OMAHA — A federal judge on Thursday dismissed a lawsuit filed by a Nebraska woman who claimed she was “God’s ambassador”, and who filed suit on behalf of the Almighty because gays, she alleged, lead a sinful life.
In a three page response, U.S. District Judge John M. Gerrard dismissed the case filed by Sylvia Driskell, 66, of Auburn, Neb., citing among his reasons, that “a federal court is not a forum for debate or discourse on theological matters.”
Citing Bible verses supporting her own personal views on homosexuality and gays, Driskell’s seven-page handwritten complaint filed April 30, asked the court to declare homosexuality a sin.
One odd facet of the complaint (and there were quite a few oddities) was that there was no request for relief of any sort from the court. Typically, when you sue, you’re asking for something: either you’re seeking money damages, or asking the court to strike down a law, or issue an injunction or temporary restraining order. The complaint didn’t ask the court to do anything or grant the woman any kind of relief against all gay people.
The complaint also lacked a statement about the court’s jurisdiction. A statute allows for lawsuits “arising under” the Constitution, and another allows for lawsuits against someone in another state if the amount of money involved exceeds a certain amount. But the complaint didn’t allege that the lawsuit falls into either category.
The court has dismissed the case, pointing out those flaws.
In dismissing the complaint, Gerrard noted that federal courts “were created to resolve actual cases and controversies arising under the Constitution and the laws of the United States.”
Article continues below“A federal court is not a forum for debate or discourse on theological matters. Other forums, freely accessible to citizens of the United States, exist for the purpose of addressing questions of religious doctrine. This is a court of law, and ‘the law knows no heresy, and is committed to the support of no dogma, the establishment of no sect,'” he wrote.
Gerrard concluded that “the Court will not give the plaintiff an opportunity to amend her complaint in this matter because it is obvious that amendment would be futile.”