Another conservative Christian initiative, Nebraska's unique constitutional amendment, called Section 29, which defined marriage as between one man and one women as well as prohibiting any recognition of rights by any same sex couple has been found to be unconsitutional by a federal judge.
"It is clear that the government can regulate conduct, e.g., criminal activity, but the government 'may not create classes among its citizens on the basis of who they are rather than what they do.'"
Another conservative Christian initiative, Nebraska's unique constitutional amendment, called Section 29, which defined marriage as between one man and one women as well as prohibiting any recognition of rights by any same sex couple has been found to be unconsitutional by a federal judge.
In his 43 page ruling, Judge Joseph Bataillon noted that the plaintifs were not seeking to overturn the definition of mariage. Instead they argued that the amendment to Nebraska's constution went further by depriving homosexualcouples of rights enjoyed by un-married but heterosexual couples. For example, the amendment would have precluded a gay state employee would not be able to add a partner to his/her health plan, nor would gay couples be allowed to adopt or foster children. The amendment's language could even be construed as prohiting same sex couples from petitioning the state legislature for changes in the law.
Quoting from decision ( http://ads.omaha.com/media/maps/pdfs/0512initiative.pdf ):
"It is clear that the government can regulate conduct, e.g., criminal activity, but the government 'may not create classes among its citizens on the basis of who they are rather than what they do.' (p41)
Section 29 does not merely withhold the benefit of marriage; it operates to prohibit persons in a same-sex relationship from working to ever obtain governmental benefits or legal recognition, a right they had before the passage of Section 29. If the purpose, as offered by the proponents of Section 29, were merely to maintain the common-law definition of marriage, there would be no need to prohibit all forms of government protection or to preclude domestic partnerships and civil unions."
In other words, in their eagerness to reinforce the common law definition of marriage, the Christians exceeded the limits set by the Constitution and established a class of citizens with fewer rights that all others. That violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution. That's something the government can't do, no matter how many citizens think it's a good idea.
The reaction from the Dobson militia has been immediate and predictable. Dobson himself says, "But to argue that supporters of same-sex marriage are disenfranchised by the amendment is ludicrous; they have every right to undertake the amendment process themselves and get a different measure passed - that's the way democracy is designed to work." Apparently, it doesn't occur to Dr. Dobson that legal experts, not psychologists, disagree with his interpretation, not does he concede that while a group tries to "undertake the amendment process" they are, indeed "disenfranchised". (http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=47293 )
Tony Perkins, President, Family Research Council, Dobson's conservative clone, raises the "judicial activism flag to rally the troops for an amendment to the US Constitution defining marriage as one man one woman, but his press release rather conveniently overlooks the reasons for Judge Bataillon's decision. Perkins zealously argues for a part of the Nebraska amendment that wasn't contested. Um...do you suppose he actually read the opinion?
( http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=PR05E04 )
My personal favorite is the press release from the Concerned Women for America (CWA), a particularly viscious crowd, who claims the judge's decision, "ignored 6,000 years of human history to toss marriage out the window", which, of course, is sheer hysterical hyperbole. But the best part of CWA's reaction addresses the Senate filibuster controversey, "The Democrat obstructionists clinging desperately to the filibuster think judges like Bataillon, who make a mockery of the Constitution, are 'mainstream'...".
(http://www.earnedmedia.org/cwfa05131.htm )
It turns out Senate vote appointing Judge Bataillon wasn't much of a horse race: it was unanimous, in fact. However, The yea voters included such notorious godless liberal thinkers as:
Ashcroft (R-MO), Brownback (R-KS), Frist (R-TN), Grassley (R-IA), Hatch (R-UT), Helms (R-NC),
Hutchison (R-TX), Lott (R-MS), Lugar (R-IN), Santorum (R-PA), and Thurmond (R-SC)
( http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm? congress=105&session=1&vote=00236 )
The mockery isn't the legal decision, it's the fraudulent manipulation of fact by the radical Christian right in its attempt to avoid the 9th Commandment and create a separate but unequal class of American citizens based solely on their myopic interpretation of the Bible.
Instead of thumping it, perhaps Dobson's militia should actually read the Bible. I recommend one verse in particular, Matthew 7:5, "You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye." Or maybe Luke is a better choice, Luke 6:37 "Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven."
One can hope.