Judge Joe Bataillon is a really nice guy. I have objective proof of that assertion.
Lisa, my middle daughter, the one in China, told me what a nice man Joe was long before I knew Joe. She knew Judge Joe before I did because Lisa and one of Joe’s daughters, see here, went to Marian High School together and were good friends. Marian is an all-girls Catholic High School with a proud tradition in Omaha.
After I met Joe all those many years ago, I realized what Lisa meant. Joe is truly a good man. He always, and I mean always, seeks to do the right and fair thing even when others (like his church) push hard for Joe to do something different. Joe is indifferent to reversals by the Court of Appeals. His focus is doing what he believes is right.
Yesterday, when the Supreme Court declared that gay people had the Constitutional right to marry, Joe was vindicated. Since 2003, Joe had said essentially the same thing. See Waters v. Ricketts, No. 8:14CV356 (D. Neb., March 2, 2015) (“Nebraska’s “Defense of Marriage” Constitutional Amendment, Section 29, is an unabashedly gender-specific infringement of the equal rights of its citizens.”); Citizens for Equal Protection, Inc. v. Bruning, 368 F.Supp.2d 980 (D.Neb.2005) (” Section 29 does not merely withhold the benefit of marriage; it operates to prohibit persons in a same-sex relationship from working to ever obtain governmental benefits or legal recognition, a right they had before the passage of Section 29. If the purpose, as offered by the proponents of Section 29, were merely to maintain the common-law definition of marriage, there would be no need to prohibit all forms of government protection or to preclude domestic partnerships and civil unions. The court concludes that the plaintiffs have established that Section 29 is an unconstitutional bill of attainder.”); Citizens for Equal Protection, Inc. v. Bruning, 290 F. Supp. 2d 1004 (D. Neb. 2003) (denying motion to dismiss and stating, “Section 29 does not just withhold a benefit; it actually prohibits same-sex relationship couples from working to obtain governmental benefits. If the purpose, as offered by the defendants, of Section 29 is merely to maintain the common law definition of marriage, there would be no need to prohibit all forms of government protection or to preclude domestic partnerships and civil unions. I conclude that the plaintiffs have met the legal requirements for stating a claim of bill of attainder.”).
Judge Joe has the right to crow. But he won’t because he is also a humble man. Indeed, I feel fortunate to have Judge Joe as a colleague and a friend. By his actions, Judge Bataillon has offered us all a lesson in humanity. By the way, it is not his fault that I am a bad student.