![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
A voice of reason
May. 13th, 2005 09:27 amO my goodness. Somebody read one of those Protect The Family Constitutional amendments (Nebraska's, specifically) and actually recognized it for what it was: a trainwreck. Please allow a nonbeliever to say, HALLEfreakinLUJAH!
The Nebraska provision “is at once too broad and too narrow to satisfy its purported purpose of defining marriage, preserving marriage, or fostering procreation and family life,” Bataillon wrote.
He called it “too narrow” because “it does not address other potential threats to the institution of marriage, such as divorce.”
And it is “too broad in that it reaches not only same-sex ‘marriages,’ but many other legitimate associations, arrangements, contracts, benefits and policies.”
Thank you, Justice Bataillon. Thank you!
The Nebraska provision “is at once too broad and too narrow to satisfy its purported purpose of defining marriage, preserving marriage, or fostering procreation and family life,” Bataillon wrote.
He called it “too narrow” because “it does not address other potential threats to the institution of marriage, such as divorce.”
And it is “too broad in that it reaches not only same-sex ‘marriages,’ but many other legitimate associations, arrangements, contracts, benefits and policies.”
Thank you, Justice Bataillon. Thank you!
