Editorial Round-up

Lincoln Journal Star on gay marriage

Despite the U.S. Supreme Court rulings Wednesday in favor of gay marriage, Nebraska's ban continues to stand.

Yet, even here there was jubilation.

We suspect that support in Nebraska for the court's historic ruling now is higher than the 30 percent who voted 13 years ago against putting a clause in the state constitution limiting marriage to a union between a man and a woman.

Society has been evolving at a rapid pace since.

Same-sex marriage now is the law of the land in 12 states, in which about 30 percent of Americans live.

Now, even in the U.S. military, people can be open about their sexual orientation.

In fact, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said after the court's ruling that the Pentagon immediately will begin the process that will allow benefits to spouses of military personnel in same-sex marriages.

Many legal experts predict the struggle for recognition of same-sex marriage now will move to the state level. Republican leaders including House Speaker John Boehner and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor both suggested the court's rulings effectively ended the effort to block gay marriage at the federal level.

"The marriage debate will continue in the states," Cantor said.

Meanwhile, Chad Griffin, president of the Human Rights Campaign, told cheering supporters in Washington, D.C., that "we will bring marriage equality to all 50 states within five years."

In Nebraska, that means either repeal by voters of the ban in the state constitution or a subsequent ruling by the nation's high court that Americans have a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.

Some legal experts believe that the court's ruling on the federal Defense of Marriage Act offers a hint that a future ruling might clarify that right.

Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy opined that the federal law was in violation of the Fifth Amendment because its purpose was to "disparage and injure" those whom the state "sought to protect in personhood and dignity."

After the court's rulings, public opinion will continue to shift.

It's important to remember that the argument centers on the role of government — not religion — in recognizing marriage.

There's little doubt that advocates will be eyeing Nebraska's ban in coming months and years. We are gratified by the court's rulings and welcome the coming debate.

___

North Platte Telegraph on Senate candidates

A recent article in the Wall Street Journal — which quoted Gov. Dave Heineman extensively — focused on a disturbing trend in the United States Senate.

The front page article, headlined "Tough Place To Fill Job Openings: U.S. Senate," reported that in a number of states, most notably Iowa, Georgia, Michigan and Nebraska, likely candidates for Senate seats are saying they don't want the job.

In neighboring Iowa, for example, where the seat of Democrat Sen. Tom Harken will open up next year with his retirement, the lieutenant governor, agriculture secretary, secretary of state and two prominent congressmen have all declined to run.

Iowa Lieutenant Gov. Kim Reynolds said, "At the federal level, it's so partisan, it's dysfunctional."

Heineman — who announced in May that he would not seek the seat currently held by Mike Johanns (who is retiring) — told the Journal, "When you are a governor, every day you can get things done. But you look at the U.S. Senate, you don't get the sense that people are willing to work together to do what's right for the country."

The Journal reported that the Senate seat was "widely viewed as his (Heineman's) for the asking."

"Before deciding not to run for the Senate," the Journal reported, "Mr. Heineman said he talked to Sen. Mike Johanns, whom he had succeeded as Nebraska governor.

"'He's (Johanns) been a mayor, a governor and a cabinet secretary — those are positions where you are expected to perform every day,' said Mr. Heineman. 'In the Senate, you don't know what you are going to do every day. You come in, and at 4 p.m. they tell you we're going to vote in one hour. That part is dysfunctional.'"

For years we have been hearing that senators quickly tire of the non-stop fund raising that is required to win and hold a seat in what has been called the most exclusive club in the world. This, however, is different. Shoo-ins like Dave Heineman are saying the job itself isn't very attractive.

And it is hard to argue with him. While governors are free to work a five-day week like the rest of us, and go to work every day trying to improve their states, senators commonly work a three-day week in Washington, with Friday through Monday spent back in their districts. And when they are in Washington, the work schedule is closely controlled by the leadership. For goal-oriented folks, a three-day work week, recess periods, and world-class gridlock must be frustrating, particularly as our nation approaches $17 trillion in debt, and grapples with a long list of intractable challenges.

Sadly, however, our national plight calls out for common-sense politicians like Johanns and Heineman. Just when we need them most, some of our best people — for a lot of pretty good reasons — just don't want the job.

We certainly can't fault Mike Johanns for wanting to do something different after 32 years in public office. And it would be difficult to argue with Dave Heineman's assessment that it's just too hard to get anything done in Washington, D.C.

At a time when Nebraska could use both of them fighting the good fight in Washington, we can only shake our heads that after next year, we will have neither.

___

The Grand Island Independent on Keystone XL

In these politically toxic days that we now live in, it is rare when two opposite leaning groups celebrate a political speech. Such was the case Tuesday when President Obama said his rejection or approval of the Keystone XL pipeline project will depend on whether the project would mean a large increase in greenhouse emissions. Nebraskans are well aware of the proposed project, which would cut across the state on its path from the tar-sand region of Alberta, Canada, to refineries on the Texas Gulf.

Both sides of the emotionally charged issue took time to celebrate the statement as a victory for their camp.

Pipeline proponents said the goal established by the president has been met in studies conducted by the State Department. TransCanada, the petroleum giant behind the project, said those State Department studies show that the Keystone XL project would have a negligible net effect on emissions and climate change. The studies say the oil sands will eventually be developed and that transporting the product in the pipeline will release less carbon pollutions than if the heavy tar-sand petroleum is delivered to the refineries by rail or truck. TransCanada is seeking to pump 800,000 barrels per day through the pipeline.

Opponents are shouting the opposite, saying the refining of the tar sands will release huge volumes of greenhouse gas emissions. According to anti-pipeline groups, the president's new standard that he outlined Tuesday means the project cannot be approved.

The project is near the end of a five-year review process. Since it crosses an international border, it must be approved by the president. The review process is handled by the State Department.

Pipeline advocates insist that Obama's introduction of global climate change into the Keystone XL debate effectively moves the goal line as they try to meet the challenges in the State Department's review. Obama outlined his energy and climate change strategy Tuesday in a speech at Georgetown University in Washington.

Given the enormous scrutiny of the project over the past half-decade, this seems to be an odd time for the president to bring up carbon emissions as a deal breaker.

Obama has in effect drawn a line in the tar-sands by saying the project won't be approved if it generates more carbon emissions. That is good news for somebody. It could mean the issue has been dealt with by the State Department studies and it will receive the president's approval. Or it could mean that the president sees more harmful carbon emissions being released into the atmosphere, meaning the project will not be allowed to move forward.

So who's right? Only time will tell.