Barbara DiBernard wanted people to know the everyday consequences of Nebraska's constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. She wanted her neighbors to know the ban spread beyond restrictions dictating who can marry whom.

She said it took away her right to lobby the Legislature for fundamental protections given to heterosexual couples — being able to visit a partner in the hospital, make funeral arrangements for partners, and make other decisions that a family member would make. "It's forbidding all these other rights as well," said DiBernard, who has been with her partner, Judith M. Gibson, for nearly 17 years.

The couple was one of five to share their story in a lawsuit challenging the amendment as unconstitutional. On Thursday, the couples received welcome news.

Saying that Nebraska's ban on gay marriages amounts to punishment, a federal judge declared the ban unconstitutional.

U.S. District Judge Joseph Bataillon's order to strike down the ban sparked emotions of delight and outrage Thursday, as well as the promise of a state appeal.

In 2000, the constitutional amendment known as Initiative 416 garnered 70 percent of the vote in Nebraska and became part of the state's constitution.

Arguing the amendment prevented them from lobbying the Legislature on protections for same-sex couples, the American Civil Liberties Union of Nebraska,  Citizens for Equal Protection, and Nebraska Advocates for Justice and Equality filed the lawsuit challenging the ban.

In his Thursday ruling, Bataillon wrote that while the government can regulate conduct such as criminal activity, it cannot create classes among its citizens based on who they are, rather than what they do.

He also ruled that the ban went further than defining marriage as between a man a woman, and that the state won't recognize two people in a same-sex relationship that is similar to marriage.

He also wrote that the state admitted the ban limits the plaintiffs' access to the legislative process.

"These statements make it clear that the intent of Section 29 (the constitutional amendment's legal description) is to silence the plaintiffs' views and dilute their political strength," he wrote.

The ruling was hailed by Amy Miller, an attorney for ACLU-Nebraska.

"All it does is level the playing field," she said.

On that playing field, homosexuals should have the right to be a part of the democratic process, said David Buckel, a senior attorney for Lambda Legal, one of the groups  representing the plaintiffs.

But Dave Bydalek, executive director of Family First of Nebraska, disagreed, saying the judge's ruling disregarded the will of state voters.

"This once again illustrates an unelected judge substituting his will over the people of Nebraska," he said.

Federal judges are not elected.

Bydalek also said the ruling shows the need for a federal amendment on this issue. And that homosexuals are not shut out of the political process or denied the ability to attain rights.

"We're trying to uphold the societal norm," he said of the amendment's supporters.

The amendment states that Nebraska only will recognize marriages between men and women, and that similar same-sex relationships would not be recognized.

It also prevents homosexuals working for the University of Nebraska or the state from sharing health insurance and other benefits with their partners.

The state had tried unsuccessfully to get the lawsuit dismissed.

Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning issued a statement Thursday saying his office will appeal the ruling and that he will pursue this case vigorously.

"I believe that the citizens of this state have a right to structure their constitution as they see fit," Bruning said.

Nebraska Sen. Chuck Hagel and  Gov. Dave Heineman sent separate statements saying they both hope Bataillon's ruling will be overturned at the appellate level.

Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson was unavailable for comment.

Meanwhile, DiBernard and Gibson celebrated the judge's ruling quietly with a dinner of baked ziti and phone calls.

"I'm very excited, I'm pleased," said DiBernard.

She hopes Bataillon's order is upheld in the appellate process, and hopes she can lobby for the rights she holds dear.

"We don't have them now, and the judgment today doesn't mean we're going to get them."

Reach Leah Thorsen at 473-7246 or lthorsen@journalstar.com.