Kentucky Ordered to Recognize Gay Marriages

Strikes down part of state's ban on unions performed in other states

  • Share
  • Read Later

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

U.S. District Judge John G. Heyburn II ruled that failing to recognize marriages performed in other states means that Kentucky is treating gay and lesbian couples in a “way that demeans them,” the Associated Press reports. The ruling invalidates a key part of Kentucky’s gay marriage ban, a constitutional amendment approved by voters in 2004.

The decision stemmed from lawsuits brought by gay and lesbian couples who were married out of state, but Heyburn did not rule on the legality of same-sex marriage itself in Kentucky.



(My apologies to all for posting this arguably off-topic comment, but since all roads invariably lead to Rome…)

Before the universal Decius Edict of 249-250 CE which required a public profession of loyalty to the Roman Emperor and an affirmation of the social order then extant – with a pantheon of gods as preternatural demiurges and arbiters at its apex – various Christians early in the previous century had already faced their litmus test of faith. This was supplied, with all the appurtenances of the law, by imperial magistrate Gaius Plinius Caecilius Secundus, better known as Pliny the Younger who, in a letter to the emperor Trajan, detailed his exertions in maintaining the politically- and religiously-correct status quo (c. 112 CE):

“...For the moment this is the line I have taken with all persons brought before me on the charge of being Christians. I have asked them in person if they are Christians, and if they admit it, I repeat the question a second and third time, with a warning of the punishment awaiting them. If they persist, I order them to be led away for execution; for, whatever the nature of their admission, I am convinced that their stubbornness and unshakeable obstinacy ought not to go unpunished...”

“Amongst these I considered that I should dismiss any who denied that they were or ever had been Christians when they had repeated after me a formula of invocation to the gods and had made offerings of wine and incense to your statue (which I had ordered to be brought into court for this purpose along with the images of the gods), and furthermore had reviled the name of Christ: none of which things, I understand, any genuine Christian can be induced to do...”

Thus, in the early years of the Christian faith, choosing to follow The Way over the establishment’s exigencies for social conformity was a veritable life-or-death proposition that revolved around pagan worship. In the early 21st century, the new test of faith for loyal Christians appears to be coalescing unequivocally around the implicit acceptance of homosexual idiosyncrasies. What is more, secular society is even joined by Christ-professing churches in requiring obeisance to the spirit of “Tolerance”, but this tolerance is invariably weighted against conscientious objectors to homosexuality. Indeed, a fiery ordeal draws near for the modern followers of Jesus.

Homosexuality is the new paganism.


We're just going to have to start impeaching these lawless Democrat politicians disguised as federal judges.


To be up-front, I'm all for equal rights.

That said, marriage IS a religious institution - or at least was.  Its purpose was two-fold: Control the sex lives of the followers (because if you do that, you control the person utterly) and to provide a steady stream of indoctrinated new followers.  It's a two-fer.

The form and variety of unions between people on a civil level have come in a wide assortment.  Some societies never had "marriage".  Man is not naturally monogamous, after all (Surprise! /sarcasm).  Many societies had tribal families with a chief or shaman deciding who could and couldn't mate, but all shared responsibility raising kids.  (You've heard the term it takes a village to raise a child, well, it used to be that way for most of Mankind's evolution.)  Some societies had plural unions (Polygamy) that included multiple "wives", and even multiple "husbands" (or both).  Since we're all here, it would appear that these child-raising strategies were mostly successful.

But many other "unions" were often based purely on political/social needs and had little or nothing to do with procreation.  Family and state alliances were cemented by pairing up rivals from families or nations.  Love or interest in children or even interest in sex with the "wife" or "husband" was often absent, utilizing concubines and consorts for such things.

The downfall of "marriage" as a religious institution started the first time the government (in whatever form it was at the time) began to assign such unions rights:  Inheritance without a will, power of attorney, taxes as a couple instead of an individual...  The list is rather lengthy.  At the time, there was no "separation of church and state", so people accepted these civil boons as part of the religious ritual.  (I don't recall any of these civil rights being in the traditional marriage vows, but eh...).  Once the nascent United States wisely decided that having religions messing in government affairs was a bad thing and wrote (in the first amendment) that they were supposed to be kept separate, they overlooked the fact that marriage was inherently entwined with civil rights.

Bad, bad founding fathers.

Still, lacking crystal balls, you can't blame them much.

As time went on, the number of civil rights assigned to wedded couples grew: entitlements, disability, child support and a host of other things.  This only further cemented "marriage" as a civil act rather than a religious one.  Then, they allowed the state to "marry" people and all pretense of marriage being a religious institution at all went out the window.  This happens to things over time.  Their definitions and practices and uses change, even if they're described with the same word.

But today, we have a bunch of religious people, insisting that they're the only ones who can get civil rights through what is today essentially a civil contract because their religion told them only they could enter into such a civil contract.  What they SHOULD have done was outlaw divorce (after all, it's the #1 killer of marriage), demand that those who are married are only ever done so in religious ceremonies, insist the government stops "marrying" people and to remove all civil rights, responsibilities and obligations that come with the civil side of marriage today.  In short, turn it back into a strictly religious title.

Then the government can't stand in the way of any number of people deciding how they want to structure their relationships via civil contract (equal protection before the law, and no violation of the first amendment by telling people who can contract with whom).  "Polygamy", "gay" a "village", "straight"; it doesn't matter as long as the civil obligations are spelled out.  It would end divorce completely, simply because it's just a religious title people keep regardless of what they do.  It would provide a written framework to how to dissolve the contract, how long it would last, who would be called what, who would get what and so forth.  No one would have to "break" a contract.  They'd just have to legally enact provisions already in it.  Thus, again, divorces would be OVER.  Think of the savings to taxpayers and people.  Divorce lawyers would go out of business (and I'm good with that), but lawyers would make up for it by helping to draft these civil contracts (and I'm good with that, too) if someone wanted something other than what was in a standard issue government civil contract.

Talk about preserving the sanctity of marriage.

This is the ONLY way that religious types can have what they want under the Constitution: The right to dictate who can and can't get "married".  Of course, if there's a religion that will "marry" anyone to anyone (or any number of anyones), then those folks, too, will be "married", but they don't get the civil rights unless they all sign the contracts, and they can't call themselves "married" unless they have a marriage ritual in a sanctified house of worship (can't do that on state land without a permit!  Separation of church and state and all that.).

This is how it SHOULD be.  I don't see it happening, of course.  It's too damn rational for most people.  So the only other alternative is for the religious types to unstick the corks from their nether regions, suck it up and accept the fact that in the United States is mandated to recognize civil rights for all its people regardless of what the religious types want.

That's how it's done in a free society.  If people want to be able to dictate their religious dogma to others, move to a theocracy like Iran or a potentate like Saudi Arabia.  You can exchange your civil rights for religious dogma there.


you know the trailer parks are going crazy at this news!!


@VaTxn  I have a better idea. Why don't all conservatives move to Texas and secede to form your OWN backwards nation? Texas has been itching to do it since the South lost the war (YEAH, They LOST!!!) The rest of us are on board with the program, it seems like conservatives are just dragging their feet into the 21st century!


@DeweySayenoff  Gee, you're wrong.  Civil marriage has NOTHING to do with religion, nor religious marriages.  Gee, you're wrong.


@DeweySayenoff  No matter how long and tedious your post is, marriage is NOT a religious institution. So much so, that a Judge or even a notary can officiate (none of them is a religious figure). Conservatives need to get over the fact that none in America is buying what they are selling and do some soul-searching instead of digging their heels in their usual crap.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,123 other followers