to the people themselves.

In fact, I expect that, in our new Parliamentary Government that's on the verge of creation, the "Right to Marry" will be explicitly listed as One Man, One Woman, period, and the pogrom will begin shortly thereafter. As to the courts, the whole point of a clause in the recently enacted spending bill is to establish the Parliament's supremacy over the courts.
posted by eriko at 7:18 AM on May 13, 2005


Plutor writes "First of all, is there any precedent of a federal court nullifying a part of a state constitution like this?"

Yes. The Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1: "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;... nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Aside from the clear violation of "equal protection", the "privilege" is given in the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law... abridging... the right of the people... to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
posted by orthogonality at 7:19 AM on May 13, 2005


That should either be "the tack taken" or the "tactic used" up above by the way. Apparently I couldn't make up my mind so I just went with entirely the wrong word.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 7:19 AM on May 13, 2005


Oh, you're right, caution--sorry. I read somewhere late last night that if they resubmit the amendment and word it more narrowly, it's ok--until a Supreme Ct. ruling.
posted by amberglow at 7:19 AM on May 13, 2005


This is absolutely shocking. There are gay people still living in Nebraska?
posted by Gamblor at 7:38 AM on May 13, 2005


this isn't a violation of states rights if a state law conflicts with the constitution. also, this ia great.
I think most people in power actually see that gay unions/marriages should be allowed, but do nothing because most americans dont - political fallout etc.
posted by Tryptophan-5ht at 7:41 AM on May 13, 2005


Please keep in mind here that not only does not all of the constitution apply to the states, not all the amendments do. IIRC after the civil war for 'incorporation'.

The Bill of Rights was understood, at its ratification, to be a bar on the actions of the federal government. Many people today find this to be an incredible fact. The fact is, prior to incorporation, discussed below, the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states.

Scroll down to Incorporation
posted by MrLint at 7:46 AM on May 13, 2005


There are gay people still living in Nebraska?
There are! I spent a week in Lincoln for work (9 years ago ish), and went to both gay bars. : >
posted by amberglow at 7:50 AM on May 13, 2005


I can hear the sound of fundie axes sharpening...
posted by fungible at 7:55 AM on May 13, 2005


In other news, John Kerry takes another massive step toward relevance by reiterating his stance against gay marriage.

Thanks, John.
posted by digaman at 8:03 AM on May 13, 2005


"A water fountain is a device that Caucasians may drink from."
posted by digaman at 8:58 AM on May 13, 2005


Jesus, Kerry, you're too boring to be president. Can you go back to the woodshed or wherever-the-fuck old candidates go to die? (Well, I guess that would be the Senate, wouldn't it?)
posted by klangklangston at 9:03 AM on May 13, 2005


This is absolutely shocking. There are gay people still living in Nebraska?

Yeah, there's still a few left here. Around campus in Lincoln I often hear people say that: "Lincoln has the highest gay population per capita in the US."

I'm really not sure if that's true or not. Just something I've heard a lot. And the best bar in town also happens to be "The Q," a gay bar.
posted by dead_ at 9:30 AM on May 13, 2005


There are gay people still living in Nebraska?

Yes, plenty in Lincoln (used to live in the Near South, which was apparently the gay-zone). And Lincoln, as you may remember, is the capital of the state.

As for Lincoln having the highest gay population per capita... HA. Not a chance, no way, no how. That's probably what people from Valentine would say.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 9:36 AM on May 13, 2005


It's about time that we USians started to catch up with "backward" countries like Canada in terms of individual rights and civil liberties.

This comment illustrates exactly why Canadians tend to be so rabidly anti-American. I realize you put "backward" between quotation marks, and it's sort of ironic ha ha, but why on earth does a comment like that resonate with you? Is it because the US is supposed to be the world's greatest place, making all other countries backward in comparison? Do you honestly glean from your education, your media, and your own personal experience that the US is the best place in the world to live? What is it going to take for you to start questioning that mantra?

This superiority complex Americans have looks dumber and dumber as your economy goes down the toilet, your social security gets privatized, your president shows us that has as about 90 words in his vocabulary, and states need a federal court to tell them they can't put active discrimination against minorities into law.

I'm not saying you should hate your country, but a little perspective here, folks. Stop calling us backward because of some dyed-in-the-wool belief that the US is naturally superior. It's not funny. It's ignorant and offensive.
posted by Hildegarde at 11:07 AM on May 13, 2005


No, I'm implying that Americans spend too much time patting ourselves on the backs for our progress towards freedom, when in fact countries such as Canada are moving forward with the kinds of freedoms I would expect a truly free society to embrace. We seem to think that we lead and the rest of the world follows. We do idiotic stupid things, like spending time telling citizens that buying drugs from Canada is like buying them from a third wolrd country, or requiring that all people going across the world's largest free border crossing will now be required to carry a passport.

If it didn't come through clearly, I apologize. I'd love it if my country got its shit together enough to decide that gays were people and that pot wasn't all that bad.
posted by caution live frogs at 11:35 AM on May 13, 2005


Dude, chill. It was just sarcasm.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 11:36 AM on May 13, 2005


Waitaminute. Gay? Nebraska? Do you know what this means?

The Austin Lounge Lizards!
posted by eriko at 11:39 AM on May 13, 2005


Alright, Hildegarde, that's a timeout! One more outburst like that and we'll send you up to your room with no supper. (And you wonder why we don't let you sit at the big people's table!)
posted by gigawhat? at 12:09 PM on May 13, 2005


Sorry about that, didn't mean to have an outburst. I didn't mean to pick on you in particular, CLF. I'm just getting incredibly weary of that "we rule the world" sentiment. You're right to point it out, but I often have a hard time finding Americans who are even prepared the question the idea.
posted by Hildegarde at 5:55 PM on May 13, 2005


"I can't enjoy my freedoms unless I know they're denied to you. I mean, I haven't enjoyed voting since the Civil Rights Act of 1965 allowed every shiftless Negroe a vote as good as mine."

Damn, I'm gonna try to remember to use exactly that line next time I'm in a face-to-face with some idjit who thinks it's okay to treat a significant part of our population as if they were third-rate.

Pisses me off to no end that the anti- crowd are so damn thick about their blatantly stupid bias, which is inevitably bound to something they can't even adequately describe. "Oh, it's, uh, because God says it's bad, yah." As if you're some sort of fucking better person for claiming to be an upstanding member of an arbitrary group of religionist asswipes who treat people like shit. "Oh, it'll, uh, ruin the sanctity of marriage!" you adulterating lying ratbastard, who knocked his wife up at fifteen and married her only out of guilt. As if any of those tired and lazy excuses has any fact-based rationale behind them, instead of being a loosey-goosey bullshit excuse for being mean to others.

The bottom line is that very fucking little can truly be so serious as to necessitate nationwide legislated interference with private people's lives. If it ain't hurting your body or your property, it ain't your business. It doesn't matter whether or not you think it's okay: if it ain't hurting your or your property, it is none. of. your. fucking. business.

So next time I encounter some social retard who wants to punish people because they merely offend him, I'm gonna deadpan: "Oh, I know what you're saying! I can't enjoy my freedoms unless I know they're denied to anyone that's not like me. I mean, I haven't enjoyed voting since the Civil Rights Act of 1965 allowed every shiftless nigger a vote as good as mine. And scr-rrrrewww-ew those faggots! My marriage won't mean anything if they're allowed to marry!"

Maybe the shock of the sheer ignorance of those words will electrocute their brains into thinking. Or at least get them to claim that I'm a bad racist person, at which point I can tell them they're a bad gay-hater, ain't nobodies business if it ain't hurtin' no one, and walk away.

If they agree, I shall have to try very hard to not kill them on the spot.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:13 PM on May 13, 2005


Hildegarde, a couple of years ago I wrote a parody with that notion in mind. A lot of us in the good old USA get your point, which is why we pray Bolton will get the boot.
posted by john at 9:13 AM on May 14, 2005


Hildegarde, he was kidding, but we are brought up to believe that--most of us grow up and realize it's not so--at all. (This current crop of leaders is using the sentiment expertly tho--too bad it's for doubleplusungood purposes).
posted by amberglow at 10:52 AM on May 14, 2005


This superiority complex Americans have looks dumber and dumber as your economy goes down the toilet

Well, you'll know if and when our economy tanks, because Canada's will follow right along with it.

And Canada's political parties can stoop just as low as ours can. The Liberals are in the midst of a fairly big corruption scandal at the moment, and the Conservatives had to pack the Senate to get GST passed.

By all means, get annoyed when people say the U.S. is far superior to Canada, because it's not. But don't reply by telling us all the reasons Canada is a lot better, because it's not, either.
posted by oaf at 12:48 PM on May 14, 2005


Oh, it is. It very much is. As you request, I shan't enumerate the reasons. Suffice to say it's little to do with our government, and much to do with our overall society.
posted by five fresh fish at 1:33 PM on May 14, 2005


five fresh, I want to become a citizen, but it's expensive as hell. Can you adopt me and my girlfriend?
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 6:24 PM on May 14, 2005


Becoming a citizen is expensive? I guess it could be, depending on the hoops you'd have to jump through.

I know it's a bugger to get a healthcare job if you were trained outside Canada. For some reason, our government has this crazy idea that no other country has adequate training for their doctors. It is very, very annoying to all concerned.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:48 AM on May 15, 2005


« Older Totally yum photoblog   |   Look out Norm, George Galloway is calling you out! Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments