Other Columns by Doug Patton
Doug Patton Bio

Printer-Friendly Version

Disregarding the will of the people has become almost a badge of honor for radical, leftwing federal judges. In the latest example of this abuse of power, my home state of Nebraska finds itself at the epicenter of the culture wars for the third time in five years.

When Stenberg vs. Carhart came before the United States Supreme Court in 2000, Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor turned her back on conservative values and common decency by siding with the court's liberal wing on the issue of partial birth abortion. The 5-4 decision gave a major judicial victory to radical pro-abortion forces by striking down Nebraska's ban on the horrific procedure.

That ban, passed by the Nebraska Legislature and signed into law by then-Gov. Ben Nelson, was struck down in 1997 by federal Judge Richard Kopf of Nebraska, even though it enjoyed the support of the overwhelming majority of Nebraskans. In fact, the eventual Supreme Court ruling upholding Kopf's original decision went against the will of the vast majority of Americans, who have indicated in poll after poll that they favor banning partial birth abortion.

Last year, Kopf joined judges in New York and San Francisco in striking down a similar ban passed by Congress and signed into law by President Bush. Kopf's decision was predictable, given his previous predilection for supporting the "right" of abortionists like Leroy Carhart to kill full-term babies as they are emerging from the womb.

The latest manifestation of judicial tyranny here in Nebraska came at the hands of another one of our own, U.S. District Court Judge Joe Bataillon. A 1997 Clinton appointee, Bataillon has long been known for his liberal leanings. Last week, he confirmed most Nebraskans worst fears by striking down our Defense of Marriage Amendment.

The amendment to the state constitution, which passed with 70 percent of the vote in 2000, defined marriage as the union of a man and a woman. It also denied recognition of civil unions or domestic partnerships by the state.

In his 43-page ruling, Bataillon (apparently seeing in the amendment a violation of rights that were never there in the first place) wrote that the ban "imposes significant burdens on both the expressive and intimate associational rights and creates a significant barrier to the plaintiffs' right to petition or to participate in the political process."

Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning has vowed to appeal Bataillon's ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court, but given recent decisions from the current members of that body, a pronouncement favoring the will of the people is unlikely. After all, this court invented a "right" to sodomy in Lawrence vs. Texas two years ago.

The union of two men or two women is not a marriage. Marriage is the union of one man and one woman, and the time has come to take this issue out of the reach of unaccountable judges by passing a federal marriage amendment. This process must begin in earnest while a national will still exists to preserve the definition of marriage. Until we enshrine the only true definition in the U.S. Constitution, we will continue to see these kinds of absurd assaults by our courts on the institution itself.

>> Continued -- Page 1 2