Gay Rights Column
http://journalstar.com/news/opinion/editorial/columnists/article_b8824452-037e-506c-975d-cdb3af33b293.html
Now that the military finally has accepted gays, maybe it's time Nebraskans did, too.
Gay rights pit state and federal authority against moral values and freedom of autonomy.
In the late 1990s, two bills introduced in Nebraska -- one for gay rights, and one against -- were defeated.
Then in 2000, an overwhelming 70 percent of voters approved an amendment to the state Constitution that specified only a man and a woman could marry. Gay rights opponents reportedly outspent their rivals 10-to-1 with a barrage of television, radio, newspaper and direct mail ads.
In 2003, Attorney General Jon Bruning denied a bill meant to allow same-sex couples the right to make funeral arrangements for their deceased loved ones. The opinion was challenged on constitutional grounds. The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the state, saying the amendment was a simple and rational way to protect "traditional marriage."
But the amendment doesn't protect "traditional marriage" -- it just infringes on the rights of gays.
"Nebraska is one of the most extreme states when it comes to gay discrimination," according to Tyler Richard of the American Civil Liberties Union in Nebraska.
Article I, Section 29 of the Nebraska State Constitution not only bars gay couples from marriage but also employee benefits or inheritance, hospital visitation rights and divorce.
But wouldn't encouraging gay divorce be the ideal way to combat gay marriage?
Not according to District Judge Randall Rehmeier, who earlier this year refused to divorce a lesbian couple in Nebraska City, married in Vermont in 2003, because Nebraska doesn't recognize same-sex marriage. "Although the judge denied the divorce," according to the Nebraska City News-Press, "he did rule on issues of a parenting plan and child support" for the biological daughter of the plaintiff.
But the ruling doesn't benefit gay or lesbian couples seeking to adopt, because the Nebraska Department of Human and Health Services' policy considers them ineligible.
According to the NDHHS' website, "All children deserve to grow up in a good home," and adoptive parents "provide a child with the basic needs: legal status, social status and a family of their own."
Yet, foster children in Nebraska waiting to be adopted outnumber eligible parents waiting to adopt, according to Tyler Richard from the ACLU, in part because gays aren't considered.
Kyle Gibson, a Ph.D. candidate at the University of Utah Department of Anthropology, who specializes in evolutionarily counterintuitive behaviors like adoption, said "gays wishing to adopt receive the same scrutiny and vetting from adoption agencies as everyone else."
"Adoption is usually a long, taxing and expensive process," he said, "and people who adopt are highly motivated to parent."
It's appalling that children in Nebraska -- a fervent anti-abortion state -- languish as wards of the state while good homes are available.
"We are overlooking a great pool of loving, compassionate people who would make great parents," said the Rev. Stephen Griffith, minister to the Community at Saint Paul United Methodist Church.
Nevertheless, anti-gay rights groups disagree. Critics argue homosexuality is unnatural, or that the Bible forbids it. Others simply find homosexuality repugnant.
Most religions have even failed to openly take gays into their fold.
Despite the Rev. Griffith's support of gay rights, he said, "My denomination says we will not conduct same-sex marriage even if it's legal in the state." He did, however, add that there are many clergy advocating rethinking the church's policy toward gay marriage.
It's as if the Ten Commandments (which advise how people ought to behave) are being entangled with the Bill of Rights (which tells how our government ought to treat its citizens).
The Rev. Griffith said marriage licenses are issued by the state, and religious leaders are granted authority to oversee the state's position.
And while marriage is a legal matter between the citizen and the state, many believe marriage is a contract between two people and God.
But the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right to privacy, and the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment guarantees that national rights outweigh the rights of the state. Nevertheless, Nebraska voters have successfully imposed their values into civic matters.
Unfortunately, the unintended consequences of protecting "traditional marriage" ignore the privacy rights of gays pursuing happiness -- and the actual families they should be protecting.
Read more: http://journalstar.com/news/opinion/editorial/columnists/article_b8824452-037e-506c-975d-cdb3af33b293.html#ixzz1c0dMHqLY
Now that the military finally has accepted gays, maybe it's time Nebraskans did, too.
Gay rights pit state and federal authority against moral values and freedom of autonomy.
In the late 1990s, two bills introduced in Nebraska -- one for gay rights, and one against -- were defeated.
Then in 2000, an overwhelming 70 percent of voters approved an amendment to the state Constitution that specified only a man and a woman could marry. Gay rights opponents reportedly outspent their rivals 10-to-1 with a barrage of television, radio, newspaper and direct mail ads.
In 2003, Attorney General Jon Bruning denied a bill meant to allow same-sex couples the right to make funeral arrangements for their deceased loved ones. The opinion was challenged on constitutional grounds. The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the state, saying the amendment was a simple and rational way to protect "traditional marriage."
But the amendment doesn't protect "traditional marriage" -- it just infringes on the rights of gays.
"Nebraska is one of the most extreme states when it comes to gay discrimination," according to Tyler Richard of the American Civil Liberties Union in Nebraska.
Article I, Section 29 of the Nebraska State Constitution not only bars gay couples from marriage but also employee benefits or inheritance, hospital visitation rights and divorce.
But wouldn't encouraging gay divorce be the ideal way to combat gay marriage?
Not according to District Judge Randall Rehmeier, who earlier this year refused to divorce a lesbian couple in Nebraska City, married in Vermont in 2003, because Nebraska doesn't recognize same-sex marriage. "Although the judge denied the divorce," according to the Nebraska City News-Press, "he did rule on issues of a parenting plan and child support" for the biological daughter of the plaintiff.
But the ruling doesn't benefit gay or lesbian couples seeking to adopt, because the Nebraska Department of Human and Health Services' policy considers them ineligible.
According to the NDHHS' website, "All children deserve to grow up in a good home," and adoptive parents "provide a child with the basic needs: legal status, social status and a family of their own."
Yet, foster children in Nebraska waiting to be adopted outnumber eligible parents waiting to adopt, according to Tyler Richard from the ACLU, in part because gays aren't considered.
Kyle Gibson, a Ph.D. candidate at the University of Utah Department of Anthropology, who specializes in evolutionarily counterintuitive behaviors like adoption, said "gays wishing to adopt receive the same scrutiny and vetting from adoption agencies as everyone else."
"Adoption is usually a long, taxing and expensive process," he said, "and people who adopt are highly motivated to parent."
It's appalling that children in Nebraska -- a fervent anti-abortion state -- languish as wards of the state while good homes are available.
"We are overlooking a great pool of loving, compassionate people who would make great parents," said the Rev. Stephen Griffith, minister to the Community at Saint Paul United Methodist Church.
Nevertheless, anti-gay rights groups disagree. Critics argue homosexuality is unnatural, or that the Bible forbids it. Others simply find homosexuality repugnant.
Most religions have even failed to openly take gays into their fold.
Despite the Rev. Griffith's support of gay rights, he said, "My denomination says we will not conduct same-sex marriage even if it's legal in the state." He did, however, add that there are many clergy advocating rethinking the church's policy toward gay marriage.
It's as if the Ten Commandments (which advise how people ought to behave) are being entangled with the Bill of Rights (which tells how our government ought to treat its citizens).
The Rev. Griffith said marriage licenses are issued by the state, and religious leaders are granted authority to oversee the state's position.
And while marriage is a legal matter between the citizen and the state, many believe marriage is a contract between two people and God.
But the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right to privacy, and the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment guarantees that national rights outweigh the rights of the state. Nevertheless, Nebraska voters have successfully imposed their values into civic matters.
Unfortunately, the unintended consequences of protecting "traditional marriage" ignore the privacy rights of gays pursuing happiness -- and the actual families they should be protecting.
Read more: http://journalstar.com/news/opinion/editorial/columnists/article_b8824452-037e-506c-975d-cdb3af33b293.html#ixzz1c0dMHqLY
Load Comments...
Discuss...
Enable JavaScript to submit a comment.