Nebraska Gay Marriage Ruling Reaction

And so it begins. The Washington Post comes out in favor of the decision by Judge Bataillon, yet seems to recognize its problems. They also seem to recognize the effect that it will have on the electorate, not only in Nebraska, but across the country.

Gay Marriage Overreaction

WHEN A FEDERAL court in Nebraska this week struck down the state's constitutional ban on recognition of gay relationships, opponents of gay marriage claimed vindication for their noxious proposal to define marriage in the U.S. Constitution.

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.) noted that when Congress debated the federal marriage amendment last year, "opponents claimed that no state laws were threatened. . . . After today's ruling, they can no longer make that claim."

The Post is attempting to quell the reaction to the decision. You can read their argument in favor of the Judges decision for yourself. But in doing so, they are acknowledging that there is going to be a reaction.

Since the Nebraska referendum applied to not only marriage, but civil unions and other state recognition of gay relationships, is the judge saying that states must provide this recognition or be in violation of the US Constitution? Because of this they are in violation of the 'Equal Protection Clause'? That seems like Pandora’s Box to me. In any case, I suspect next years attempt at bringing back the Defense of Marriage Act will find many more supporters as a result.

A great rundown of the legalities of the ruling can be found at MaxedOutMama.