{"id":18831,"date":"2014-07-02T11:08:03","date_gmt":"2014-07-02T18:08:03","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/?p=18831"},"modified":"2014-07-02T11:10:11","modified_gmt":"2014-07-02T18:10:11","slug":"kentucky-court-overturns-gay-marriage-ban","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/?p=18831","title":{"rendered":"All The Snarkiest Quotes From The Judge’s Ruling Overturning Kentucky’s Gay Marriage Ban"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"kentucky-gay-marriage\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Judge John G. Heyburn II, a Bush appointee, rules that Kentucky’s ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional. This is, I believe, the first such ruling in a southern state. The ruling is stayed until the Sixth Circuit weighs in.<\/p>\n

You can read Judge Heyburn’s surprisingly snarky ruling here<\/a>, but if you don’t want to read the whole thing, here are the fun bits:<\/p>\n

The Court will begin with Defendant\u2019s only asserted justification for Kentucky\u2019s laws prohibiting same-sex marriage: \u201cencouraging, promoting, and supporting the formation of relationships that have the natural ability to procreate.\u201d Perhaps recognizing that procreation-based arguments have not succeeded in this Court, nor any other court post-Windsor, Defendant adds a disingenuous twist to the argument: traditional marriages contribute to a stable birth rate which, in turn, ensures the state\u2019s long-term economic stability.<\/p>\n

These arguments are not those of serious people.<\/span> 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.<\/span> […]<\/p>\n

The state\u2019s attempts to connect the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage to its interest in economic stability and in \u201censuring humanity\u2019s continued existence\u201d are at best illogical and even bewildering. These arguments fail for the precise reasons that Defendant\u2019s procreation argument fails.<\/p>\n

Numerous courts have repeatedly debunked all other reasons for enacting such laws. The Court can think of no other conceivable legitimate reason for Kentucky\u2019s laws excluding same-sex couples from marriage. […]<\/p>\n

…that Kentucky\u2019s laws do not deny licenses to other non-procreative couples reveals the true hypocrisy of the procreation-based argument. […]<\/p>\n

More importantly, the imperfect line-drawing argument assumes incorrectly that the Court bases its ruling on a comparison between same-sex couples and other non-procreative couples. On the contrary, this Court bases its ruling primarily upon the utter lack of logical relation between the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriages and any conceivable legitimate state interest.<\/span> Any relationship between Kentucky\u2019s ban on same-sex marriage and its interest in procreation and long-term economic stability \u201cis so attenuated as to render the distinction arbitrary or irrational.\u201d […]<\/p>\n

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.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Judge John G. Heyburn II, a Bush appointee, rules that Kentucky’s ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional. This is, I believe, the first such ruling in a southern state. The ruling is stayed until the Sixth Circuit weighs in. You … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[112],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-18831","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-same-sex-marriage"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/18831","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=18831"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/18831\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":18835,"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/18831\/revisions\/18835"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=18831"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=18831"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=18831"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}