Nebraska attorney
general Jon Bruning argued Thursday that Nebraska's ban
on same-sex marriage should be restored. In a 110-page brief
filed with the eighth U.S. circuit court of appeals,
Bruning said that U.S. district judge Joseph Bataillon
was wrong to strike down Nebraska's five-year-old ban.
Bataillon ruled in May 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 constitutional
amendment in 2000. The ban "does not violate any person's
freedom of expression or association," Bruning wrote.
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."
Bataillon's ruling did nothing to change the status of
same-sex marriage in Nebraska. It was not allowed
before the ban's adoption, and it remains against the law.
The lawsuit
challenging the ban was filed by New York City-based
Lambda Legal and the American Civil Liberties Union's
Lesbian and Gay Project. David Buckel, senior staff
attorney at Lambda Legal, has called the ban one of
"the most extreme anti-gay-family laws in the nation."
Forty states have so-called defense of marriage laws.
Opponents of
same-sex marriage have pointed to Bataillon's ruling as a
reason to seek a national ban. 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.
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. The
judge said the ban amounted to punishment by going
beyond merely defining marriage as the union of 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."
Bruning said "the
presence of advocacy groups willing to file this case
seems ample evidence that advocacy has not been impaired."
"Plaintiffs' members enjoy all the benefits and protections
of Nebraska law that any other person has," Bruning
said. "Their homosexual members have the same right to
lobby for change as their heterosexual members." (AP)