Federal Judge Strikes Down Kentucky's Same-Sex Marriage Ban

[Hades]

While I'm in favor of marriage equality for the entire country, given that I live in Kentucky this article caught my attention when I saw it on my news feed.   This same judge had ruled previous that the portion of Kentucky's law that banned recognition of same-sex marriages performed legally in other states was also unconstitutional, but in that first trial he was asked to rule on only that particular aspect.  This time around, the challenge was to the ban itself, and once again equality wins in the courtroom.   This makes the eighteenth case since DOMA was struck down where state bans on same-sex marriage has been declared unconstitutional.

I also like that in browsing through the highlights of the decision, the judge didn't seem to pull his punches when it came to smacking the defenders of the ban down.  Like this little snippet:

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.

[Jusey1]

So basically homosexuals can marry in Kentucky?

I don't want to sound like that guy but... Hell Ye'h! MORE FREEDOMS! XD

[Oniya]

That's over a third of the states now.  Hellz to the yeah!

[kylie]

         Point of fact, just for the record...  In places where all the focus has been more on forcing different-sex marriages and forcing many people to marry or even, to have children 'for the sake of it' as it were...  There have long been lots of marriages of gay people with different sex partners and some of them even produce children. 

         So if one were to be very cynical and forthright about it, it could even make a certain kind of sense for the proponents to argue that keeping gay marriage off the table does have certain benefits.  That is, IF you are speaking solely in terms of the raw chances for general biological procreation.  Then again, so would banning abortion -- but what the hell else one gets in those scenarios is another question entirely. 

         Of course, that wouldn't prove that it's obviously any more beneficial for children or family stability to only allow different sex marriages.  That would be another whopper of a claim to attempt to find supporting evidence for.  And there is also the huge lingering problem of, what other costs the singular emphasis on different sex marriages has brought on in places where those have been shotgunned onto most of the population with few or no other socially supported options.

[Hades]

So basically homosexuals can marry in Kentucky?

I don't want to sound like that guy but... Hell Ye'h! MORE FREEDOMS! XD

Sadly the judge put a stay on his decision, as the Governor said they would appeal the verdict.  So they can't marry just yet, but given the track record thus far I'm hopeful. Plus the fact that the attorney general declined to defend the law and so an outside law firm had to be brought in I think is an indication that even in a state as red as Kentucky politicians are beginning to see that it's beneficial for them to be on the side of progress rather than pandering to bible-thumpers.

And I think this pretty much guarantees that in the next session of the Supreme Court there will be a case involving same-sex marriage.   As Oniya pointed out, over a third of the states now (quickly approaching the half mark) have either decided to legalize marriage equality on their own or had their bans struck down in court.  I don't see how the Court could ignore it at this point.

[Devilyn Sydhe]

I suppose the only question I have is just why the government is still involved in marriage altogether?  Whether hetero or homosexual, any two or more consenting adults should not need government involvement or permission.  Now that does not mean any church or private business should be forced to participate against their will, but all the legal rights and obligations can be taken care of through private contracts.

[mia h]

So basically homosexuals can marry in Kentucky?

You'd have to find the text of the ruling, but it doesn't necessarily mean that homosexual couples could get married in Kentucky only that the state of Kentucky recognises those homosexual couples married in other states as having the same rights as every other married couple in Kentucky. There was a piece on the news about a lesbian married couple that couldn't get divorced in Texas because the state doesn't recognise them as being married in the first place, even though they were married in a state where same sex marriage is legal.