A lower court
ruling that struck down a proposed broad amendment banning
same-sex marriage and other partner rights in Nebraska
should stand, the American Civil Liberties Union and
Lambda Legal argued on Monday before the U.S. court of
appeals for the eighth circuit. "This is the most
extreme antigay family law in the nation, and it, in effect,
put a sign on the door of the Nebraska legislature
saying 'Same-Sex Couples Not Allowed,'" said David
Buckel, senior counsel at Lambda Legal. "Judge
Bataillon got it right because he put democracy back in
action, giving gay Nebraskans a level playing field on which
to advocate for legal protections for their families."
In addition to
barring same-sex couples from marriage, the law, which
passed in November 2000, explicitly banned any legal
recognition of a same-sex couple in a "civil union,
domestic partnership, or other similar same-sex
relationship." In May 2005, federal district judge
Joseph F. Bataillon struck down the constitutional amendment
in response to a legal challenge brought by Lambda
Legal and the ACLU on behalf of ACLU Nebraska and two
statewide LGBT lobbying and education organizations.
The court ruled
that the amendment was too far-reaching and that it
barred lesbian and gay people from participating in the
democratic process, in violation of the U.S.
Constitution's equal protection guarantee and
prohibition on Bills of Attainder. The decision does not
mean that the state has to allow same-sex couples to marry
or to form civil unions or domestic partnerships but
instead allows gay couples to lobby their legislators
for protections for their relationships. "As we
stressed to the court today, states can't turn lesbian
and gay people into political outcasts," said Tamara Lange,
a senior staff attorney with the ACLU's Lesbian and
Gay Rights Project, who argued before the court. "Yet
Nebraska enacted a law that doesn't even allow gay
people to lobby for protections for their relationships. The
lower court understood this when it struck down this
law. We hope the court of appeals agrees."
(Advocate.com)