An appeal seeking
to restore Nebraska's ban on same-sex marriage was
filed Thursday as expected. "We look forward to having
another day in court and defending Nebraskans' right
to amend their constitution as they see fit," Atty.
Gen. Jon Bruning said in a brief statement announcing
the filing of the appeal.
Nebraska's five-year-old constitutional
amendment banning same-sex marriage was struck
down by U.S. district judge Joseph Bataillon on May
13. Bataillon said the measure was too broad and deprived
gays and lesbians of participation in the political
process. Seventy percent of Nebraskans approved the
amendment in 2000. The judge's ruling did nothing to
change the status of same-sex marriage in Nebraska. It was
not allowed before the amendment's adoption, and it
remains against the law.
The lawsuit challenging the amendment was filed
by New York-based Lambda Legal and the ACLU's Lesbian
and Gay Project.
David Buckel, senior staff attorney at Lambda
Legal, said Thursday's appeal was expected. However,
he was hopeful the appeal would be rejected. "The law
that Judge Bataillon struck down is the most extreme
anti-gay family law in the nation," Buckel said. Forty
states have so-called defense of marriage laws.
Al Riskowski, executive director of the Nebraska
Family Council, which led the petition drive to get
the amendment on the ballot, said he expects the
decision to be overturned on appeal. "We are delighted
that the state of Nebraska recognizes the importance of
upholding the traditional definition of marriage,"
Riskowski said. "It's so important to us as a state
and a country. If the definition of marriage would
potentially be changed, what we teach our children about
marriage and family would radically change."
Opponents of marriage equality, including
Riskowski, have pointed to the May ruling as a reason
to seek an amendment to the U.S.
Constitution banning same-sex marriage.
While the amendment specifically banned same-sex
marriage, it went further than similar bans in many
states by prohibiting same-sex couples from enjoying
many of the legal protections that heterosexual couples
enjoy. Gays and lesbians who work for the state or the
University of Nebraska system, for example, were
barred from sharing health insurance and other
benefits with their partners.
In his May decision, Bataillon said the
amendment interferes not only with the rights of gay
couples but also with foster parents, adopted
children, and people in a host of other living arrangements.
Bruning had promised an appeal when Bataillon's
decision was released. The case will be considered by
the eighth U.S. circuit court of appeals, which is based
in St. Louis. No date for arguments has been set.
In his ruling, Bataillon said Nebraska's ban
"imposes significant burdens on both the expressive
and intimate associational rights" of gays and
lesbians and "creates a significant barrier to the
plaintiffs' right to petition or to participate in the
political process."
Buckel of Lambda Legal said opponents of the ban
were not seeking the legalization of gay marriages in
Nebraska. "We're just asking for the rights of our
families to be able to advocate for protections for those
families from the legislature," he said.
Bataillon said the ban amounted to punishment by
going beyond merely defining marriage as a union
between a man and a woman, noting that it also says
the state will not recognize two people in a same-sex
relationship "similar to marriage." (AP)