Judge: Ky. must recognize same-sex marriages

[aGameOfThrones]

LOUISVILLE, Ky. (AP) — Kentucky must recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states, according to a ruling Wednesday by a federal judge, who struck down part of the state ban that he wrote treated "gay and lesbian persons differently in a way that demeans them."

In 23-page a ruling issued Wednesday, U.S. District Judge John G. Heyburn II concluded that the government may define marriage and attach benefits to it, but cannot "impose a traditional or faith-based limitation" without a sufficient justification for it."

"Assigning a religious or traditional rationale for a law does not make it constitutional when that law discriminates against a class of people without other reasons," wrote Heyburn, an appointee of President George H.W. Bush.

The decision in the socially conservative state comes against the backdrop of similar rulings or actions in states around the country where same-sex couples have long fought for the right to marry. The constitutional ban on same-sex marriage was approved by voters in 2004 and included the out-of-state clause.

The decision came in lawsuits brought by four gay and lesbian couples seeking to force the state to recognize their out-of-state marriages.

The ruling only requires Kentucky to recognize the marriages of gay and lesbian couples performed in other states or countries. It does not deal with the question of whether the state can be required to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, as that issue wasn't brought up in the four lawsuits that triggered the ruling.

Heyburn noted that recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings and his opinion in the Kentucky case "suggest a possible result to that question."

http://news.yahoo.com/judge-ky-must-recognize-same-sex-marriages-172747542.html

[LibertyEagle]

That is so much bullshit.

[Smart3]

I love the decision, I don't like who is making it.

[torchbearer]

Article IV (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Four_of_the_United_States_Constitution), Section 1 of the United States Constitution
Full Faith and Credit addresses the duties that states (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._state) within the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States) have to respect the "public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state."

[EBounding]

What would happen if they don't? Would the feds send the military?

[torchbearer]

What would happen if they don't? Would the feds send the military?

I've seen the feds threaten a local school board with arrest, so yeah, i could see them threatening the state government with violence.
it is their sole method of persuasion besides taking away the federal money that was extorted from the state citizens.

[Tywysog Cymru]

I didn't think it was coming to my state so soon.

[GunnyFreedom]

They should have banned the state licensure of marriage in the first place and they would have never had this issue to begin with.

[Feeding the Abscess]

They should have banned the state licensure of marriage in the first place and they would have never had this issue to begin with.

Republicans/conservatives love the State, and wish to use it to impose their views of society on others. Not a chance it would ever go that way with them around, as correct as it is.

[LibertyEagle]

Article IV (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Four_of_the_United_States_Constitution), Section 1 of the United States Constitution
Full Faith and Credit addresses the duties that states (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._state) within the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States) have to respect the "public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state."

Yeah, I know. I don't like it though.

[speciallyblend]

gays are dangerous like marijuana.

[Weston White]

Interesting, I would tend to argue that bears on honoring the extradition of fugitives from justice, out of state lawsuits, evidence, and court findings (including weighing the subject-matter of respective out of state laws).

For example, if I am from a state that permits the use of medical marijuana could I not then argue that while in a state that does not they have to just suck it up and permit me to enjoy myself some “Brown Betty”?

Also how about CCW/CCP, if I have such a permit while visiting New York or Washington D.C. would they have to just bit the bullet and let me be on my way?

(Puns intended.)

It is sort of silly though, being that Kentucky does not recognize common law marriages (though does to a degree recognize out of state common law marriages), but will apparently begin recognizing one-gender marriages.

[torchbearer]

It is sort of silly though, being that Kentucky does not recognize common law marriages (though does to a degree recognize out of state common law marriages), but will apparently begin recognizing one-gender marriages.

Full Faith and Credit doesn't mean Kentucky has to recognize same-sex marriages formed in their territory. But they do have to honor those contracts made in other states. I know that is only a minute difference.

[Weston White]

Full Faith and Credit doesn't mean Kentucky has to recognize same-sex marriages formed in their territory. But they do have to honor those contracts made in other states. I know that is only a minute difference.

Excluding the contract issue in itself, if whatever ramifications remain be the case then only a single state need to grant such class of marriages; and in following every single state will then need to amend and restructure the contextual language of all public laws and services pertaining, currently, solely to unions between a man and a woman. Furthermore, that means the state that has sanctioned such a grant, has effectively imposed its will upon the remaining states of the Union; and that does not sound very sovereign like.

[torchbearer]

Excluding the contract issue in itself, if whatever ramifications remain be the case then only a single state need to grant such class of marriages; and in following every single state will then need to amend and restructure the contextual language of all public laws and services pertaining, currently, solely to unions between a man and a woman. Furthermore, that means the state that has sanctioned such a grant, has effectively imposed its will upon the remaining states of the Union; and that does not sound very sovereign like.

Sounds like a great protection for the right to contract.
If people are having second thoughts about having a constitution and federal government- i'm listening.

[FriedChicken]

Interesting, I would tend to argue that bears on honoring the extradition of fugitives from justice, out of state lawsuits, evidence, and court findings (including weighing the subject-matter of respective out of state laws).

For example, if I am from a state that permits the use of medical marijuana could I not then argue that while in a state that does not they have to just suck it up and permit me to enjoy myself some “Brown Betty”?

Also how about CCW/CCP, if I have such a permit while visiting New York or Washington D.C. would they have to just bit the bullet and let me be on my way?

(Puns intended.)

It is sort of silly though, being that Kentucky does not recognize common law marriages (though does to a degree recognize out of state common law marriages), but will apparently begin recognizing one-gender marriages.

You bring up very valid points me thinks.
I'm positive that article iv wasn't intended to stretch this far - perhaps it should be amended.

[FriedChicken]

Also- gay rights activists aren't doing themselves any favors with this. No more than social "conservatives" are doing for themselves when they pass laws forcing their personal convictions on others.

Hopefully this will be a teachable moment for people that like to use the government to force others to change their personal decisions - it doesn't change people's minds, it just makes them resistant and resentful and makes whatever cause they're working toward further from acceptance.

Hopefully this will also be a good teachable moment on why the government shouldn't license marriage to begin with.

[torchbearer]

Also- gay rights activists aren't doing themselves any favors with this. No more than social "conservatives" are doing for themselves when they pass laws forcing their personal convictions on others.

Hopefully this will be a teachable moment for people that like to use the government to force others to change their personal decisions - it doesn't change people's minds, it just makes them resistant and resentful and makes whatever cause they're working toward further from acceptance.

Hopefully this will also be a good teachable moment on why the government should license marriage to begin with.

It would be very hard to travel and conduct business between states without full faith and credit.
either you respect contracts or you don't.
I see where some people stand-

Validity of a contract should not be determined by where you stand, only by the words of the agreement.

[FriedChicken]

It would be very hard to travel and conduct business between states without full faith and credit.
either you respect contracts or you don't.
I see where some people stand-

Validity of a contract should not be determined by where you stand, only by the words of the agreement.

I agree with you but the points about CCW permits and such are still valid. It boils down to states being too involved in people's lives and licensing for things they shouldn't have anything to do with (marriage, 2nd amendment rights, etc.)

I'll admit to not being the most informed on this matter so I appreciate your involvement in the thread. But is this a bit like forcing the state to engage in a contract they don't want to be part of?
Seems like gay couples could have a contract between themselves that would make them the equivalent of being married in their personal lives minus state benefits given to a married couple by the state.

Isn't kinda like forcing the state to become a third party in a contract rather than recognize the contract made by two people without them being included?

[torchbearer]

I agree with you but the points about CCW permits and such are still valid. It boils down to states being too involved in people's lives and licensing for things they shouldn't have anything to do with (marriage, 2nd amendment rights, etc.)

I'll admit to not being the most informed on this matter so I appreciate your involvement in the thread. But is this a bit like forcing the state to engage in a contract they don't want to be part of?
Seems like gay couples could have a contract between themselves that would make them the equivalent of being married in their personal lives minus state benefits given to a married couple by the state.

Isn't kinda like forcing the state to become a third party in a contract rather than recognize the contract made by two people without them being included?

A state forced to accept an individuals contract is far superior to people being forced to accept a government edict.
contracts between people are voluntary and moral by design.
government edicts are not voluntary, and immoral by design- unless they are defensive in nature. (as defensive force is moral under NAP)

[Christian Liberty]

That is so much bullshit.


Article IV (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Four_of_the_United_States_Constitution), Section 1 of the United States Constitution
Full Faith and Credit addresses the duties that states (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._state) within the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States) have to respect the "public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state."


Yeah, I know. I don't like it though.

@LE- So is the judge wrong, or do you just disagree with him?

In my mind, interpreting the Full Faith and Credit clause in this manner will lead to absurdities. So, if that one town in whatever state gives out the drone hunting licenses, does every state have to honor them? If one of us got elected mayor somewhere and started issuing politician hunting licenses, would the entire country have to honor them? Heck, if one city abolishes taxation and issues permits to not pay taxes, does the entire country have to honor them?

I could see some pretty interesting things coming out of this interpretation. It seems obvious to me that the intent of the clause was so that someone who was tried in on state could not be tried in another state after being acquitted, but I know going with "intent" can be a slippery slope as some people try to argue that the 1st amendment didn't actually intend what it says because of John Adams' actions as President, or that the 2nd amendment didn't actually mean no regulations, and so on.

Do you have any thoughts on this? Because I don't really like it either.

[Christian Liberty]

Interesting, I would tend to argue that bears on honoring the extradition of fugitives from justice, out of state lawsuits, evidence, and court findings (including weighing the subject-matter of respective out of state laws).

For example, if I am from a state that permits the use of medical marijuana could I not then argue that while in a state that does not they have to just suck it up and permit me to enjoy myself some “Brown Betty”?

Also how about CCW/CCP, if I have such a permit while visiting New York or Washington D.C. would they have to just bit the bullet and let me be on my way?

(Puns intended.)

It is sort of silly though, being that Kentucky does not recognize common law marriages (though does to a degree recognize out of state common law marriages), but will apparently begin recognizing one-gender marriages.

New York probably should have to suck it up on the concealed carry permits, since gun rights are recognized by the US Constitution.

At any rate, I agree with your interpretation of that clause.

[Keith and stuff]

Since this Forum has been around, pretty much everyone knew this would happen. Wait until the Supreme Court claims all states have to allow same sex couple to marry the state. The federal courts see this as a equality for all issue like whites being aloud to marry blacks and women being allowed to have sex with women. So, they will not leave this issue put to the states or the people themselves.

Even the states trying to abolish government marriage all together which failed in NH twice and is know about to fail in OK won't work because then the federal government will interfere as it threatened to do in NH. Best I can tell, the only way to stop this is the for President to issue an executive order.

Still, even though we are powerless to do anything on this issue. It is fun to complain about the federal overreach. It's a nice distraction for issues that we actually might be able to influence.

[torchbearer]

Even the states trying to abolish government marriage all together which failed in NH twice and is know about to fail in OK won't work because then the federal government will interfere as it threatened to do in NH. Best I can tell, the only way to stop this is the for President to issue an executive order.

Still, even though we are powerless to do anything on this issue. It is fun to complain about the federal overreach. It's a nice distraction for issues that we actually might be able to influence.

People who live by the force of the state, die by the force of the state?

[Keith and stuff]

People who live by the force of the state, die by the force of the state?

I don't get how that relates. Sorry, it's likely my fault.

[torchbearer]

I don't get how that relates. Sorry, it's likely my fault.

There were people who advocate/allowed state to regulate marriage. That force is now being used in a way they didn't intend... and now are crying about it?
I agree, government shouldn't be regulating religious sacraments nor contracts between people.

[Keith and stuff]

There were people who advocate/allowed state to regulate marriage. That force is now being used in a way they didn't intend... and now are crying about it?
I agree, government shouldn't be regulating religious sacraments nor contracts between people.
I think it is different groups of people, though. The people that pushed for government marriage, wasn't that before we were born? Though, I guess you are right and agree. Those people that pushed for federal tax breaks for themselves for married couples, I guess some of them are against the same tax breaks for same sex couples. It it hypocrisy. Don't worry, instead of getting rid of the federal tax breaks and what not, the federal government will use more government to make us equal.

Good point and no turning back :( I could see maybe Huckabee issuing an executive order on this issue if he was president. If he did though, it would ensure that he wouldn't get a 2nd term and that would be the end of the debate in Washington...

Of course, we will be able to debate this forever. Just like the roads :toady:

[Christian Liberty]

allow same sex couple to marry the state

Why anyone would WANT to marry the State I cannot imagine;)

@Torchbearer- I get your point, but at least feel compassion for those few of us who actually like liberty, would you?;)

[torchbearer]

Why anyone would WANT to marry the State I cannot imagine;)

@Torchbearer- I get your point, but at least feel compassion for those few of us who actually like liberty, would you?;)

forbearance granted toady. :toady:

[Christian Liberty]

forbearance granted toady. :toady:

lol!


I think it is different groups of people, though. The people that pushed for government marriage, wasn't that before we were born? Though, I guess you are right and agree. Those people that pushed for federal tax breaks for themselves for married couples, I guess some of them are against the same tax breaks for same sex couples. It it hypocrisy. Don't worry, instead of getting rid of the federal tax breaks and what not, the federal government will use more government to make us equal.

Good point and no turning back :( I could see maybe Huckabee issuing an executive order on this issue if he was president. If he did though, it would ensure that he wouldn't get a 2nd term and that would be the end of the debate in Washington...

Of course, we will be able to debate this forever. Just like the roads :toady:

Most Christians that I know do support government involvement, but they don't generally know where government involvement came from:)

I don't really care whether or not a given issue will get traction in the political climate. I'll simply stand for liberty for everyone, every time, and let those who will be convinced be convinced.

[Occam's Banana]

Why anyone would WANT to marry the State I cannot imagine;)

Why not? Most people don't seem to mind getting screwed by it ...

And come to think of it, they don't seem to care when it screws other people, either ...

... so I guess it would be sort of an "open marriage" type of thing ....

[Christian Liberty]

Why not? Most people don't seem to mind getting screwed by it ...

And come to think of it, they don't seem to care when it screws other people, either ...

... so I guess it would be sort of an "open marriage" type of thing ....

LOL! That was probably the post of the year:)

State-marriage isn't for me, though. Maybe I won't even register mine if I find a like-minded person...

[osan]

Good grief, what a terrible mess this land has become.

This decision is good and bad all at once. It is good in terms of the notion of "full faith and credit", but bad in that the state should not have its nose in the marriage tent.

For those of you married to the Constitution, get your rocks ready because I'm about to point out another of the many ways in which that document fails.

Full faith and credit, as specified, is essentially worthless because it is neither sufficiently complete nor clear as to what the term means either in theory or practice.

This is shortcoming is made apparent when two states have on their books laws that conflict. In GA, blow-jobby big no-no. In CA, big yes-yes. ***** move to GA, engage in big blow-jobby, go prison when discovered. Where's our precious "good faith and credit"? WV, carry-gunny big yes-yes. CA, big no-no. ***** from WV move SF, carry-gunny, goey jailey, become pass-aroundy girly twenty yeary. Cally thaty goody faithy and credity?

There are entire vistas of worm-stuffed cans we could crack open that relate to this, the tentacles reaching far and wide and demonstrating just how bankrupt the construction of this government really is. It may be better than most of the rest of the world, but that's like deciding which of these rotting corpses you see laying behing me is the most dead.

I am beginning to think that it is time to do a careful dissection of the US Constitution... perhaps in some piecemeal fashion. The ways in which the document fails are manifold, profound, and hideous. Give me some time and I will come to it.

[James Madison]

I am beginning to think that it is time to do a careful dissection of the US Constitution... perhaps in some piecemeal fashion. The ways in which the document fails are manifold, profound, and hideous. Give me some time and I will come to it.

The Constitution is fine; everything else is just that fucked. It just needs a government that isn't meddling in the lives of its citizens and a populace that isn't wholly devoid of common sense.

[Christian Liberty]

@Osan- As I said, I think the intent was to deal with double jeopardy and such, or, say, South Carolina deciding that it hates North Carolina and so refusing to recognize its drivers licenses and the like.

All that said, that's a slippery slope, and I agree with you that ultimately the Constitution is inadequete. "government" needs to go.

[RJB]

I guess I know why they call the state KY.

It looks like gays are giving up the right to marry infavor of the privilege to get an expensive divorce.

[Southron]

Why do we even have states anymore?

[torchbearer]

Why do we even have states anymore?

bureaucratic districts. (or wards)

[The Free Hornet]

Even the states trying to abolish government marriage all together which failed in NH twice and is know about to fail in OK won't work because then the federal government will interfere as it threatened to do in NH

...

Still, even though we are powerless to do anything on this issue.

How does that leave you powerless? If your state doesn't want to issue licenses, do paperwork, have special divorce courts, and other things, how do the feds force NH to do any of those things? You might be prevented from interfering in a marriage or nullifying a contract to which you are not a party, but how is involvement forced?

Also, is this one of the laws you meant?:

http://www.nhliberty.org/bills/view/2011/HB569

I don't see how NH tried to get out of marriages simply by redefining the term to mean something else (marriage = civil union). A rose by any other name...

[osan]

The Constitution is fine;

You will have to do better than this. A blind and unsupported assertion is nothing.

The Constitution is NOT fine. It looks fine to those who do not have the skill to do a basic semantic analysis or who examine it in only cursory fashion.

The Constitution is a cluster-copulation of inadequacies and before much longer I will tackle the issue.


It just needs a government that isn't meddling in the lives of its citizens and a populace that isn't wholly devoid of common sense.

Are you drunk? Show me a SINGLE example of a nation-state from the past 2000 years that did not meddle in the private affairs of the people over whom it claimed authority. They all meddle. It is what Theye do.

If you are going to have a constitution whose purpose is to delimit government powers, the document must possess the three characteristics of completeness, correctness, and clarity. The US Constitution fails miserably on completeness, and succeeds only partially on correctness and clarity. In the places where it fails on those two latter points, it does so catastrophically.

People are what they are and always likely shall be. That goes double for the personality that seeks power over his fellows. While we shall likely never eliminate such people from the gene pool - nor should we want to, for reasons I will not go into now - we ought to endeavor to restrict as tightly as possible their ability to violate the rights of others. Making perfidy more difficult to commit rather than less is the central legitimate purpose of any constitution. The US Constitution fails miserably at this and in fact amplifies the ability to do terrible things.

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx

[Weston White]

To Osan:

With due respect, a constitution, any constitution, is but writing on paper, the quest you task is only obtainable through the vigilance of a knowledgeable, virtuous, and alert citizenry. And as it happens our U.S. Constitution is one of underpinning maxims, which timelessly navigate upon unceasing certainty and steadfastness.

The underlying issue is that the states have all been co-opted by the federal government so that they may continue receiving all those billions each year in federal funny money, and as a consequence the majority of rights bestowed upon the people thereof have been sacrificed to negligence, malevolence, and imperceptibly—primarily through the lifelong medium of a pagan-progressivist educational system.

Our United States Constitution needn’t change, but the disconcerted, nescient attitudes of its ill-guided populace does.

[James Madison]

You're making the Constitution into something that it isn't. It was never meant to protect our rights or shackle the government -- that is the job of a vigilant society -- and it certainly was never meant to be the means by which we should seek to preserve liberty for future generation. It's a contract between the government and governed -- the government will abide by these rules and if they break those rules the contract is voided and, if so, the governed have the right to draw up a new contract with new terms. The inadequacies of the American people should should not diminish the brilliance of this country's founders, nor their documents. Consider the bloodshed that has watered the soils of Europe in the past century; in Africa; in Asia; in Central and South America. Now read our history. We were successful and we were free when we followed the Constitution. It's only when we begin deviating from it that freedom is lost.

[Christian Liberty]

You're making the Constitution into something that it isn't. It was never meant to protect our rights or shackle the government -- that is the job of a vigilant society -- and it certainly was never meant to be the means by which we should seek to preserve liberty for future generation. It's a contract between the government and governed -- the government will abide by these rules and if they break those rules the contract is voided and, if so, the governed have the right to draw up a new contract with new terms. The inadequacies of the American people should should not diminish the brilliance of this country's founders, nor their documents. Consider the bloodshed that has watered the soils of Europe in the past century; in Africa; in Asia; in Central and South America. Now read our history. We were successful and we were free when we followed the Constitution. It's only when we begin deviating from it that freedom is lost.

The Constitution can only be a valid contract if everyone who was bound by it actually signed it.

[James Madison]

The Constitution can only be a valid contract if everyone who was bound by it actually signed it.

Bring it to me, and I'll sign it.

[dillo]

Can anyone explain why the Windsor decision last year that invalidated DOMA didn't clear all this up?

[Weston White]

Can anyone explain why the Windsor decision last year that invalidated DOMA didn't clear all this up?

Perhaps because the scope of that case dealt only with a federal act and agency, the matter of both unions of marriage and private contracts are reserved to each respective state.

[Keith and stuff]

I didn't see a thread about how something similar happened in Virginia on Thursday. That means federal courts in UT, OK, KY and VA have all done this or something similar. I figured I'd help give folks something to be outraged about :toady: Although, you could say the VA government helped the federal court in this process. Since the VA government decided that the VA law was unconstitutional, wanted it to be overturned and didn't even both to defend the law. I wonder if the VA folks that brought the case were Republicans, like the folks in CA that overturned the CA law? The GOP is a big tent...

Federal judge declares Virginia's ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional
Published February 14, 2014
Associated Press
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/02/14/federal-judge-declares-virginia-ban-on-same-sex-marriage-unconstitutional/


A judge in Kentucky ruled Wednesday that the state must recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. It did not rule on the constitutionality of same-sex marriages inside the state, however. The Virginia judge's ruling also follows similar decisions in Utah and Oklahoma federal courts.

The Virginia Attorney General's Office took the unusual step of not defending the law because it believes the ban violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. However, it asked for the judge to stay her order to avoid a situation like what happened in Utah after a federal judge declared that state's ban on gay marriages unconstitutional.