Posted on 07/01/2014 9:35:32 AM PDT by GIdget2004
Judge John Heyburn issued an opinion on Tuesday that Louisville gay couples are entitled to marry one another because denying them to do so violated the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution.
However, couples can't rush to get married.
In Love vs Beshear, Judge Heyburn stayed the order pending the 6th Circuit of Appeals ruling. Oral arguments are set for August 6.
(Excerpt) Read more at wave3.com ...
Keep in mind that the majority of collectivist movements that brought about the murder of some 250 million people during the 20th century were led by homosexuals.
The Nazis were the most blatant form for them.
Almost forgot.
Look at who is running the USA right now!
More specifically, justices from the same generation that ratified 14A had officially clarified that the amendment added no new protections to the Constitution. It only strengthened constitutionally enumerated rights.
“3. The right of suffrage was not necessarily one of the privileges or immunities of citizenship before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, and that amendment does not add to these privileges and immunities. It simply furnishes additional guaranty for the protection of such as the citizen already had [emphasis added].” —Minor v. Happersett, 1874.
So since the stated had clearly not amended the Constitution to expressly protect so-called gay rights like gay marriage before 14A was ratified, such "rights" were not constitutionally protected after 14A was ratified.
In fact, the Supreme Court later clarified that interpolations of the Constitution, subjectively reading the "right" to gay marriage into the Equal Protections Clause as per this example, are not to be tolerated.
“3. The Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning; where the intention is clear, there is no room for construction and no excuse for interpolation [emphasis added] or addition.” —United States v. Sprague, 1931.
They probably just shut up because it is difficult to argue back when you got some other guys cock in your mouth.
Judge Heyburn’s ruling will do his patron no favors.
I’d expect this to suddenly become a hot issue in the Senate race. And lead to lots of extra fund-raising by out-of-state progressive groups.
When did they rule out 1st cousins? A set of my great-grandparents had to go from Illinois to Kentucky to get hitched back in the 20’s because they were 1st cousins—the relationship was no problem, but as one of them was a bit darker than the other, there was some concern about inter-racial marriage.
I was also debating a rabid anti-gunner who very plainly was for gun confiscation.
After a couple of rounds I told him...
that he should go over to his next door neighbor’s place and confiscate his guns. He’d be more than happy to show you how much he likes that.
Crickets from him, too!
About half the states allow first cousins to marry. Children born to first cousins have about twice the risk of a genetically transmitted birth defect compared to children of more distantly related parents.
“In America, even sincere and long-hold religious beliefs do not trump the constitutional rights of those who happen to have been out-voted,” Heyburn wrote in his ruling.
The judge sharply rejected the only justification for the ban offered by Democratic Gov. Steve Beshear’s lawyers – who argued that traditional marriage contributed to a stable birth rate and the state’s long-term economic stability.
“These arguments are not those of serious people,” Heyburn said.
“Though it seems almost unnecessary to explain, here are the reasons why,” Heyburn continued. “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.”
You're confusing two Constitutional provisions. State-to-state reciprocity isn't governed by the "Equal Protection Clause" of the 14th Amendment, it's based on the "Full Faith and Credit" clause (Article IV, Section 1).
Both RINO’s
It is up to the lawyers to educate the judiciary on the definition of marriage and its value to society (it is the institution that unites parents with their offspring, provides a mom and a dad to a child, and holds the father responsible for the offspring that he created).
As long as the liberal lawyers succeed in characterizing marriage as a mere contract between two people with associated government benefits and no relationship to procreation, then that’s the end of the societal good that marriage has always provided. One need only look at Black urban populations where single motherhood has taken the place of marriage to see where the country is headed when marriage is disconnected from procreation.
Once the link between marriage and procreation is understood, then the idea that animus has been the only reason for denying marriage to homosexuals is a silly argument. Unless you believe that there is anti-homosexual animus inherent in nature.
That applies to humans. This foolish ruling might also upset the Thoroughbred Industry. The queers have finally upset the horses!
"My dear, I don't care what they do, so long as they don't do it in the street and frighten the horses." ...Mrs. Patrick Campbell
That logic (everyone already has an equal right to marry one of the same race) has already been judicially rejected.
Well, that's one good thing to come of this -- more tax deductions means less money for the government to squander.
If you have to call the loathing animus, then yes it is in nature.
It’s like in the Chiffon Margarine commercials. It is not nice to “Fool Mother Nature” if we may speak in such terms.
Well except now they are more like, subject to the famous “marriage penalty.”
So it can’t even be about taxes.
It’s about the lust of punking society, with a double meaning there for lust.
The need for a more solid foundation for the protection of freedmen as well as white citizens was recognized, and the result was a significant new proposal--the Fourteenth Amendment. A chief exponent of the amendment, Sen. Jacob M. Howard (R., Mich.), referred to "the personal rights guaranteed and secured by the first eight amendments of the Constitution; such as freedom of speech and of the press; ... the right to keep and bear arms...."[35] Adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment was necessary because presently these rights were not guaranteed against state legislation. "The great object of the first section of this amendment is, therefore, to restrain the power of the States and compel them at all times to respect these great fundamental guarantees."(emphasis added)
It is not the same logic. Frederick Douglass (black) and Helen Pitts (white) were married in 1884, and just about everyone considered it marriage whether or not they approved. Pocahontas (Powhatan Indian) and John Rolfe (white) married in 1614. Some people frowned on such marriages or even considered them against God's will (He created us as different races, so who are we to mix the races), but they were seen as marriage. The common definition of marriage requires opposite sex and always has throughout the world and throughout history, even in ancient Greece when homosexuality was celebrated.
My biggest worry about pretending that a gay relationship counts as marriage is that no culture in history (that has survived long enough to be remembered) has included such pairings in their definition of "marriage" and I wonder if that is more than just coincidence.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.