Federal judge: Arguments against gay marriage 'are not those of serious people'

[poolerboy0077]

A federal judge on Tuesday struck down Kentucky's ban on gay marriage, and in doing so he issued a scathing rebuke to opponents of same-sex marriage.

In his ruling, District Judge John G. Heyburn II shredded the state's argument that a gay marriage ban was necessary from a biological standpoint because "traditional marriages contribute to a stable birth rate which, in turn, ensures the state's long-term economic stability." Heyburn pulled no punches in labeling that claim "disingenuous."

These arguments are not those of serious people. 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. [...] The state's attempts to connect the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage to its interest in economic stability and in "ensuring humanity's continued existence" are at best illogical and even bewildering. [PDF]

Thoughts?

 

[theophilus777]

Let's see him go head to head with the one Federal Judge who has opposed the tide. Heck, throw 'em both in the ring! My money's on the older codger with the backbone to swim upstream.

 

[Billnew]

I support unions, I oppose SSM being automatically the same. As long as it is two concenting adults let them have a piece of paper saying they are a couple.

I believe society can define what the legal definition of marriage is. If society says it is a union between a male and female, then that is marriage. If society says it is a union between any adults(or permission from parents, emancipated etc) then that is what it is.
I do not believe SSM should automatically be allowed. Because it is a small groups definition of marriage not the whole of society.
Either soceity can define marriage or anyone can define marriage.
Any arguement used to force change to marriage can be applied to any definition of marriage any individual decides.
I believe laws should be created as any other new law, not forced to change the old definition by the courts.

I also believe it is a state right to define marriage, as the federal government has never established a reason to be involved in the definition.

I believe the arguements judges are using to force the changes should force new laws to be created not force old laws to change, or at least give the state that option. A union being as close to a marriage as possible must be set up or the marriage law changed to include... rather then you will make marriage mean what the individual wants by order of this court.

Much like what the courts did for the second amendment in Anti-gun states. Either you make laws allowing the restricted carry of firearms or free open carry will become law.

 

[Fenny the Fox]

I support unions, I oppose SSM being automatically the same. As long as it is two concenting adults let them have a piece of paper saying they are a couple.

I believe society can define what the legal definition of marriage is. If society says it is a union between a male and female, then that is marriage. If society says it is a union between any adults(or permission from parents, emancipated etc) then that is what it is.
I do not believe SSM should automatically be allowed. Because it is a small groups definition of marriage not the whole of society.
Either soceity can define marriage or anyone can define marriage.
Any arguement used to force change to marriage can be applied to any definition of marriage any individual decides.
I believe laws should be created as any other new law, not forced to change the old definition by the courts.

I also believe it is a state right to define marriage, as the federal government has never established a reason to be involved in the definition.

I believe the arguements judges are using to force the changes should force new laws to be created not force old laws to change, or at least give the state that option. A union being as close to a marriage as possible must be set up or the marriage law changed to include... rather then you will make marriage mean what the individual wants by order of this court.

Much like what the courts did for the second amendment in Anti-gun states. Either you make laws allowing the restricted carry of firearms or free open carry will become law.

[Addressing underlined, in order:]

The polls on this subject in the last few years (we are somewhere around 55% of people in the US supporting SSM) seem to suggest that it is quite possibly now the will of society at large that SSM be allowed as a variation of legal marriage. This is no longer, clearly, simply an issue of one small group forcing a change, but of a larger body of the population supporting the change.


The federal government (wrongly or rightly) put a stake in the definition of marriage by granting tax credits and joint filing, by granting survivor's benefits on federal distributed pensions, funds and benefits, etc.

 

[Marius27]

Thoughts?

Something we already knew. There is not a single rational or legal argument against same-sex marriage. Those who oppose it are always ignorant and base their opposition solely on religious conservatism or "it's icky".

 

[Marius27]

Let's see him go head to head with the one Federal Judge who has opposed the tide. Heck, throw 'em both in the ring! My money's on the older codger with the backbone to swim upstream.

How many federal judges have opposed it? He'd have to be pretty weak in his legal analysis to do so, seeing as it's a nearly unanimous legal opinion that it can't be banned. Even conservative, Republican appointed judges have sided with the Pro-SSM crowd.

That's an obvious sign you're wrong.

 

[Marius27]

I do not believe SSM should automatically be allowed. Because it is a small groups definition of marriage not the whole of society.

So you support a segment of society dictating what rights other members of society can have? By that argument, you obviously agree that us legalizing interracial marriage was wrong right? More people opposed interracial marriage when it was legalized than people oppose SSM now. In fact, when the Supreme Court ruling outlawing bans on interracial marriage was passed down, 80+% of society opposed legalizing it. Merely a decade early, 94% opposed it.

I also believe it is a state right to define marriage, as the federal government has never established a reason to be involved in the definition.

The 14th Amendment gives them the right to be involved as does the fact that a marriage license gives hundreds of federal benefits.

 

[Paradoxum]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONyAv1HWDo0

(Na, I agree with the judge)

 

[keith99]

Thoughts?

The title could be misleading.

Not intentionally so, but easily misleading.

The Judge said the arguments made before the court were 'not those of serious people'. Based on the excerpt you provided I might substitute 'sane' for 'serious'.

It does not mean that there are not or could not be serious arguments against gay marriage. Someday I may hear one.

 

[Fenny the Fox]

Gayyy!!! - YouTube

(Na, I agree with the judge)

My old housemate used to do that every time me and my bf hugged or kissed around him. Was actually pretty hilarious.

Someday I may hear one.

And someday I may be worth a few million bucks, but...

 

[Paradoxum]

My old housemate used to do that every time me and my bf hugged or kissed around him. Was actually pretty hilarious.

I didn't know you were that way inclined.

(That definitely is a little gay though )

 

[Fenny the Fox]

I didn't know you were that way inclined.

(That definitely is a little gay though )

Oh my my my. Where have you been hun? lol

(And it definitely is, just how I like to keep it. )

 

[Queller]

Let's see him go head to head with the one Federal Judge who has opposed the tide. Heck, throw 'em both in the ring! My money's on the older codger with the backbone to swim upstream.

Which judge upheld bans on SSM? Do you have a link?

 

[Sunshine Locket]

Thoughts?

He's entitled to his opinion. But until he can find a clause in federal law that stops the progression of gay marriage in America, I don't care about his personal view. It can't affect the bench.

In fact, I'd like to see him come up with a solution to the rapid degradation that is happening in America in matters of laws protecting deviants and freakish behaviors.

The federal protection that just went into place prohibiting discrimination against transsexuals for one.
A man with a full beard and mustache, implant breasts, wearing a dress, and claiming to be a woman, can show up for work at the U.S. Treasury and demand to be referred to as a woman. And sue if he's not accommodated.

That's how far the ball is rolling this nation straight to being a laughing stock to other nations. And who pushes that? OBAMA! And the amoral-left.

This judge can have his opinion but until he comes up with a legal solution to stop the legal decay of America's moral identity, he's just a guy with a thought. When he comes up with a solution, bravo!

 

[Belk]

He's entitled to his opinion. But until he can find a clause in federal law that stops the progression of gay marriage in America, I don't care about his personal view. It can't affect the bench.

In fact, I'd like to see him come up with a solution to the rapid degradation that is happening in America in matters of laws protecting deviants and freakish behaviors.

The federal protection that just went into place prohibiting discrimination against transsexuals for one.
A man with a full beard and mustache, implant breasts, wearing a dress, and claiming to be a woman, can show up for work at the U.S. Treasury and demand to be referred to as a woman. And sue if he's not accommodated.

That's how far the ball is rolling this nation straight to being a laughing stock to other nations. And who pushes that? OBAMA! And the amoral-left.

This judge can have his opinion but until he comes up with a legal solution to stop the legal decay of America's moral identity, he's just a guy with a thought. When he comes up with a solution, bravo!

You are entitled to your opinion but until you come up with a reason beyond "I think your all freaks" the US constitution will protect the rights of those you would malign.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

I actually agree with the thought. The thought that a marriage that can't produce children can't be a real marriage is sickening to think about when my folks ultimately had to adopt us after countless miscarriages.

The judge was referring to that specific argument against SSM, not arguments in general.

 

[Belk]

I actually agree with the thought. The thought that a marriage that can't produce children can't be a real marriage is sickening to think about when my folks ultimately had to adopt us after countless miscarriages.

The judge was referring to that specific argument against SSM, not arguments in general.

Have you ever heard what you would consider a good secular argument against SSM?

 

[PreachersWife2004]

Have you ever heard what you would consider a good secular argument against SSM?

Secular? No. I don't think there's any secular against SSM, is there? I mean, other than the EWWW GROSS argument.

I can see a religious argument against SSM, though.

 

[Belk]

Secular? No. I don't think there's any secular against SSM, is there? I mean, other than the EWWW GROSS argument.

I can see a religious argument against SSM, though.

That has been my assessment as well. Unfortunately some keep trying to come up with one. The "But they can't have kids" and "they spread disease" ones seem popular right now.

 

[keith99]

I actually agree with the thought. The thought that a marriage that can't produce children can't be a real marriage is sickening to think about when my folks ultimately had to adopt us after countless miscarriages.

The judge was referring to that specific argument against SSM, not arguments in general.

Same situation for my brother's wife.

I consider anyone saying that her parents marriage was not a real marriage to be fighting words.