Nebraska Same-Sex Marriage Ban

S33 · Post by **S33** » Sat Feb 21, 2015 12:08 pm

Speaking of hating gays, has anyone seen Mort in a while? He was always good for a laugh.

Post by **Brad** » Sat Feb 21, 2015 12:12 pm

S33 wrote:Speaking of hating gays, has anyone seen Mort in a while? He was always good for a laugh.

I believe he got banned.

Linkin5 · Post by **Linkin5** » Sat Feb 21, 2015 12:21 pm

Brad wrote:
S33 wrote:Speaking of hating gays, has anyone seen Mort in a while? He was always good for a laugh.
I believe he got banned.

Well this place is screwed once his fax machine 5000 lifts off.

Post by **Brad** » Sat Feb 21, 2015 12:26 pm

Linkin5 wrote:
Brad wrote:
S33 wrote:Speaking of hating gays, has anyone seen Mort in a while? He was always good for a laugh.
I believe he got banned.
Well this place is screwed once his fax machine 5000 lifts off.

Lol...

I think only three people have ever been banned in the almost 11 year history of this forum. Mort, Joe Money, and one other. I can't remember if it was Mort or the other person that basically said "Ban Me or I am going to keep getting worse until you ban me".

RNcyanide · Post by **RNcyanide** » Sat Feb 21, 2015 12:38 pm

Didn't Charles Manson say that about killing if he was ever paroled?

Post by **Brad** » Sat Feb 21, 2015 12:48 pm

RNcyanide wrote:Didn't Charles Manson say that about killing if he was ever paroled?

Not sure, I don't run around quoting Charles Manson...

nativeomahan · Post by **nativeomahan** » Mon Feb 23, 2015 10:17 pm

This thread is a mess. As is at least one poster.

Post by **Brad** » Thu Feb 26, 2015 8:48 am

TomBecka wrote: ‏@TomBecka
No real surprise but gay marriage ban in Nebraska is ruled unconstitutional.

Post by **Brad** » Thu Feb 26, 2015 9:23 am

So that first tweet I posted has been removed and then followed up with these two tweets....

TomBecka wrote: @TomBecka
A reliable source texted info. I thought it had been released so I tweeted it out. Stay tuned.

TomBecka wrote: @TomBecka
Good source told me. Thought it had been reported so I tweeted it out. Stay tuned.

nativeomahan · Post by **nativeomahan** » Thu Feb 26, 2015 8:51 pm

Speaking of people who are real messes...

S33 · Post by **S33** » Mon Mar 02, 2015 8:46 am

So does this federal ruling end this debate, and everyone can go home and shut the heck up about this?

RNcyanide · Post by **RNcyanide** » Mon Mar 02, 2015 9:41 am

Finally.

Garrett · Post by **Garrett** » Mon Mar 02, 2015 9:42 am

S33 wrote:So does this federal ruling end this debate, and everyone can go home and shut the heck up about this?

You think Ricketts will really let that happen?

S33 · Post by **S33** » Mon Mar 02, 2015 9:44 am

Why not? He's already been elected.

RNcyanide · Post by **RNcyanide** » Mon Mar 02, 2015 9:52 am

Garrett wrote:
S33 wrote:So does this federal ruling end this debate, and everyone can go home and shut the heck up about this?
You think Ricketts will really let that happen?

The state already appealed.

iamjacobm · Post by **iamjacobm** » Mon Mar 02, 2015 9:55 am

Ehh kind of an empty victory is sounds like the fed will make their decision before this works it's way thought appeals.

Garrett · Post by **Garrett** » Mon Mar 02, 2015 9:56 am

S33 wrote:Why not? He's already been elected.

It's alllllll about image. If he doesn't he'll be attacked by other Republicans for the rest of his career. I can see the commercials now...

Edit:

Excuse me while I go vomit,

iamjacobm · Post by **iamjacobm** » Mon Mar 02, 2015 10:52 am

I genuinely don't care how many people in Nebraska don't want it. The will of majority should not override equality for a minority group.

That vote was about 15 years ago that he is quoting btw. Would be interesting to see what a decade and a half of education on gay couples and a generation of new voters would say.

S33 · Post by **S33** » Mon Mar 02, 2015 11:02 am

This whole issue is exhausting, and I will never understand the pushback from two consenting, same-gendered adults, engaging into a legally-binding marriage. This is why the republican party is dying, and why we will all suffer from not having an equitable 2-party system to govern this country. Yes, there are many democrat policies which are NOT good for this country, but republicans are too f'ing stupid to pick their battles.

S33 · Post by **S33** » Mon Mar 02, 2015 11:03 am

iamjacobm wrote:I genuinely don't care how many people in Nebraska don't want it. The will of majority should not override equality for a minority group.

Exactly right. That is why we are a republic, which was intended to be governed to protect the minority from the majority (slavery and women's rights, not withstanding). The US is not a fundamental democracy, and it doesn't matter if 95% percent are against gay marriage.

Post by **Coyote** » Mon Mar 02, 2015 11:05 am

OWH wrote:Today's decision means there is now a good chance Nebraska will be one of the last states in the nation to allow same-sex couples to wed.

...if the 8th Circuit decides to hear the case, this looks to be true. Nice job Ricketts.

Post by **Brad** » Mon Mar 02, 2015 11:08 am

iamjacobm wrote:That vote was about 15 years ago that he is quoting btw. Would be interesting to see what a decade and a half of education on gay couples and a generation of new voters would say.

S33 wrote:I will never understand the pushback from two consenting, same-gendered adults, engaging into a legally-binding marriage.

S33 wrote:republicans are too f'ing stupid to pick their battles.

Yes, Yes, and Yes....

Its really time to quit lighting money on fire and move on.

RNcyanide · Post by **RNcyanide** » Mon Mar 02, 2015 11:12 am

It was a nice gesture, but I am waiting on the Supreme Court to rule in favor of it.

bigredmed · Post by **bigredmed** » Mon Mar 02, 2015 6:27 pm

In favor of gay marriage for the equality aspect. A little concerned about the ease by which the judge overturned a act that passed with a large plurality. Do we really have an effective check and balance system?

S33 · Post by **S33** » Mon Mar 02, 2015 6:32 pm

bigredmed wrote:In favor of gay marriage for the equality aspect. A little concerned about the ease by which the judge overturned a act that passed with a large plurality. Do we really have an effective check and balance system?

Again, the system doesnt exist to fulfill the will of the majority when a minority is being unjustly persecuted, or in this case, not even dignified with a legally recognized marriage.

In this instance, the system worked as it should. Of course the whole appeals process will delay the inevitable and make all residents of this state look like national jack holes.

bigredmed · Post by **bigredmed** » Mon Mar 02, 2015 7:01 pm

S33 wrote:
bigredmed wrote:In favor of gay marriage for the equality aspect. A little concerned about the ease by which the judge overturned a act that passed with a large plurality. Do we really have an effective check and balance system?
Again, the system doesnt exist to fulfill the will of the majority when a minority is being unjustly persecuted, or in this case, not even dignified with a legally recognized marriage.

In this instance, the system worked as it should. Of course the whole appeals process will delay the inevitable and make all residents of this state look like national jack holes.

Yes, that wasn't my point. I was concerned about where the bright line is where the judiciary can't dismiss. Is there any real limit?

S33 · Post by **S33** » Mon Mar 02, 2015 7:27 pm

bigredmed wrote:
S33 wrote:
bigredmed wrote:In favor of gay marriage for the equality aspect. A little concerned about the ease by which the judge overturned a act that passed with a large plurality. Do we really have an effective check and balance system?
Again, the system doesnt exist to fulfill the will of the majority when a minority is being unjustly persecuted, or in this case, not even dignified with a legally recognized marriage.

In this instance, the system worked as it should. Of course the whole appeals process will delay the inevitable and make all residents of this state look like national jack holes.
Yes, that wasn't my point. I was concerned about where the bright line is where the judiciary can't dismiss. Is there any real limit?

of course there isn't. Just watch the supreme court's continuous overturning of individual state's marijuana laws.

Uffda · Post by **Uffda** » Mon Mar 02, 2015 8:12 pm

Garrett wrote:

As I saw posted elsewhere, 70% percent of Nebraskans didn't approve this in 2000, - only approximately 60% of registered voters voted in 2000. So that would 70% of 60%, so I think that makes it around 42% approved.... A heck of a long way from 70% of Nebraskans.

Post by **Coyote** » Mon Mar 02, 2015 9:32 pm

Uffda wrote: So that would 70% of 60%, so I think that makes it around 42% approved.... A heck of a long way from 70% of Nebraskans.

42% of registered voters...

Uffda · Post by **Uffda** » Mon Mar 02, 2015 10:03 pm

Coyote wrote:
Uffda wrote: So that would 70% of 60%, so I think that makes it around 42% approved.... A heck of a long way from 70% of Nebraskans.
42% of registered voters...

yep

Professor Woland · Post by **Professor Woland** » Mon Mar 02, 2015 10:08 pm

So, hypothetically, if an amendment passed with 70% of the vote which banned marriages between people of different religions would the governor feel the need to appeal a court decision overturning the amendment? What if it outlawed interracial marriage? I have heard the absurd argument that gays and lesbians do have the same rights as straight people because they are free to marry someone of the opposite sex. Aside from putting the lie to their concern with the "sanctity of marriage," this exact argument could be used by the hypothetical opponent of interracial marriage or inter-religious marriage. I didn't really care who won the governorship, no matter who wins an election the rest of us lose, but the absolute worst thing any Nebraskan can do is to live down to stereotype, we can't afford it. The two controllable factors which are the greatest hinderances to our state gaining population are taxes and the stigma that we are a socially conservative state. By appealing this ruling the governor and attorney general are doing us no favors.

S33 · Post by **S33** » Mon Mar 02, 2015 10:24 pm

Uffda wrote:
Coyote wrote:
Uffda wrote: So that would 70% of 60%, so I think that makes it around 42% approved.... A heck of a long way from 70% of Nebraskans.
42% of registered voters...
yep

No, these are excuses for those too lazy to vote. The same argument and number-bending can be done for all voting scenarios.

The bottom line: it still doesn't matter if it was 70%, when denying the same rights which are afforded to one group of people, to another group of people, it ceases to become a voting issue.

RNcyanide · Post by **RNcyanide** » Fri Mar 06, 2015 8:55 am

8th Circuit Court of Appeals upholds ban
Dammit.

So the ban is upheld until June, when the Supreme Court is expected to rule. What a great image to portray for our state.
Perhaps we could change the motto to "Nebraska: Hey, we never said the 'Good Life' was for everyone."

bigredmed · Post by **bigredmed** » Fri Mar 06, 2015 1:26 pm

RNcyanide wrote:8th Circuit Court of Appeals upholds ban
Dammit.

So the ban is upheld until June, when the Supreme Court is expected to rule. What a great image to portray for our state.
Perhaps we could change the motto to "Nebraska: Hey, we never said the 'Good Life' was for everyone."

We agree that gays should be able to get married. I hope that once the Supreme Court rules, it will be settled. Then of course, the need to protect the rights of religious groups who do not want to have gay marriage as part of their religion needs to be addressed in firm legal language. We always hear gay marriage proponents say that churches wont have to change, but then we hear things like the protests in SF regarding catholic schools teaching catholic religious teachings in their catholic schools. Seems to me that we should set this up so that all marriages are certified by the state, and if the couple is religious, then sanctified in their place of worship.

RNcyanide · Post by **RNcyanide** » Fri Mar 06, 2015 1:30 pm

Those religious groups like to argue that the term 'marriage' is something that is religiously exclusive, and justify that as banning it on religious and civil grounds. I don't really think there's any way to make gay marriage legal without crunching their toes, but at the same time, it's still awful to try to use religion as a basis to deny rights to other people.

S33 · Post by **S33** » Fri Mar 06, 2015 2:31 pm

RNcyanide wrote:Those religious groups like to argue that the term 'marriage' is something that is religiously exclusive, and justify that as banning it on religious and civil grounds. I don't really think there's any way to make gay marriage legal without crunching their toes, but at the same time, it's still awful to try to use religion as a basis to deny rights to other people.

time to pray away the gay.

Seth · Post by **Seth** » Fri Mar 06, 2015 3:16 pm

bigredmed wrote:...the need to protect the rights of religious groups who do not want to have gay marriage as part of their religion needs to be addressed in firm legal language. We always hear gay marriage proponents say that churches wont have to change, but then we hear things like the protests in SF regarding catholic schools teaching catholic religious teachings in their catholic schools. Seems to me that we should set this up so that all marriages are certified by the state, and if the couple is religious, then sanctified in their place of worship.

I agree. I will predict that once gay marriage becomes fully-accepted at the civil level, the more militant supporters of gay marriage will quickly begin targeting their efforts to force it on private institutions and organizations (e.g. churches) who are not supporters. As a society, we need to be cautious of expanding the rights of one group at the expense of forcibly taking away the rights of others.

It's an old predicament that's manifested in many situations. I think it's possible to have diversity in beliefs and freedom for private groups to apply those internally, while still allowing wider public freedom and protections.

RNcyanide · Post by **RNcyanide** » Fri Mar 06, 2015 4:05 pm

If I was going to get married, I would never come after a church that refused to perform a service. I just ask that you don't use your religion to deny me a civil service. I don't know any gay marriage supporters personally that would support forcing churches or other houses of worship to perform or recognize gay marriages.

S33 · Post by **S33** » Fri Mar 06, 2015 4:23 pm

RNcyanide wrote:If I was going to get married, I would never come after a church that refused to perform a service. I just ask that you don't use your religion to deny me a civil service. I don't know any gay marriage supporters personally that would support forcing churches or other houses of worship to perform or recognize gay marriages.

i look at religion and churches, as nothing more than a private club. Some non-denominational churches are gay friendly, and basically friendly to anyone. Some churches are filled with assh0les who interpret and cherry pick from their religious text of choice, and try to proliferate those views outside of the church.

While they are hypocritical nut bags, they are nothingore than a "club", and should be taken as seriously (which is why they aren't supposed to be practicing politics)

These clubs are tribal in nature, and will gradually be phased out of popular culture, sooner the better.

That said, our constitution protects everyone, opinionated assh0les included.

jessep28 · Post by **jessep28** » Fri Mar 06, 2015 5:57 pm

The decision being stayed makes sense considering similar cases pending before the appellate court, but not really when the Supreme Court ordered otherwise with Alabama on their stay request. This issue is going before the Supreme Court on April 28th, so even if the 8th Circuit lollygags around, there will likely be a definitive answer by June.