U.S. District Chief Judge Robert C. Jones struck down a homosexual challenge to the citizens of Nevada amending their state constitution to define marriage as one man and one woman. In his 41-page ruling, Jones said that traditional marriage is "a legitimate state interest" and that Nevada need not recognize same-sex "marriages" of other states.
A total of six federal courts have rejected equal-protection arguments by homosexualists against traditional marriage.
For background, read There's No Right to Same-sex 'Marriage' Says Supreme Court Justice Scalia and also read Michigan Marriage Amendment Unconstitutional? as well as 'Gay Marriage' Enables Polygamy Court Challenge
And read about America, becoming an Obamanation: Gay Agenda Carries in 4 More States
UPDATE 2/10/14: Nevada GOP governor won't defend marriage at 9th Circuit Appeals Court - homosexualists win
-- From "Appeal vowed in Nevada same-sex marriage ruling" by Ken Ritter, The Associated Press 12/1/12
The Nevada lawsuit, Sevcik v. Sandoval, was filed in April on behalf of eight Nevada couples. It was the first by [pro-homosexual] Lambda Legal to make the direct state marriage equality claim in federal court.
It said the 2002 state constitutional amendment prohibiting same-sex marriage violated the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution by denying same-sex couples in Nevada the same rights, dignity and security that other married couples enjoy.
The lawsuit also accused the state of establishing a “selective bar to access to marriage” with a 2009 domestic partnership law that passed over a veto by then-Gov. Jim Gibbons, a Republican. And it maintained that same-sex couples are still discriminated against by hospital officials and police officers who question their relationship status because they aren't legally recognized as spouses.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Federal Judge: Nevada Allowed to Ban Gay Marriage" posted at JD Journal 11/30/12
In his ruling, Jones said that a decision from the Supreme Court in the 1972 case of Baker v. Nelson helped him make his decision. The decision in that case denied a same-sex couple’s marriage claim because it lacked ‘substantial federal question.’ . . .
The ruling went on to say the following: “Homosexuals have not historically been denied the right to vote, the right to serve on juries, or the right to own property. It simply cannot be seriously maintained, in light of these and other recent democratic victories, that homosexuals do not have the ability to protect themselves from discrimination through democratic processes such that extraordinary protection from majoritarian processes is appropriate.”
[Jones] also added that if Nevada was to recognize marriages of same-sex couples, “it is conceivable that a meaningful percentage of heterosexual persons would cease to value the civil institution as highly as they previously had and hence enter into it less frequently … because they no longer wish to be associated with the civil institution as redefined.”
“Homosexual persons may marry in Nevada, but like heterosexual persons, they may not marry members of the same sex. That is, a homosexual man may marry anyone a heterosexual man may marry, and a homosexual woman may marry anyone a heterosexual woman may marry,” he wrote. “Although the State appears to have drawn no distinction at all at first glance, and although the distinction drawn by the State could be characterized as gender-based … the Court finds that for the purposes of an equal protection challenge, the distinction is definitely sexual-orientation based.”
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Also read Homosexual 'Marriage' Not Enough; Next Goal
