Kentucky must recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states, judge rules


#1

A federal judge has ruled that Kentucky must recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states, striking down part of the state ban.

In 23-page a ruling issued Wednesday, U.S. District Judge John G. Heyburn II concluded that Kentucky’s laws treat gay and lesbians differently in a “way that demeans them.” The constitutional ban on same-sex marriage was approved by voters in 2004. The out-of-state clause was part of it.

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

Heyburn did not rule on whether the state could be forced to perform same-sex marriages.

The question was not included in the lawsuit.

foxnews.com/politics/2014/02/12/kentucky-must-recognize-same-sex-marriages-performed-in-other-states-judge/?intcmp=latestnews


#2

Remember when judges used to enforce laws and not make them…


#3

Kentucky prohibits marriage for various people. A 15 year old female and a 16 male can not marry, neither a male or female can marry an inamate object, a man or woman are not allowed to marry another, more than two people are not allow people. Are Kentucky’s laws prohibiting such people from getting people demeaning them?


#4

Kentucky prohibits marriage for various people. A 15 year old female and a 16 male can not marry, neither a male or female can marry an inanimate object, a married man or woman are not allowed to marry another, more than two people are not allow to marry. Are these prohibitions demeaning people, to the Judge?


#5

Will Kentucky also be required to recognize polygamous marriages performed in other states (or perhaps in other nations)? Or is “marriage equality” not quite universally equal yet?


#6

No. :o


#7

Once the state arbitrarily redefines marriage to add a group there is no logical reason for them to deny further redefinitions for anyone else who wants in. But logic never had anything to do with this.


#8

Boy! The Government must’ve got one heck of a deal on the word “must”! They sure are passing that word around lately:shrug:


#9

Pretty much all issues from the secular agenda are being advanced by government fiat and not by some rational discourse that compels.


#10

In this case, the Judge is enforcing the 14th Amendment.


#11

I heard about this on twitter. Chevrolet is a division of GM and Chevrolet / GM make the Corvette. Chevrolet has an ad out showing a homosexual couple having a wedding and today, the day that this Judge gave his opinion, a sinkhole appeared in in the National Corvette Museum and several cars fell in. Odd.


#12

I heard about this on twitter. Chevrolet is a division of GM and Chevrolet / GM make the Corvette. Chevrolet has an ad out showing a homosexual couple having a wedding and today, the day that this Judge gave his opinion, a sinkhole appeared in in the National Corvette Museum and several cars fell in. Odd


#13

National Organization for Marriage Condemns the Decision by a Federal Court to Strike Down a Component of Kentucky’s Laws Regulating Marriage

“Today’s decision emphasizes the need for Congressional action to prevent our states’ marriage laws from spiraling further into chaos. Congress needs to explicitly reinforce the sovereign right of the states to make their own determinations regarding marriage.” — Brian Brown, NOM president —

Washington, D.C. — The leadership of the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) issued criticism against a decision by a federal judge in Kentucky to strike down a component of that state’s marriage laws. The judge ruled that Kentucky must recognize as marriage same-sex relationships that have been granted that status in a different state.

“Today yet another federal judge has entered the competition for lawlessness on the marriage front,” said Brian Brown, NOM President. “Today’s decision emphasizes the need for Congressional action to prevent our states’ marriage laws from spiraling further into chaos. Congress needs to explicitly reinforce the sovereign right of the states to make their own determinations regarding marriage, and to have those determinations respected by the federal government-which would include having those determinations protected from coerced modification through dubious readings of the 14th amendment such as we have here.”

Brown noted that a bill proposed by Rep. Randy Weber (R-TX) called the “State Marriage Defense Act” is an example of the kind of legislation called for in order to answer difficulties like the ones presented by this case.

Dr. John Eastman, a law professor and the chairman of NOM’s board of directors, gave this analysis:

“In Windsor, decided just last June, the Supreme Court placed great weight on the fact that States have primary authority for determining marriage policy. It therefore held that the federal government must respect New York’s decision to alter the definition and purpose of marriage so that the institution encompasses same-sex relationships. Kentucky, as more than 30 other states have recently done, continues to further marriage policy that is tied to the unique procreative abilities of men and women. Yet this federal judge has, contrary to the strong federalism language in Windsor, determined on his own that Kentucky is not allowed to make that policy choice.”

Eastman also voiced a concern noted by other critics regarding this particular case, which involves a same-sex couple married in Canada. Some observers contend that the ruling may set a dangerous precedent for other judges to require that states recognize different forms of marriage considered valid in other countries, such as ‘plural’ or polygamous civil marriages.

“If the decision is upheld, Kentucky will have to recognize as marriages same-sex relationships that were given marriage certificates in other nations, but there is no reason to limit the ruling to same-sex relationships,” Eastman continued. “Presumably, Kentucky will also be forced to recognize as ‘marriage’ polygamous and other marriages that were valid in the country in which they were performed. This drives a stake through the heart of Kentucky’s profound policy judgment, and through the reasoning of the Windsor decision that instructed the lower courts to respect such state policy judgments.”


#14

According to the the government’s reasoning for legalizing same sex “marriage”, polygamists are still being discriminated against!! Are polygamists inferior to everyone else? that is the message the government is sending by not legalizing polygamy. Marriage “equality” is just a way to get people to jump on the bandwagon, so then they want to support ssm. To truly be for marriage “equality”, then polygamy would have to be supported.


#15

The judge’s ruling will not take effect until a formal hearing is held. The question remains if his ruling will be appealed.

The lawsuit was filed against Gov. Steve Beshear, Attorney General Jack Conway and other officials—and it’ll be up to Conway to decide whether he wants to appeal. If Conway does, it’ll go to the federal Sixth Circuit Appeals Court and the final result will wait.

Earlier this evening, the Kentucky Attorney General issued a statement:

“I took an oath when I was sworn in as Attorney General to uphold Kentucky’s constitution. I did my duty and defended Kentucky’s constitutional amendment in federal court. Today, Judge Heyburn issued a decision holding that Kentucky’s constitutional amendment conflicts with the United States Constitution. The order is not final and states that there will be an additional hearing set in the near future. It would be inappropriate to comment further about the future of this case until that hearing is held and a final order is entered.”
wfpl.org/post/kentucky-must-recognize-out-state-same-sex-marriages-federal-judge-rules


closed #16

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.