Unclear on the concept
I’m not legal scholar or anything like that but it seems to me that ruling:
the recently enacted Nebraska constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage . . . is unconstitutional.
is a bit misguided. Isn’t the Constitution constitutional? Seems odd to a layman that you could rule the standard by which you would measure an issue’s constitutionalness (heh, made up word) couldn’t be, you know, anti-itself.
I realize that the reference is to the US constitution but still find it odd. I’m all for gay marriage but it shouldn’t be done from the bench.
May 13th, 2005 at 10:03 am
I agree the ruling is screwy, but there’s nothing inherently odd about the notion that one constitution violates another. State constitutions enjoy no special status under the federal one.
May 13th, 2005 at 10:23 am
shouldn’t be done in a from the bench
That’s part of the system of checks and balances. The judiciary is often the best and only hope for recognizing the rights of a minority group.
May 13th, 2005 at 2:34 pm
Unc, I heard a more detailed report on this and the problem was that the amendment wasn’t a pure “Marriage is defined as the union of a man and a woman.” statement. That was the problem. It went further, into other areas that led to the constitutional problems. Can’t recall at this moment what the extra language was.
Naturally, the details are lost in the oversimplification of the “anti-gay amendment banned” sound bite.
BTW, don’t buy into “anti-gay.” It’s the “marriage redefinition movement” that wants to re-write the rules, and not reactionary Christians who are “anti-gay.” Big difference. Own the language and own the debate.
May 14th, 2005 at 5:02 pm
shouldn’t be done in a from the bench
Brown v. Board of Ed shouldn’t have been done from the bench either. Nor should striking down parts of the Patriot Act, etc. It would be great if our lawmakers would uphold the constitution, but the courts are their as a check when they don’t. (well sometimes)
May 14th, 2005 at 11:35 pm
I’m all for gay marriage but it shouldn’t be done from the bench.
I’m all against gay marriage but it shouldn’t be prevented by the bench, the legislature, or anyone else whose decrees are enforced by force.
America is not distinctive in being founded on religious principles; every king claimed divine right. America is distinctive in allowing idolatry. This is a great Christian nation because Christians here never had to worry about being persecuted as heretics.
I have no fear of what a few homosexuals claiming to be married means to my Christian marriage. I have lots of fear of what some future President Metrosexual might mean, with the Bureau of Alchohol, Tobacco, Firearms, Explosives, and Families behind him. Now is the time for Christians to take marriage out of the hands of the government, as we did with worship in 1789.
May 14th, 2005 at 11:36 pm
Oops, the first sentence was a quote. Sorry I didn’t mark it.