Nebraska Gov. Mike Johanns and former Gov. Bob Kerrey, now a U.S. senator, do not see eye to eye on Initiative 416, the proposed constitutional amendment that would ban any future legal recognition of same-sex marriages or civil unions in the state.
Johanns plans to vote yes. Kerrey plans to vote no.

Initiative 416, which places the same-sex ban in the constitution, is called a defense of marriage act by its supporters and an anti-gay initiative by opponents.

"I am on record in 10 different ways indicating I would support defense of marriage in whatever form or fashion," Johanns said Wednesday. More than 30 states and the U.S. Congress already have passed defense of marriage language, he noted.

"A private decision made between two individuals, consenting adults - that is not something I'm going to pass judgment on," Johanns said. "However, the legal, state recognition of that private decision is something I cannot agree with."

He also supports the proposed ban on recognizing same-sex unions by any name. "In reality there is no difference."

Nebraska's proposal goes one step beyond other states or the federal government to cover same-sex civil unions or domestic partnerships. But Johanns doesn't believe opponents' "horror" stories that the courts will use it to ban same-sex legal partnerships, such as a farm owned by a father-son team.

"That is really way off base from a legal standpoint," he said.

But Kerrey says the language does call into question other legal transactions involving gays and lesbians, such as wills and property arrangements.

"I recognize that I'm in the minority on this issue. But I would speak to the majority who may favor it and suggest they too should reject the constitutional route," Kerrey said.

"You should vote against it to maintain maximum flexibility. We may discover this amendment could have some very unhappy consequences, but amending the constitution restricts options. It perpetually forbids the state of Nebraska from making even small accommodations."

Although he argues against putting the language into the constitution, Kerrey said he also would oppose putting the same language in state law.

"I believe the real threat to marriage is divorce, not same-sex marriages. If we put marriage on a pedestal where it belongs, we could reduce the number of divorces."

Source: Lincoln Journal Star, By Nancy Hicks: October 12, 2000

---

Banning same-sex marriage and other similar relationships in the state constitution could hurt efforts to recruit faculty and students, the University of Nebraska-Lincoln chancellor told a faculty group Tuesday.
Interim Chancellor Harvey Perlman said the Nov. 7 ballot issue already has been raised by at least one potential candidate for a top UNL job.

"Whatever the intentions of its promoters, it will be viewed as an act of bigotry and intolerance by the rest of the world, and that cannot help the state of Nebraska," he said in answer to a question raised at the UNL Academic Senate meeting.

But Guyla Mills, coordinator of the Defense of Marriage Amendment Committee, said it was "very unfair" to label as hatemongers those who want to protect marriage. She also questioned whether Initiative 416 could hurt Nebraska.

"For every one person that would say it's an act of bigotry and intolerance, there would be 100 that would say that there are concerned citizens in Nebraska and that would be a drawing for people to want to come and raise families here," she said.

UNL policy bars discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, and the Academic Senate is on record supporting benefits for domestic partners of gay and lesbian staff. No NU campus currently offers such benefits.

Perlman said he doesn't know whether Initiative 416 would prohibit UNL from offering such benefits. Such uncertainties add to the problems created by the amendment.

"If the university did adopt such a policy, someone would sue," he said.

The meaning of language barring recognition for "the uniting of two persons of the same sex in a civil union, domestic partnership or other similar same-sex relationship" has been the subject of considerable debate between supporters and opponents of Initiative 416.

Source: Lincoln Journal Star, By Martha Stoddard: October 11, 2000

---

-- Posted Sunday, October 22, 2000
Initiative 416 language: "Only marriage between a man and 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 same-sex relationship, shall not be valid or recognized in Nebraska."
Those two simple sentences touch emotional nerves on both sides of the issue.

In fact, supporters and opponents of this proposed amendment to the Nebraska Constitution may spend more than $1 million in educational and advertising campaigns during the next few weeks.

Supporters see the amendment as the surest protection of a traditional societal unit they believe has proven to be the best for raising children. Active supporters are a blend of conservative churches, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and the Nebraska Catholic Conference.

Opponents see the amendment as an extension of the bigotry and hatred many homosexual Americans face, a civil rights issue with the potential of unintended consequences for all Nebraskans.

The organized opposition group has no specific religious underpinnings, and many of its leaders are gay men and lesbian women and their families and friends.

At least 32 states have enacted same-sex marriage bans during the past few years, but only two are in state constitutions. And none have added the second sentence, also applying the ban to same-sex arrangements that fall short of a recognized marriage.

The rush to make certain same-sex marriages weren't legalized was the result of a Hawaii case in which several same-sex couples sought to have their unions recognized under state law. The case went to the state Supreme Court, and Hawaii eventually passed a constitutional amendment making the issue moot. Congress also responded with legislation that prohibits same-sex couples from receiving special marriage benefits, including income tax and Social Security benefits.

The second sentence of the proposed Nebraska amendment is a response to a recent Vermont decision, in which the state Supreme Court ordered the state's legislature to recognize same-sex unions, according to Guyla Mills, who led the successful petition campaign in Nebraska.

Nebraska law limits marriage to a man and a woman. The law will not be changed if 416 fails.

But supporters of Initiative 416 fear courts of the future may intervene, forcing states to accept same-sex marriages or grant same-sex unions a status similar to marriage.

Opponents believe the second sentence of the amendment is so unclear that future courts could use it to open up a Pandora's Box - courts could determine that an outlawed domestic partnership means a father-son farm partnership, that people of the same sex could not have powers of attorney or that private companies could not offer health insurance to partners of employees.

Legal scholars come down on both sides. The first sentence guides the second, they say.

There is no way a Nebraska court is going to forbid a corporation from providing contractual benefits, said University of Nebraska College of Law Professor Rick Duncan, known as a conservative.

"If your purpose is to avoid what happened in Vermont, you need the second sentence."

But Creighton University Law Professor Dick Shugrue said there was cause for concern.

"The second sentence does not necessarily mean a romantic marriage-like thing," said Shugrue, who has liberal leanings.

It is difficult to predict what future courts will do, he said. "The mysteries linger long after the drafters are gone."

Source: Lincoln Journal Star: October 8, 2000

---

A ballot question that Nebraska voters will face on Nov. 7 raised distinctly different answers in a legislative forum Thursday night at Grand Island City Hall.

State Sen. Ray Aguilar, who represents District 35, covering most of Grand Island, said he supports Initiative 416 -- a constitutional amendment that would recognize only marriage between a man and a woman as valid.

Aguilar said he believes in the institution of marriage, and such unions are "between a man and a woman."

Lonnie Logan, who is challenging Aguilar, said he too believes in the institution of marriage. But he said he opposes 416 because it creates hatred and bigotry toward a part of the population, and its language will likely be the subject of expensive court battles.

Source: The Grand Island Independent, By Tracy Overstreet: Friday, October 20, 2000

---

The first sentence of the Defense of Marriage Amendment is unnecessary. The second sentence is meanspirited.

The state of Nebraska would be better without either sentence in the state constitution.

Backers of Initiative 416 characterize it as the surest protection for "keeping things the way they always have been," in the words of one of the advertisements in its $500,000-plus campaign.

Opponents say the amendment is nothing less than an expression of the prejudice and hatred that many gay, lesbian and transgendered Americans experience.

The Journal Star's opposition to the amendment traces to our root support for tolerance and freedom.

Like many Nebraskans, we have not yet thought through every question that might be asked about gay and lesbian unions. Does society benefit if gay and lesbian couples are permitted to adopt? Our answer to that might be no. But that is not the issue posed by Initiative 416.

We do know our society is stronger and healthier when gay, lesbian and transgendered people can openly acknowledge their orientation without fear of violence or violation of their civil rights.

We do believe that employers should not have the right to fire gay and lesbian employees just because of their sexual orientation. We believe that landlords should not have the right to refuse to rent to those whom they suspect of being gay or lesbian.

As homophobia has waned in recent decades, more and more heterosexual Americans have begun to appreciate and value their relationships with gay and lesbian co-workers, friends and family members. Employers ranging from Delta Airlines to Iowa State University recently have extended benefits to same-sex couples.

Even Republican vice presidential candidate Dick Cheney this month said that Americans should "do everything we can to tolerate and accommodate whatever kind of relationships people want to enter into." Cheney's daughter Mary, one of Cheney's closest advisers, has lived for years with a female partner. She wears a gold wedding band.

The first sentence of the proposed amendment is redundant. Nebraska law already prohibits same-sex marriage. Change seems unlikely. Polls show an overwhelming proportion of Nebraskans favor reserving the institution of marriage for unions between men and women.

Nebraskans also should be clear on one point. The amendment has nothing to do with church doctrine on marriage. Priests and pastors answer to church theology, not the state constitution. The amendment affects only government, not religion.

If the amendment passes, however, the state of Nebraska would be prevented from some sort of legal recognition of gay and lesbian partnerships, as some countries and the state of Vermont have already done.

It slams the door by saying "The uniting of two persons of the same sex in a civil union, domestic partnership, or other same-sex relationship, shall not be valid or recognized in Nebraska."

That goes too far.

Inscribing those words in the state constitution would drive a divisive wedge into society. It would be a step backward, poisoning a climate in which the heterosexual majority is finally recognizing the full human reality of the gays and lesbians who have always lived among them.

Fair-minded Nebraskans will vote against Initiative 416.

Source: Lincoln Journal Star Editorial: Sunday, October 15, 2000

---

Kay Orr and Bill Ramsey, in their article defending the proposed same-sex marriage ban, insist that the definition of marriage is the only issue to be decided when the voters go to the polls on Nov. 7 to decide the fate of Initiative 416.

Don't believe them. Certainly it's true that Initiative 416, if approved, would amend the Nebraska Constitution to say that only a male-female marriage would be valid, but the Orr-Ramsey statement ignores significant other issues pertaining to the initiative.

Chief among those issues is what is becoming known as the problem of the second sentence. The second sentence of the proposed amendment would deny the State of Nebraska the opportunity to consider the fallback positions with which some other governments, including the State of Vermont, have avoided a redefinition of marriage while still accommodating the desire of gay or lesbian couples to form a household under the protective umbrella of the law.

Civil unions would not be authorized. Domestic partnerships could not be established. Only if civil unions and domestic partnerships are crammed into the definition of marriage is the amendment only about marriage. Orr and Ramsey, in effect, argue that same-sex marriages are the same thing as domestic partnerships and civil unions. In our book, they are different levels of accommodation.

We aren't saying any of these steps should be considered. No one has formally proposed them. But surely it would be stupid to throw away the negotiating tools even before the request is made. And that's what the supporters of Initiative 416 want the voters to do - throw away all the negotiating tools for all time.

Lawyers, in a Sunday World-Herald story, discussed a second question posed by the appearance of the initiative. Could the amendment, reflecting the punitive spirit of denying any accommodation to the targeted group, be used in court to attack contracts with which gays and lesbians attempted to secure protection for their relationships? Could an estranged parent barge into probate court, waving the amendment and demanding to break a will in which one partner attempted to make the other partner his heir?

We don't know what might happen if the amendment passed and wound up in the hands of lawyers and judges. But one thing can be said with reasonable certainty. Any society that loses its respect for private contracts is a step closer to tyranny. That's something about which voters, no matter how they feel about homosexuality, ought to think deeply.

Source: Omaha World Herald Editorial: October 17, 2000

---