Now you can support Nebraska Family Council financially through our web site.

Nebraska Family Council
1106 E Street, Lincoln, NE 68508-3511

Phone: 402-477-3191
Toll Free: 1-888-777-5188

Homosexual Rulings

MORALITY AND MARRIAGE CHALLENGED
By Al Riskowski


The news media has written numerous articles about U.S. District Judge Joseph Bataillon ruling the Nebraska definition of marriage unconstitutional. This was the first direct action of a federal court striking down a state constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman. The Defense Of Marriage Amendment says, "Only marriage between a man and a woman shall be valid or recognized in Nebraska. The uniting of two persons of the same sex in a civil union, domestic partnership or other similar same-sex relationship shall not be valid or recognized in Nebraska." The constant reference to the Nebraska Defense Of Marriage Amendment as a "same-sex marriage ban" is very misleading. When Guyla Mills, the former director of Nebraska Family Council, started the petition drive to pass an amendment on marriage into the Nebraska constitution she emphasized a point repeatedly. The marriage amendment is about upholding the traditional definition of marriage. I do not understand Joseph Bataillon's statement that the Nebraska marriage amendment was fueled by "irrational fear" and "animus" (hatred and ill will) toward the homosexual community. A large amount of evidence was presented to Judge Bataillon verifying the intent of this petition drive. Numerous newspaper interviews as well as the ad campaign all clearly demonstrated a single focus on upholding the traditional definition of marriage. I find it hard to believe that 70% of Nebraskans voted for this out of a hatred for homosexuals. If the definition of marriage is changed the definition will eventually go well beyond the marriage of same-sex couples. The lawsuit challenging the amendment is represented by three sexual orientations; homosexual, bisexual and transgender. I am not sure what a definition of marriage would look like which would include all of these orientations.

Judge Bataillon argued that the amendment prevented homosexual, bisexual and transgender from lobbying the Legislature on protections for couples. I would say the 100 plus attempts to place sexual orientation into Nebraska statute in the 2005 session demonstrates a strong lobby. IN 2004 there were attempts to extend health benefits to same sex couples at the University of Nebraska and pass a law on hate crime legislation that incluceded the term 'sexual orientation'. Obviously, homosexual activists have been extremely involved in the political process. In each of these instances I have appeared before regents and legislators to remind them that the Nebraska State Constitution defines marriage as only between one man and one woman.

This case was appealed to the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis, Missouri. A three judge panel has overturned the ruling by Federal Judge Bataillon. The three judge panel ruled a unanimous decision calling the Nebraska DOMA constitutional. In November of 2006 we received a call from the Attorney General office informing us that the case was over. Nebraska has won! ACLU decided to drop the case and not appeal. This is a win for marriage, families, the state of Nebraska and the nation. Thank you for your prayers.

If the definition of marriage is changed it will have the greatest effect on our children. Marriage is for the benefit of children. It is not primarily about tax benefits, sex, love or even rights, though it does include all of these. It is primarily about creating a secure environment in which children learn values and how to interact with both sexes. The ideal goal for marriage should remain one man and one woman married for life. If the definition of marriage is changed than what we teach children in school about family and marriage will radically change.