Section 29 ruled unconstitutional

icejammer · Post by **icejammer** » Fri May 13, 2005 1:49 am

Refresh my memory here as a non-Nebraskan....wasn't this a consitutional amendment? If so, how can your constitution be unconstitutional?

DTO Luv · Post by **DTO Luv** » Fri May 13, 2005 2:13 am

This is Aksarben after all.

almighty_tuna · Post by **almighty_tuna** » Fri May 13, 2005 2:20 am

icejammer wrote:Refresh my memory here as a non-Nebraskan....wasn't this a consitutional amendment? If so, how can your constitution be unconstitutional?

Just because a majority of morons voted for it doesn't make it right.

Coyote · Post by **Coyote** » Fri May 13, 2005 2:25 am

Because we have an Attorney General with an agenda and bad advisors, a constituency that will sign any petition for a constitutional amendment, lots of loose money for propaganda, and a conservative state that can be persuaded by the 'religious right'.

projectman · Post by **projectman** » Fri May 13, 2005 2:43 am

Mostly an ignorant population base that is afraid they'll go to heck if they give gays rights like everyone else. It's ok to discriminate if the group is not white, republican and conservative. (and straight)

Sometimes I'm embarrassed to live in such a closed minded "red state."

Big E · Post by **Big E** » Fri May 13, 2005 2:44 am

The United States Constitution and supercedes any state laws.

For example, as much as I'm sure some states would like, they can't take away freedom of speech, women's suffrage, or reinstitute slavery.

-Big E

DTO Luv · Post by **DTO Luv** » Fri May 13, 2005 3:34 am

I was flippin thru the channels and Trav was on with the people calls about this. It was hilarious. One guy was yelling in the phone, "I don't think gay people should have ANY rights!!" I might get |expletive| for this (but hey when don't I) but I don't think gays should get the benefits of marriage. BUT I think they should get to be able to let their partner get benefits and be able to make decisions on their behalf.

eomaha · Post by **eomaha** » Fri May 13, 2005 4:25 am

What exactly are the benefits of marriage DTO ... if NOT getting your partners benefits, being able to make legal decisions on a partners behalf, etc?

I personally think government should replace all references to 'marriage' with 'civil union'. Then let the churches protect 'marriage'... the religious consecration of the civil union in any way they want.

eomaha · Post by **eomaha** » Fri May 13, 2005 4:38 am

That isn't what I said... I said strike this religious institution of 'marriage' from written law (further affirming this so called separation of church and state)... replace it with the civil union. Then let the religious denominations 'protect' -marriage- all they want.

DTO Luv · Post by **DTO Luv** » Fri May 13, 2005 4:51 am

Well if the whole thing about marriage is it's religious than why is the state (Federal too) trying to interfere with a religious practice? Wouldn't that go against church and state too?

almighty_tuna · Post by **almighty_tuna** » Fri May 13, 2005 5:20 am

DTO Luv wrote:Well if the whole thing about marriage is it's religious than why is the state (Federal too) trying to interfere with a religious practice? Wouldn't that go against church and state too?

Why does our money have "in God we trust" on it. The separation of church adn state seems difficult when the US was founded by people seeking religious freedom in the first place. Its always been a double standard and will continue to be. Doesn't make it right, but...

almighty_tuna · Post by **almighty_tuna** » Fri May 13, 2005 3:10 pm

Big E wrote: "But then that would allow the atheists to come in and do whatever they want!"

Oh, the horror!!

Coyote · Post by **Coyote** » Sat May 14, 2005 12:03 am

jhuston wrote:I personally think government should replace all references to 'marriage' with 'civil union'. Then let the churches protect 'marriage'... the religious consecration of the civil union in any way they want.

I think we are moving in this direction and eventually there will eventually be a distinction in the United States between the legal system and religious practice of a civil union/divorce proceedings (taxes, next of kin issues, property ownership) and marriage/annulments. Under the present system the minister is acting as an agent of the state when he or she signs the marriage certificate that recognizes the union. But I wonder who or what issue will be the catalyst for this change.

Big E · Post by **Big E** » Sat May 14, 2005 12:16 am

<<<<
But I wonder who or what issue will be the catalyst for this change.
>>>>

Take into consideration the legal battle over "under God" in the public school in California. The District Court (9th, I think?) ruled that the line was, in their opinion, unconstitutional. The order was eventually overturned by a higher court.

HOWEVER - and this is so unimaginably important - it was overturned NOT because it was considered an improper ruling, but because the father did not have full custody of the daughter and therefore should not have been allowed to make the claim on her behalf. In my opinion (and I'm not a lawyer), it is the legal equivalent of a a murderer getting away for not being read Miranda.

Most unjust or illegal laws simply need the proper case to made against them before they are struck down. The problem is, too often, that the majority doesn't see them as unjust.

-Big E

Big E · Post by **Big E** » Mon May 16, 2005 1:38 pm

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/05/15/gay.co ... index.html

I think it will take something similar to this type of incident (although I'm not sure this one is egregious enough) for there to be a wholesale shift away our current co-habitation of church and state.

If someone can make a reasonable discrimination claim against a church, the church is in very serious jeopardy of losing its tax exempt status. When that happens, the church will need to make a very serious decision on whether or not it wants to (gasp!) let the queers in, or (GASP! GASP! GASP!) start paying taxes.

As it stands, tax exemptions are essentially government subsidies, and no entity receiving government funds can discriminate. If the churches were officially commercial institutions, they would have a lot more leverage when it comes to their BS social stances. They would actually be able to hang a "Management reserves the right to refuse service to anyone" sign on their front door.

-Big E