Text
LINCOLN, Neb. - A federal appeals court has reversed a ruling that struck down Nebraska's same-sex marriage ban.
The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday reversed an earlier ruling by U.S. District Judge Joseph Bataillon, who ruled last year 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 amendment in 2000.
The court said 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."
Attorney General Jon Bruning argued earlier that the ban should be restored because it "does not violate any person's freedom of expression or association."
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."
Yet another court rejects the bull these people continue to spread.
LINCOLN, Neb. - A federal appeals court has reversed a ruling that struck down Nebraska's same-sex marriage ban.
The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday reversed an earlier ruling by U.S. District Judge Joseph Bataillon, who ruled last year 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 amendment in 2000.
The court said 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."
Attorney General Jon Bruning argued earlier that the ban should be restored because it "does not violate any person's freedom of expression or association."
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."
Yet another court rejects the bull these people continue to spread.
