By Hilary White

  ST. LOUIS, July 14, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The US Eighth Circuit Court in St. Louis has reversed a federal district court ruling and has reinstated an amendment to the state constitution protecting the institution of marriage.

  The amendment ruled out not only the possibility of gay “marriage” but of recognition of “civil unions,” often proposed as a back door to legal equivalence.

  It reads, “Only marriage between a man and a woman shall be valid or recognized in Nebraska. The uniting of two persons of the same sex in a civil union, domestic partnership, or other similar same-sex relationship shall not be valid or recognized in Nebraska.”

  The appeals court ruled that the amendment, which was passed in 2000 with 70 per cent of the popular vote, is a matter of state rights and not a violation of the US Constitution.

  Eleven other states submitted briefs in the appeal in support of the state’s right to democratically amend its constitution to protect marriage. In addition, briefs were also included from the Nebraska Catholic Conference, the American Center for Law & Justice Northeast, Focus on the Family and Family Research Council, the Thomas More Law Center, thirty-four law professors and some members of the Nebraska legislature.

  In May 2005, a group of homosexual legal activists—Lambda Legal together with the ACLU’s Lesbian and Gay Project—won a suit against the amendment alleging that it violated the US Constitution. The appeal was launched immediately by the state.

  At the time U.S. District Judge Joseph Bataillon struck down the amendment saying the ban “creates a significant barrier to the plaintiffs’ right to petition or to participate in the political process.”

  Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning said at the time of Judge Batallion’s ruling, “Seventy percent of Nebraskans voted for the amendment to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman,  and I believe that the citizens of this state have a right to structure their constitution as they see fit.”

  Read the Eighth District Court of Appeals ruling:
  http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/07/052604P.pdf