Tuesday, May 27, 2014

Same-Sex Divorce: Nebraska's Supreme Court Asked to Untangle a Knotty Marriage.

If the state won't recognize your marriage will it entertain your divorce?

The Nebraska Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a landmark case on same-sex divorce on May 27. While other judges hear cases direct attacks on their laws banning gay marriage, Nebraska’s law was upheld nearly a decade ago. 

Don't expect a decision on the case until this fall at the earliest. 

The case, Nichols v. Nichols, provides two interesting angles. It’s one of the few instances where there’s been a discussion about how states that don’t want same-sex marriage should legally deal with couples that marry across their borders.

It was never the intent of the otherwise very private couple involved to have their personal lives be spotlighted in a high-profile legal battle. Speaking to reporters after the hearing Megan Mikolajczyk, who represents Bonnie Nichols said "we didn’t bring this case to challenge the Nebraska Constitution. We brought this case because we have a valid Iowa marriage that needs to be dissolved."
Nonetheless, proponents and opponents are using court filings as an opportunity to air fundamental arguments in a courtroom.

Assistant Attorney General Jim Smith argued since Nebraska amended its Constitution through a referendum approved by the state's citizens, ending or changing the state's acceptence of gay marriage would "in effect disenfranchise 70 percent of Nebraska’s voters by having this court adopt a construction of the United States Constitution, which has not been recognized by the United States Supreme Court." 
As expected, there was more technical talk than passion during the oral arguments. Questions from the justices, and there were fewer than normal, focused either on the implications of recent federal court rulings overturning same-sex marriage restrictions in other states and a technical issue left over by the judge in the lower court case that is was on appeal.

Here’s a Q&A on the case:

What are the basics?

Bonnie Nichols, legally married in Iowa, challenged the ruling of a Lancaster County District Court judge denying her a divorce from her lesbian spouse because the relationship is not legally recognized in Nebraska. Nichols v. Nichols is the first challenge to the same-sex marriage law in a Nebraska court since voters approved it 14 years ago. When turning down the request for a divorce District Court Judge Stephanie Stacy wrote “this case requires navigation through areas of Nebraska jurisprudence which presently are uncharted by Nebraska's appellate courts.”

What is the law in Nebraska?

In 2000 Nebraska voters added an amendment to the state’s constitution defining opposite-sex marriages as the only relationships to be recognized by law. 
Nebraska State Constitution Article I, Section 29 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.”
Wyoming and Arizona do not recognize same-sex relationships but do have laws providing an avenue for dissolving a marriage. Nebraska does not.

If states make their own laws on marriage, what's the case for this divorce?

Bonnie Nichols’ attorney, Megan Mikolajczyk, lists three reasons in her opening brief to the Nebraska Supreme Court:
  • Marriage licenses from one state must be honored by another state, whether they provided to heterosexual or homosexual couples.
  • Obstacles to ending a marriage violate the couple’s constitutional right to associate, or in this case not associate, with whoever they choose to live.
  • Limiting marriage to a man and woman in Nebraska law violates the U.S. Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection for all citizens.
When I spoke to Mikolajczyk a few weeks ago she said “the state of Nebraska tried to make the relationship unavailable. Instead they’ve made a relationship they don’t want in this state permanent. I don’t think that was their intended end result.”
A brief filed by the American Civil Liberties Union supports the Nichols divorce request and adds a few more legal arguments that directly take on Nebraska’s constitutional definition of marriage.
  • Denying same-sex couples the right to marry is a form of gender discrimination and thus illegal.
  • The recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling striking down the federal “Defense of Marriage Act” supports the idea that Nebraska’s law is a violation of equal protection for its citizens.
  • The majority of other states confronted with the same issue have found methods to permit divorce.
Still another brief was filed on behalf of another same-sex couple in the middle of a divorce. They are asking the state Supreme Court to act in advance of their county court hearing to clarify how the judge in their case should proceed.

Who’s opposing the divorce?

The Nebraska Attorney General’s office for one.
It’s the obligation of the state’s top lawyer to come to the defense of the state’s laws. Attorney General Jon Bruning, in the closing months of his term in office, has opposed same-sex marriage in Nebraska and offered legal support to other state’s defending state laws with a traditional definition of marriage.
He’s getting support from the Nebraska Family Alliance and the Nebraska Catholic Conference, both founding members of the Coalition for the Protection of Marriage that helped get Amendment 29 added to the state’s constitution.
What are the arguments against the Nichols’ divorce?
The brief filed by Bruning in the Nichols case was short and to the point. He explained in the brief that in 2006 the United States Court of Appeals of the Eighth Circuit upheld Nebraska’s law and made clear the state had a right to decide who could legally marry. That is the entire foundation of the state's arguement against granting the Nichols couple a divorce.
In January Bruning joined other State Attorneys General in a brief arguing in favor of a similar ban in Nevada. Bruning added his name to the court document stating:
“No fundamental right to same-sex marriage exists. The theory of traditional civil marriage, that is, turns on the unique qualities of the male-female couple for procreating and rearing children under optimal circumstances. As such, it not only reflects and maintains deep-rooted traditions of our Nation, but also furthers the public policy of encouraging biological parents to stay together for the sake of the children produced by their sexual union.”
That specific argument is not included in Bruning’s filing but it is the foundation of the case he’s made before in support of limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples.
The Amici Brief was filed by the Family Alliance and  Catholic Conference listed a number of other reasons.
  • There is no harm in failing to recognize out-of-state same-sex marriages because the couple can still get a legal annulment when "the marriage between parties is prohibited by law."
  • Nebraska voters advance an important interest of government: “encouraging child-bearing and child-rearing by married mothers and fathers and preserving accountability of government to voters.”
  • Nebraska's marriage laws seek to preserve the social goods marriage has produced across time and cultures.
  • “The (U.S.) Constitution has foreseen the ballot box, not the courts, as the normal instrument for resolving differences and debates about the merits of preserving marriage as the union of a husband and wife or redefining it to include  same-sex couples."

Will recent federal court decisions on same-sex marriage make a difference?

That is tough to answer. A great deal has changed since the U.S. Court of Appeals ruling in the Nebraska case. In addition to, and perhaps because of, the U.S. Supreme Court ruling on the Defense of Marriage Act, a number of states have decided to no longer defend the traditional definition of marriage. At last count 19 states have granted same-sex couples legal recognition.
However, the justices on Nebraska’s high court, in actuality, are not being asked to overturn Amendment 29. They have been asked to grant a divorce.

What are the justice’s options?

I’m not an attorney. There could be other avenues, but base on interviews with the participants and the knowledgeable, here’s the short list:
  • Throw out Amendment 29
  • Uphold Amendment 29 and deny the divorce.
  • Rule they cannot grant a divorce in this case, but advise that Nebraska needs a legal mechanism to deal with these cases.
  • Toss the case back to the District Court. This could happen because of a procedural discrepancy in the manner Judge Stephanie Stacy routed the case to the appellate courts.

How’s it going to turn out?

Not a clue. Look for a ruling sometime this fall.

Tuesday, May 20, 2014

Sentence commuted for Nebraska cult killer: “From the depths of hell to a life of great peace.”

Later this summer Timothy Haverkamp will be a free man. He’s been out of jail for five years, but not quite free.

In 1985 freedom of any kind seemed impossible.

How could Nebraska ever release someone who participated in the barbaric torture and murder of another man on the orders of a self-proclaimed prophet of god?
Haverkamp is sworn in before Board of Pardons. (Bill Kelly)
In the Nebraska State Capitol today the shy and soft-spoken convicted murderer convinced the traditionally hardline Board of Pardons he deserved their trust. One board member said Haverkamp had emerged “from the depths of hell…to a life of great peace.”

Haverkamp spent 24 years in prison for his role in the barbaric torture and murder of James Thimm. In 1985 both men lived with Michael Ryan and his small band of religious zealots and survivalists on a farm outside of Rulo, Nebraska. 
It was, arguably, the most sensational crime in the state since the Charles Starkweather murder spree in 1959.
No reasonable person wants to read the details of what Ryan and four of his followers did to Thimm. Summaries of the crime in court documents turn the stomach and can bring on tears. Every aspect of life on the Richardson County farm, dictated by the sadistic Ryan, justified by his twisted interpretation of the Bible in general and the Book of Revelation in particular.
Thimm earned the cult leader’s scorn for questioning his beliefs. Ryan orchestrated several days of torture for the man. Four other followers, including Haverkamp, did as they were told as Thimm was skinned alive, his limbs broken, and worse.
Police raided the compound and discovered the grave of another victim of Ryan’s. Five-year-old boy Luke Stice died after Ryan hit him in the head for talking back.
Haverkamp was convicted of second-degree murder. He joined others from the cult in testifying against Ryan. At the time only Ryan’s teenaged son Dennis continued to maintain that they were doing god’s work on behalf of his father. He too has since been released from prison.
Haverkamp got out of jail five years ago. Like anyone on parole he was required to regularly report to a parole officer, submit to drug tests, and stay out of any kind of trouble. By doing everything right, he earned the right to request ending even that routine. Commuting  his sentence would reduce the life sentence handed down by the Richardson District Court to roughly the time he already served in jail. Unlike a full pardon, the state would not nullify the original conviction. He will always remain a convicted felon.
Under oath Haverkamp told the board it had been over 30 years since “the incident” and during his time on parole he’s led a “productive, law-abiding life.” He spoke for less than thirty seconds.
Esther Casmer. the chair of the state’s Parole Board was asked to review the case by the Attorney General and report back to the Board of Pardons. She and the rest of her board gave unqualified support to commuting Haverkamp’ s sentence. She said there were “no hitches” in his parole. Casmer, who has reviewed the cases of hundreds of prisoners on parole, said Haverkamp’s “exemplary” post-release record was “not the norm.”
“He hasn’t even had a parking ticket,” she marveled when we spoke after the hearing.
No one spoke in opposition to the sentence reduction.
Answering questions from the board Haverkamp spoke of the “great support” he gets from family and his church. He has a steady job, often working six days a week and volunteering when possible for Habitat for Humanity. He fishes for relaxation. His aging parents live in Kansas and he’d like to be able to visit without first getting permission from a parole officer.
Governor Heineman previously warned Haverkamp that getting a sentence reduced on a murder conviction was almost unheard of under this board. All three members tend to take a hard line on law and order issues. Yet no reservations were heard at the hearing.
“All we’re really doing here is deciding whether he has to continue checking in with his parole officer every six months for the rest of his life,” said Attorney General Bruning. “It’s an unnecessary expense to the taxpayers” since he’s been successfully rehabilitated.
Haverkamp leaves the State Capitol. (Bill Kelly)
The vote was unanimous. Timothy Haverkamp earned his freedom. He left the Nebraska State Capitol Building playing cat and mouse with newspaper and television photographers, successfully ditching the pack without making a comment.
In 2009 at his parole hearing Esther Casmer reminded everyone in the room that laws to punish criminals are written to protect the community from people “we are afraid of, not those who we are angry with.”
Nebraska is still very much afraid of Michael Ryan. The man who convinced Haverkamp and the other others to savage another human being in the name of god remains on death row. The Nebraska Supreme Court recently rejected his latest effort to stop his execution. There is no word about when, or if, Nebraska will be able to carry out its first execution by lethal injection.