Kentucky joins the 21st Century

“Sometimes, by upholding equal rights for a few, courts necessarily must require others to forebear some prior conduct or restrain some personal instinct,” Heyburn wrote. “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.”  

Federal Judge Heyburn hit the nail on the head with his decision striking down Kentucky’s anti-marriage law.

Judge Heyburn (approximation)

Judge Heyburn (approximation)

 “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 Court finds no rational relation between the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage and the Commonwealth’s asserted interest in promoting naturally procreative marriages.”

Sadly, the Governor of Kentucky has vowed to appeal the decision.  It’s sad because he’s a Democrat.  Kentucky’s Democratic Attorney General refused to defend the law in court (because, as any lawyer who understands the law will tell you, it is legally indefensible), like our own AG here in Pennsylvania.

However, given that the anti-marriage folks have won exactly zero appeals makes me pretty optimistic that this appeal will also be a failure.

Advertisements

2 thoughts on “Kentucky joins the 21st Century

  1. I really like that quote “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 Court finds no rational relation between the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage and the Commonwealth’s asserted interest in promoting naturally procreative marriages.”

    It really drives home what needs to said about this whole baloney about being against same sex marriage. Mostly because they are more worried about adding something to marriage that is beyond being a couple of people being together and being committed to one another. Sure people can do that outside of marriage, but the point is, if two people are doing that already, why shouldn’t they get the same legal benefits as everyone else can? (Or put another way, why do you think you’re so special that you can deny someone else those benefits when their doing the same thing as you are?)

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s