Federal judge strikes down Kentucky’s ban on gay marriage

posted at 8:01 pm on July 1, 2014 by Allahpundit

Noteworthy for three reasons. One: The judge is a Bush 41 appointee, nominated to the federal bench by, er, Mitch McConnell. Two: This decision doesn’t matter much on the ground because the Sixth Circuit, the federal appellate court with jurisdiction in Kentucky, is set to hear arguments on gay marriage on August 6th. They’re going to end up superseding this decision one way or the other in the next few months anyway.

Three: Heyburn, the judge, went out of his way to make clear that he thinks this issue is a no-brainer. Usually when a court examines the constitutionality of SSM, they analyze it as both a due process matter and an equal protection matter. The due process analysis depends on whether the right to marry is “fundamental;” if it is, then the court applies “strict scrutiny” in considering the state’s ban. That mean the state needs to offer a “compelling” reason for why the ban should be upheld. Strict scrutiny is the most skeptical approach a court can take to a statute. Heyburn, though, sidesteps the due process issue altogether by noting that Justice Kennedy, in his hugely influential Windsor opinion, never squarely addresses that issue. If Kennedy hasn’t touched it, Heyburn’s not touching it either. Right off the bat, he’s disarmed himself of one of the judiciary’s favorite weapons in striking down gay-marriage bans.

That leaves the equal protection argument. Courts will apply some form of heightened scrutiny, i.e. extra skepticism, to a law that discriminates against certain historically persecuted groups. Do gays qualify as one of those groups? Sort of, says Heyburn — but it really doesn’t matter, because gay-marriage bans don’t make sense even if you’re analyzing them with no extra skepticism at all. In other words, even if you give the state legislature the maximum amount of deference due under equal protection law, an SSM ban is DOA in court. Here’s Heyburn on the state’s chief argument, that marriage is reserved for straights in the name of encouraging procreation and economic replenishment of the population:

These arguments are not those of serious people. Though it seems almost unnecessary to explain, here are the reasons why. Even assuming the state has a legitimate interest in promoting procreation, the Court fails to see, and Defendant never explains, how the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage has any effect whatsoever on procreation among heterosexual spouses. Excluding same-sex couples from marriage does not change the number of heterosexual couples who choose to get married, the number who choose to have children, or the number of children they have…

The state’s attempts to connect the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage to its interest in economic stability and in “ensuring humanity’s continued existence” are at best illogical and even bewildering.

He’s laughing them out of court. And then the big-picture coup de grace:

Those opposed by and large simply believe that the state has the right to adopt a particular religious or traditional view of marriage regardless of how it may affect gay and lesbian persons. But, as this Court has respectfully explained, in America even sincere and long-held religious views do not trump the constitutional rights of those who happen to have been out-voted

Sometimes, by upholding equal rights for a few, courts necessarily must require others to forebear some prior conduct or restrain some personal instinct. Here, that would not seem to be the case. Assuring equal protection for same-sex couples does not diminish the freedom of others to any degree. Thus, same-sex couples’ right to marry
seems to be a uniquely “free” constitutional right. Hopefully, even those opposed to or uncertain about same-sex marriage will see it that way in the future.

We’ve gone from this issue being a fringe preoccupation of the left 20 years ago to the federal bench slam-dunking it today, thanks in large part to Kennedy and Windsor. As noted, next month the Sixth Circuit will decide the fate of gay marriage in Tennessee, Ohio, Michigan, and Kentucky. All four states have lower-court rulings on legalized gay marriage currently pending. All four ruled in favor of legalized SSM.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

“50 states down, 7 to go!!!”

– White House press release

ShainS on July 1, 2014 at 8:04 PM

I’m not going to be moralized to from the bench…

sorrowen on July 1, 2014 at 8:05 PM

This issue is lost to conservatives. Instead of fighting against civil unions, they should have been accepted. That fight has led to this.

Personally, I don’t see how gay marriage is any more or less harmful to marriage in general as divorce.

And I say that as a child of divorce and as a divorce woman.

ladyingray on July 1, 2014 at 8:05 PM

Even if it’s a first cousin?

wolly4321 on July 1, 2014 at 8:05 PM

The backlash will be schadenfreude-alicious.

Akzed on July 1, 2014 at 8:06 PM

*sigh* Every time I see an opinion like this, it makes me ponder why I decided on a legal career. With judges like this twisting themselves into all sorts of legal knots in order to reach a decision they want, it makes the rule of law a joke.

Then I realize that there have to be a few of us good lawyers to push back against it.

Othniel on July 1, 2014 at 8:06 PM

in America even sincere and long-held religious views do not trump the constitutional rights of those who happen to have been out-voted…

So then polygamy and incest is now legal?

nobar on July 1, 2014 at 8:07 PM

Incest and polygamy less than 5 years away.

njrob on July 1, 2014 at 8:07 PM

This issue is lost to conservatives. Instead of fighting against civil unions, they should have been accepted. That fight has led to this.
Personally, I don’t see how gay marriage is any more or less harmful to marriage in general as divorce.
And I say that as a child of divorce and as a divorce woman.
ladyingray on July 1, 2014 at 8:05 PM
One creates children and one spreads aids among other things….needless to say it didn’t work our well for Rome either.

sorrowen on July 1, 2014 at 8:08 PM

ladyingray on July 1, 2014 at 8:05 PM

I was all for civil union-until the militant homos started DEMANDING that I(we) accept their deviant lifestyle.
Marriage is ONE man+ ONE woman.
Nothing else. Period.
ENOUGH!

annoyinglittletwerp on July 1, 2014 at 8:08 PM

The dye has been cast and the lie of the liberals has been revealed. Gay marriage was never going to be an issue to be decided by the states once the Supreme Court jumped in.

Game. Set. Match.

Now, our last defense is for religious institutions to be able get protection from being sued for “hate speech” when they preach the truth of the Bible to their congregation. God help us, please . . .

KickandSwimMom on July 1, 2014 at 8:09 PM

Personally, I don’t see how gay marriage is any more or less harmful to marriage in general as divorce. ladyingray on July 1, 2014 at 8:05 PM

It not only cheapens actual marriage, but once recognized as legitimate it necessarily makes the indoctrination of children into perversion a certainty.

No judge or government is empowered to redefine marriage.

Akzed on July 1, 2014 at 8:10 PM

in America even sincere and long-held religious views do not trump the constitutional rights of those who happen to have been out-voted…

“you can marry whomever you want” is in the constitution???

Sachiko on July 1, 2014 at 8:10 PM

So then polygamy and incest is now legal?
nobar on July 1, 2014 at 8:07 PM

Gah. Get out of my mind.

njrob on July 1, 2014 at 8:10 PM

in America even sincere and long-held religious views do not trump the constitutional rights of those who happen to have been out-voted…
So then polygamy and incest is now legal?
nobar on July 1, 2014 at 8:07 PM
AP’s emotional argument is as good as Kennedy’s…the way I see it the homosexuals just want to pay more divorce lawyers…

sorrowen on July 1, 2014 at 8:10 PM

I hope a red state decides to cease issuing marriage licences, then we will see how the SSM fascists react.

nobar on July 1, 2014 at 8:11 PM

annoyinglittletwerp on July 1, 2014 at 8:08 PM

The problem twerp, is that conservatives fought against civil unions. If they had accepted them, we might not be here now.

BTW, there are plenty of people who don’t think marriage is “ONE man+ ONE woman” at a time, but forever.

ladyingray on July 1, 2014 at 8:12 PM

And why is it that AP is the person to post it when the Federal judges strike down state laws? One has to assume that he approves of it. And if he does and if conservatives are ostensibly for constitutionalism, why is he allowed to post at Hot Air?

antifederalist on July 1, 2014 at 8:12 PM

They changed the meaning of marriage, why? They say it doesn’t hurt straight couples. Well, how exactly does it help gay couples?

Dongemaharu on July 1, 2014 at 8:12 PM

Instead of fighting against civil unions, they should have been accepted. That fight has led to this.

Incorrect. Allowing civil unions is what led to this.

Personally, I don’t see how gay marriage is any more or less harmful to marriage in general as divorce.

ladyingray on July 1, 2014 at 8:05 PM

Let me explain it simply: ending a marriage is one thing. Totally redefining the concept of marriage (and taking all meaning out of it in the process) is something else. It’s something else called “destruction”.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on July 1, 2014 at 8:12 PM

And I say that as a child of divorce and as a divorce woman.

ladyingray on July 1, 2014 at 8:05 PM

Exactly. Thrice married Newt Gingrich says with a straight face that gay marriage will destroy straight marriage. And this is the same Gingrich who sent his divorce papers to his cancer stricken wife in hospital to get her signature so that he could marry Calista.

GOP has completely lost this issue. But GOP’s base – old folks – will not give in so easily.

The more GOP’s image hardens as anti-gay marriage, anti-contraception party, the more GOP will face demographic death spiral in the next decade. As old people die off and GOP completely turns off young voters with its neanderthal views on social issues, it will have nowhere to go.

Ned Pepper on July 1, 2014 at 8:13 PM

KickandSwimMom on July 1, 2014 at 8:09 PM God will not be overruled by earthly judges no doubt the rampant and often lethal diseases. Liberals seem keen on whiping homosexuals out by lousy movies and useless aids research.

sorrowen on July 1, 2014 at 8:13 PM

Even assuming the state has a legitimate interest in promoting procreation, the Court fails to see, and Defendant never explains, how the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage has any effect whatsoever on procreation among heterosexual spouses. Excluding same-sex couples from marriage does not change the number of heterosexual couples who choose to get married, the number who choose to have children, or the number of children they have…

the 10th

>The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.[2]< wiki

newrouter on July 1, 2014 at 8:14 PM

As libfree would say “So.. Idaho…”

Judge_Dredd on July 1, 2014 at 8:14 PM

So then polygamy and incest is now legal?

nobar on July 1, 2014 at 8:07 PM

i guess so. there’s no reason to be against those while being in favor of gay marriage.

i seriously want to see gay marriage supporters being interviewed on tv, asking if they also devote time to promoting incest and polygamy, and if not, then why not. i want to see their responses.

i’m for either government defining marriage traditionally (which is my personal belief) or government separating itself from marriage altogether and allowing anyone to call anything “marriage.” you might as well! let’s just have a marriage free-for-all. why limit marriage at all? i wish i could say i was kidding.

Sachiko on July 1, 2014 at 8:15 PM

Its best for us that we encourage the gays to act normal like us. They need to appropriate as much of our culture as they can. Their culture causes us too much harm.

Let gays prentend to be heterosexuals, they will spread less diseases and commit less suicides.

p0s3r on July 1, 2014 at 8:15 PM

This issue is lost to conservatives. Instead of fighting against civil unions, they should have been accepted. That fight has led to this.

Personally, I don’t see how gay marriage is any more or less harmful to marriage in general as divorce.

ladyingray on July 1, 2014 at 8:05 PM

Agreed. To quote from that ‘wise’ Englishman, Piers Morgan, GOP/cons should stop flogging this dead horse.

jimver on July 1, 2014 at 8:15 PM

Excluding same-sex couples from marriage does not change the number of heterosexual couples who choose to get married, the number who choose to have children, or the number of children they have…

But it is consistent with the purpose of marriage which is then rescinded once there are no longer conditions or restrictions behind that union.

Stoic Patriot on July 1, 2014 at 8:15 PM

Next up necrophilia!!(sarc…)

sorrowen on July 1, 2014 at 8:16 PM

One it’s been legalized everywhere the full court press to label all opposition as bigotry will commence with extreme prejudice. The attacks against Christians and Christian institutions will be fierce.

Charlemagne on July 1, 2014 at 8:16 PM

These arguments are not those of serious people. Though it seems almost unnecessary to explain, here are the reasons why. Even assuming the state has a legitimate interest in promoting procreation, the Court fails to see, and Defendant never explains, how the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage has any effect whatsoever on procreation among heterosexual spouses. Excluding same-sex couples from marriage does not change the number of heterosexual couples who choose to get married, the number who choose to have children, or the number of children they have…

This is personal opinion that does not at all address whether the Constitution prohibits state laws regarding the definition of marriage. This is a case of law being made from the bench. This is a case of having the Constitution amended by judges rather than ratified by 3/4 of the states.

Does anyone here with half a brain (that includes you AP) believe that when the states ratified the 14th Amendment that they surrendered their sovereign to define marriage to the Federal government?

antifederalist on July 1, 2014 at 8:16 PM

in 08 I supported civil unions and advocated state paying to update the laws to reflect that so homos got the same legal benefits and churches/religous people keep the married term.
was (on phone with ssm support groups) called all sorts of names, one wished I got hit by a truck.
fk em I support neither now.

dmacleo on July 1, 2014 at 8:16 PM

And if he does and if conservatives are ostensibly for constitutionalism, why is he allowed to post at Hot Air?

antifederalist on July 1, 2014 at 8:12 PM

Because he helped create the website you f*cking lunatic.

onetoomany on July 1, 2014 at 8:17 PM

Next up, marrying your dog or cat… or that favorite sheep… or your car…

Equal protection and all that.

ajacksonian on July 1, 2014 at 8:17 PM

Judicial review needs to be ended. Judges should not have the ability to overturn laws just because they feel like it. This has become absurd.

Flange on July 1, 2014 at 8:17 PM

I just reread the U.S. Constitution, can’t find any thing that would lead me to believe there is a RIGHT to marriage. The qualifications for such has always been decided by the community. If I have the RIGHT to marry, I want to marry Kate Upton.

Zelsdorf Ragshaft on July 1, 2014 at 8:18 PM

This issue is lost to conservatives. Instead of fighting against civil unions, they should have been accepted. That fight has led to this.

Personally, I don’t see how gay marriage is any more or less harmful to marriage in general as divorce.

ladyingray on July 1, 2014 at 8:05 PM

Nonsense. The left was going to say civil unions are an example of trying to be “separate but equal” which the court will reject as a violation of equal protection.

As for how gay marriage is more harmful, divorce terminates a marriage. Gay marriage says that marriage is no longer about procreation, in which case what’s the point?

Stoic Patriot on July 1, 2014 at 8:18 PM

This is a Tenth Amendment issue–a states’s rights issue.

DOMA, which defined “marriage” at the Federal level for Federal purposes was struck down, NOT the individual states’ prerogative to define marriage within their boundaries.

Newtie and the Beauty on July 1, 2014 at 8:18 PM

Judicial review needs to be ended. Judges should not have the ability to overturn laws just because they feel like it. This has become absurd.
Flange on July 1, 2014 at 8:17 PM
Moralizing from the bench should not be legal. “Equality” supports will go extinct just as the people they support.

sorrowen on July 1, 2014 at 8:19 PM

If I have the RIGHT to marry, I want to marry Kate Upton.
Zelsdorf Ragshaft on July 1, 2014 at 8:18 PM

That line forms to the rear…

Newtie and the Beauty on July 1, 2014 at 8:19 PM

Now, our last defense is for religious institutions to be able get protection from being sued for “hate speech” when they preach the truth of the Bible to their congregation. God help us, please . . .

KickandSwimMom on July 1, 2014 at 8:09 PM

Go ahead, sue us. See Matthew 5:11. Personally, I’m not even all that concerned about the sinfulness of homosexual contacts, or whatever the state says about marriage. My bottom line is that SSM is fundamentally different from biblical marriage founded in Genesis. There is no scriptural basis for SSM. None whatsoever. I will not be part of any church that seeks to invent new institutions out of whole cloth.

Xasprtr on July 1, 2014 at 8:20 PM

Because he helped create the website you f*cking lunatic.

onetoomany on July 1, 2014 at 8:17 PM

No problem. So Hot Air is not a conservative blog.

antifederalist on July 1, 2014 at 8:20 PM

Next up necrophilia!!(sarc…)

sorrowen on July 1, 2014 at 8:16 PM

Do you think you’re kidding? It’s coming. Bet on it.

Judge_Dredd on July 1, 2014 at 8:20 PM

This is a Tenth Amendment issue–a states’s rights issue.

DOMA, which defined “marriage” at the Federal level for Federal purposes was struck down, NOT the individual states’ prerogative to define marriage within their boundaries.

Newtie and the Beauty on July 1, 2014 at 8:18 PM

That will never fly in Federal court due to the Full Faith & Credit clause.

Stoic Patriot on July 1, 2014 at 8:21 PM

Charlemagne on July 1, 2014 at 8:16 PM

It’s not only Christians who hold traditional values…

annoyinglittletwerp on July 1, 2014 at 8:21 PM

I just reread the U.S. Constitution, can’t find any thing that would lead me to believe there is a RIGHT to marriage. The qualifications for such has always been decided by the community. If I have the RIGHT to marry, I want to marry Kate Upton.
Zelsdorf Ragshaft on July 1, 2014 at 8:18 PM
Katheryn Winnick for me! Yeah the right issue will get into some pretty perverse places quickly. Think people dating long dead corpses…

sorrowen on July 1, 2014 at 8:22 PM

Florida’s amendment passed by voters will be overturned before the end of summer.

joekenha on July 1, 2014 at 8:22 PM

Ned Pepper on July 1, 2014 at 8:13 PM

Thanks so much for your concern.

Akzed on July 1, 2014 at 8:23 PM

what’s the point?

Stoic Patriot on July 1, 2014 at 8:18 PM

What dumb argument..

If procreation is the point of marriage why are old men and old women allowed to marry? Many men and women marry for 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th time in their 60s and 70s. Why is that legal?

Procreation is not the point of marriage. The point is loving committed relationship with all the benefits bestowed by the government including tax benefits, hospital visitation rights etc. etch.

Ned Pepper on July 1, 2014 at 8:23 PM

CA wants pediphilia legalized?? :S

sorrowen on July 1, 2014 at 8:23 PM

What dumb argument..

If procreation is the point of marriage why are old men and old women allowed to marry? Many men and women marry for 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th time in their 60s and 70s. Why is that legal?

Procreation is not the point of marriage. The point is loving committed relationship with all the benefits bestowed by the government including tax benefits, hospital visitation rights etc. etch.

Ned Pepper on July 1, 2014 at 8:23 PM

Age is not a guarantee of barrenness, while homosexual sex by definition cannot produce offspring. And marriage predates tax filing statuses or hospital visitation rights, so that’s just nonsense on your part.

Stoic Patriot on July 1, 2014 at 8:25 PM

CA wants pediphilia legalized?? :S

sorrowen on July 1, 2014 at 8:23 PM

“CA” didn’t want homosexual “marriage” legalized. Read the article. Camel’s nose and all.

Judge_Dredd on July 1, 2014 at 8:25 PM

AND,:
=====

https://twitter.com/AP

The Associated Press @AP · 2h

MORE: Federal appeals court orders Indiana to recognize lesbian marriage that includes dying partner http://apne.ws/1olzXiF

Court orders Indiana to recognize 1 gay marriage
By CHARLES D. WILSON
— Jul. 1, 2014 5:33 PM EDT
**************************

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/court-orders-indiana-recognize-1-gay-marriage

The Associated Press @AP · 2h

BREAKING: Federal appeals court orders Indiana to recognize lesbian marriage including dying partner

canopfor on July 1, 2014 at 8:26 PM

AP wrote:

In other words, even if you give the state legislature the maximum amount of deference due under equal protection law, an SSM ban is DOA in court.

Funny, originally it was the states that gave the Federal government its powers. Today, Federal judges determines what powers state governments have.

antifederalist on July 1, 2014 at 8:26 PM

Next up, marrying your dog or cat… or that favorite sheep… or your car…

Equal protection and all that.

ajacksonian on July 1, 2014 at 8:17 PM

i support this and i’m not kidding at all.

i’m at that “i don’t give a ****” point. i’ve stopped caring. i’ve given up.

no one could care less that God purposely created males and females to join with each other. no one could care less that God created marriage. we try to explain but no one cares. i’m done. *happily skips off into the sunset*

Sachiko on July 1, 2014 at 8:27 PM

AP I don’t know if you have thought of this but the government is by the people and for the people. Overruling the majority is not for the people it is in fact fascism through moral statism…emotional arguments be damned that’s were this is going. 1 judge trying to decide the morals of many is anti freedom of thought and speech and is against the bill of rights that homosexuals seem keen on turning into some grotesque thing…

sorrowen on July 1, 2014 at 8:27 PM

That will never fly in Federal court due to the Full Faith & Credit clause.
Stoic Patriot on July 1, 2014 at 8:21 PM

14th Amendment (pertinent part):

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

With marriage undefined at the Federal level, the states have the right to define it at the state level. Furthermore, the states do NOT have to recognize reciprocity with other states insofar as state determination of such things as voter registration, driving priviledges, etc, are concerned.

Newtie and the Beauty on July 1, 2014 at 8:28 PM

The polygamy crowd is waiting in the wings along with the incesters. Homosexual marriage affects less than 1% of America BUT polygamy would be a civilization changer. We need a constitutional amendment so stop polygamy and incest. Mr. Muhammad will want his four wives and Mr. Smith will want his 40.

Mojave Mark on July 1, 2014 at 8:28 PM

Nonsense. The left was going to say civil unions are an example of trying to be “separate but equal” which the court will reject as a violation of equal protection.

As for how gay marriage is more harmful, divorce terminates a marriage. Gay marriage says that marriage is no longer about procreation, in which case what’s the point?

Stoic Patriot on July 1, 2014 at 8:18 PM

Well, now same sex marriage is going to be a violation of equal protection, eventually.

And marriage is not necessary for procreation…which is totally evident.

ladyingray on July 1, 2014 at 8:28 PM

I still believe that if we change the tax code — no such thing as “married filing jointly” — this wouldn’t be an issue. What other reason would there be for two men (or two women) to say they are married other than to reap the tax benefits of what was defined as “marriage.” All other legal benefits can be handled with wills, trusts, etc.

dolfan on July 1, 2014 at 8:28 PM

normalizing deviancy through the courts.
yay

dmacleo on July 1, 2014 at 8:28 PM

I think the main reason the Left supports gay marriage is that it is a wedge issue that separates the people from their Judeo-Christian heritage. Once that is accomplished the whole moral basis of this country will collapse and be replaced by secular humanism. This has been largely accomplished through mass State education anyway.

claudius on July 1, 2014 at 8:28 PM

Question for everyone (especially conservatives). Can we finally admit that the American Republic is dead?

antifederalist on July 1, 2014 at 8:29 PM

Old hotness:

“Slouching Towards Gomorrah.”*

New hotness:

“Sliding down a greased pole to Hell.”

*The title of an excellent book by Judge Robert Bork, who ought to be on the Supreme Court today, & would be if not for the morality-hating leftists who are cheering this decision.

itsnotaboutme on July 1, 2014 at 8:29 PM

It’s time to divorce the State from Marriage.
Marriage should be a Church function, everything else should be considered a Civil Union, and the laws and codes should be changed to reflect that.
Magistrates should perform Civil-Union ceremonies; but to be ‘Married’ you would have to subsequently be ‘wed’ before a priest/rabbi/minister/whatever.

Another Drew on July 1, 2014 at 8:29 PM

Funny, originally it was the states that gave the Federal government its powers. Today, Federal judges determines what powers state governments have.

antifederalist on July 1, 2014 at 8:26 PM

Well, that was rather stupid of them, wasn’t it…

ladyingray on July 1, 2014 at 8:30 PM

Flat tax…let’s be honest they just want support and cash for when they get divorced.

sorrowen on July 1, 2014 at 8:31 PM

Well, now same sex marriage is going to be a violation of equal protection, eventually.

And marriage is not necessary for procreation…which is totally evident.

ladyingray on July 1, 2014 at 8:28 PM

Marriage isn’t necessary for procreation, but it exists as a means by which the state promotes heterosexuals entering into comitted relationships so that children who result from that relationship may have stable families. It’s embarrassing that our judicial system is so dense they can’t recognize this.

Stoic Patriot on July 1, 2014 at 8:31 PM

BTW, there are plenty of people who don’t think marriage is “ONE man+ ONE woman” at a time, but forever.
ladyingray on July 1, 2014 at 8:12 PM

Whoah. This is shockingly naïve. When have liberals ever stopped short?

Dongemaharu on July 1, 2014 at 8:31 PM

dolfan on July 1, 2014 at 8:28 PM

Frankly I agree with you…but then SS benefits will have to be permitted

ladyingray on July 1, 2014 at 8:31 PM

That will never fly in Federal court due to the Full Faith & Credit clause.
Stoic Patriot on July 1, 2014 at 8:21 PM

Article IV – The States

Section 1 – Each State to Honor all others

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

Section 2 – State citizens, Extradition

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

I fail to see how that would apply, SP. To me, that would be ameliorated by the Tenth Amendment.

Newtie and the Beauty on July 1, 2014 at 8:32 PM

Whoah. This is shockingly naïve. When have liberals ever stopped short?

Dongemaharu on July 1, 2014 at 8:31 PM

Excuse me?

ladyingray on July 1, 2014 at 8:32 PM

Next up after GM – if you are introduced by a gay person to their spouse (whatever they call them), and you say “Sheah, right, and monkeys just flew out my butt” – it will be prosecuted as a hate crime.

RSbrewer on July 1, 2014 at 8:32 PM

Well, that was rather stupid of them, wasn’t it…

ladyingray on July 1, 2014 at 8:30 PM

It was a mistake for the states to create Federal government. And seeing what the Federal government has become, I would say that it was a mistake for the states to have declared independence from the Great Britain.

antifederalist on July 1, 2014 at 8:32 PM

Ned Pepper on July 1, 2014 at 8:23 PM

Govt benefits for marriage are a novelty. Marriage was doing fine for thousands of years without them, and would survive their demise. In fact, it will survive their demise.

I can approve anyone to visit me in the hospital, not only my wife.

Marriage is primarily an exclusive covenant of intimacy and companionship. Procreation is secondary, which is not to say it is unimportant. God said, “It is not good that man should be alone,” not, “Huh, how is man going to procreate?”

After creating a companion fit for man, He then told the couple to multiply and fill the earth, which would have been ridiculous had He been okay with two men marrying.

The same God also condemned sex perversion in the strongest possible terms.

And Gheys had no marriage lobby in all of human history until twenty or so years ago, so much did the care for marriage. Their goal is to destroy marriage, their own pretend marriages notwithstanding.

Akzed on July 1, 2014 at 8:33 PM

Some one needs to keep track…just here in the last couple of weeks, 4 or 5 people have taken a giant $hit on the votes of millions of people…

Yeah!!!

BigWyo on July 1, 2014 at 8:34 PM

Question for everyone (especially conservatives). Can we finally admit that the American Republic is dead?

antifederalist on July 1, 2014 at 8:29 PM

Kelo was the end. Actually allowing the takers an equal say at the ballot box was but if you’re looking for a single instance, Kelo was it.

Judge_Dredd on July 1, 2014 at 8:34 PM

If nothing else all the homosexual newlyweds will have a lot of children from south of the border to choose from for adoption.

Ruckus_Tom on July 1, 2014 at 8:34 PM

Do gays qualify as one of those groups?

Has anyone legally proved that ‘gay’ is a group, and not just an impulse?

faraway on July 1, 2014 at 8:36 PM

I fail to see how that would apply, SP. To me, that would be ameliorated by the Tenth Amendment.

Newtie and the Beauty on July 1, 2014 at 8:32 PM

The courts will say that since Article IV declares:

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

…that marriage, being a public act, means you must recognize the homosexual marriages from one state in your state.

Stoic Patriot on July 1, 2014 at 8:36 PM

The thing about the “fundamental right to marriage” is that every time it has been established it was referring to the union of a man and a woman. Judges keep sidestepping the question at-hand in order to flog precedence that has nothing to do with their argument. Homosexuals can marry, they can even marry each other. What the law says is two people of the same sex cannot marry. That would include straight people of the same sex, as well.

I…don’t know. It seems to me the big problem here is supporters are using the wrong democratic process in order to enact the type of law they feel is just. The courts don’t play a special role in deciding the constitutionality of our laws. We have three co-equal branches of government. The role of the judicial branch is to settle disputes between private citizens and citizens and the government. It doesn’t exist just to underwrite decisions made by legislative bodies and the process that goes along with it. Even if that’s a by-product of judicial review, it’s not the main point.

In every one of these decisions there is a whole lot of pontification and dismissing arguments and rationales for why gay marriage isn’t recognized. But someone needs to point out that in a democracy we get to have reasons that some people disagree with without somebody overriding our vote. Think if we did that with Presidents. I think the fact that some people voted for Obama because he’s Black is dumb; I don’t get to drag them into court to make them explain themselves lest their vote be invalidated.

I think the reason gay marriage statutes keep losing is because we’re trying to use the judicial process to debate public-policy, and it appears most judges are fine “deciding the merits” based on a contrived lawsuit.

jas88 on July 1, 2014 at 8:36 PM

All of the judge’s arguments against the traditional definition of marriage will be used to uphold polygamous marriage, marriage to inanimate objects, & bestial marriage.

Soon.

itsnotaboutme on July 1, 2014 at 8:36 PM

I’m not going to be moralized to from the bench…

sorrowen on July 1, 2014 at 8:05 PM

Good for you. Don’t marry someone of the same sex. Problem solved.

Question for everyone (especially conservatives). Can we finally admit that the American Republic is dead?

antifederalist on July 1, 2014 at 8:29 PM

Not because of this issue. This is a non-starter that has been turned into a circus. Worry about the Barry’s trampling of real constitutional issues.

Walter L. Newton on July 1, 2014 at 8:37 PM

Akzed on July 1, 2014 at 8:33 PM

It’s a tax and Social Security benefits issue, nothing more.

ladyingray on July 1, 2014 at 8:37 PM

Question for everyone (especially conservatives). Can we finally admit that the American Republic is dead?

antifederalist on July 1, 2014 at 8:29 PM

The form of the Roman Republic existed long after the actual Republic was dead and buried. I don’t think we’re there yet, but we’re headed in that direction.

claudius on July 1, 2014 at 8:37 PM

Kelo was the end. Actually allowing the takers an equal say at the ballot box was but if you’re looking for a single instance, Kelo was it.

Judge_Dredd on July 1, 2014 at 8:34 PM

Yup. And the SCOTUS decision on obaka noncore was the final nail in the coffin.

ladyingray on July 1, 2014 at 8:38 PM

Has anyone legally proved that ‘gay’ is a group, and not just an impulse?

faraway on July 1, 2014 at 8:36 PM

Can you prove your hetero desires aren’t just an impulse? Because I can’t…it’s just how I’m wired.

ladyingray on July 1, 2014 at 8:40 PM

Fascism. Pure and simple.

kingsjester on July 1, 2014 at 8:41 PM

Mississippi is next.

coolrepublica on July 1, 2014 at 8:42 PM

Question for everyone (especially conservatives). Can we finally admit that the American Republic is dead?

antifederalist on July 1, 2014 at 8:29 PM

Yes.

It was always, at root, more a philosophic idea than a geographic boundary.

While Marxism was killing over 100 million elsewhere during the 20th century, it continued to spread here starting in the universities (see Allan Bloom’s “The Closing of the American Mind”).

Tragically, it is unlikely to be reversed now …

ShainS on July 1, 2014 at 8:42 PM

Can you prove your hetero desires aren’t just an impulse?

ladyingray on July 1, 2014 at 8:40 PM

No, but I can prove that I’m a man.

How do you prove (to a court) that you are gay?

faraway on July 1, 2014 at 8:42 PM

But someone needs to point out that in a democracy we get to have reasons that some people disagree with without somebody overriding our vote. Think if we did that with Presidents. I think the fact that some people voted for Obama because he’s Black is dumb; I don’t get to drag them into court to make them explain themselves lest their vote be invalidated.

I think the reason gay marriage statutes keep losing is because we’re trying to use the judicial process to debate public-policy, and it appears most judges are fine “deciding the merits” based on a contrived lawsuit.

jas88 on July 1, 2014 at 8:36 PM

The USA isn’t a democracy. It is a Republic. Two different things.

ladyingray on July 1, 2014 at 8:43 PM

…that marriage, being a public act, means you must recognize the homosexual marriages from one state in your state.
Stoic Patriot on July 1, 2014 at 8:36 PM

But the Central Government, via the United States v Windsor decision does NOT have the power to define “marriage,” unlike the individual states.

The liberal contingent of SCOTUS (Kennedy, Ginsberg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan), who wrote the majority opinion, determined that:

The Court also held that states have the authority to define marital relationships and that DOMA goes against legislative and historical precedent by undermining that authority. The result is that DOMA denies same-sex couples the rights that come from federal recognition of marriage, which are available to other couples with legal marriages under state law. The Court held that the purpose and effect of DOMA is to impose a “disadvantage, a separate status, and so a stigma” on same-sex couples in violation of the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection.

This opinion would appear to undermine the current rulings at the District Court levels that are striking down state marriage laws right and left.

Newtie and the Beauty on July 1, 2014 at 8:43 PM

Kelo was the end. Actually allowing the takers an equal say at the ballot box was but if you’re looking for a single instance, Kelo was it.

Judge_Dredd on July 1, 2014 at 8:34 PM

Great points. Many conservatives choose to deny the fact that Republicanism and democracy cannot coexist. You can have one or the other but not both at the same time. When America functioned as a constitutional republic, it was far, far, far less egalitarian and democratic. Voting was limited to White male landowners and there was no direct election of senators. In the early 20th century as part of the Progressive movement, America went away from Republicanism and embraced democracy. Today, everyone gets to vote. So if you want to find the culprit that killed the republic, blame democracy.

antifederalist on July 1, 2014 at 8:44 PM

Excluding same-sex couples from marriage does not change the number of heterosexual couples who choose to get married, the number who choose to have children, or the number of children they have…

This judge is not educated sufficiently to make this declaration.

Is impeachment the only remedy we have?

Perspicacious on July 1, 2014 at 8:44 PM

Once again, the courts are involved in areas where legislatures should be doing their job. The problem was that states came in with Constitutional Amendments which somewhat thwarted the legislative process, which is why the courts are intervening. This may be a battle the courts can win, however, I’m not sure they really want to win it this way.

If the states can’t regulate who can marry, how much else does the court feel they can’t regulate. Marriage has always been under state control, now the courts are ruling. Will we be twisted like a pretzel some day because of these rulings? I certainly hope not but the proof is in how this is being done. I’m sure the judges are lining up to do this and all those in favor of SSM have to do is make sure their case before the right judge.

bflat879 on July 1, 2014 at 8:45 PM

And as I’ve said for years, it’s always been a crappy, Rovish argument to make.

Start pressing the church/state separation issue and as we saw yesterday with Hobby Lobby, we will win.

The judge is right to say the argument being made isn’t serious. It’s not.

The GOP is pushing the “protection” pedal so they can turn to the base and say “hey, we tried“. But none of them are serious about winning.

Argue about what’s going on in Europe and how that’s the next step here, and then you’ll get the judicial response we want.

But DC wants control.

budfox on July 1, 2014 at 8:45 PM

This issue is lost to conservatives. Instead of fighting against civil unions, they should have been accepted. That fight has led to this.

Personally, I don’t see how gay marriage is any more or less harmful to marriage in general as divorce.

And I say that as a child of divorce and as a divorce woman.

ladyingray on July 1, 2014 at 8:05 PM

That’s a myth. Civil unions were never more than a stopgap on the way to gay marriage. The only reason they never took off is because gay activists decided there was no need to settle for half a loaf.

I think people keep bringing up this argument to basically blame the social conservatives for the overreach of the homofascists.

“If you people had just compromised, they would have been happy.”

That flies in the face of everything we’ve seen from gay activists since the turn of the century, and especially since the 60s. Pure delusion. Naive.

There Goes the Neighborhood on July 1, 2014 at 8:46 PM

No, but I can prove that I’m a man.

How do you prove (to a court) that you are gay?

faraway on July 1, 2014 at 8:42 PM

Sadly, that is not the issue.

ladyingray on July 1, 2014 at 8:47 PM

These arguments are not those of serious people.

The argument that marriage should include two men or two women in the absence of any reason why, other than an assumption of bigotry …

… is not the argument of a serious person.

Sadly, we have a lot of very unserious people professing themselves to be wise and becoming fools.

There Goes the Neighborhood on July 1, 2014 at 8:48 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4