Judge: Kentucky must recognize same-sex marriage

Story

In a 23-page ruling, 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," Heyburn wrote.

_______________________________________________________________________

Conservatives just can't catch a break. Not that I'm complaining, I find their discomfort amusing.

Another state down.

Good.

Looks like technically right now it only requires Kentucky to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states, not to allow same-sex marriages themselves. Still a step forward though.

KFC's about to get a whole lot more interesting.

Ugh those poor homophobes. Why can't we just respect their terrible beliefs and be tolerant of them? We need to be tolerant of every belief no matter how awful because tolerance.

That's correct. Still, you don't have to marry in the state you reside in, and with this ruling there's precedent to challenge that aspect.

It's really a no brainer, with the Establishment Clause.

I can't believe that using Faith has even been marginally successful. Maybe Conservatives should actually read the Constitution they are constantly thumping their Dicks on.

I thought DOMA says that states don't have to recognize out of state same-sex marriages?

And it looks like the federal government has now doomed Kentucky:

"This decision moves us down the slippery slope toward launching Kentucky into moral chaos and depriving children of their innate need of both a father and a mother," Chitwood said. "I pray the appeals process will honor the Commonwealth's constitution and protect her children."

maybe Ken Ham can marry now

@wis3boi: Ken Ham lol i saw some clips from his debate with Bill Nye wow I hope ken doesn't believe his own bullshit.

btw what anime is your sig

Gamespot has become my place for all things gay-marriage. I get every court ruling in every state delivered right to my PC screen! Amazing

The liberal assault on conservatives continues. Poor Rush Limbaugh will have to live in a world where legally married homosexuals can receive their legally-mandated benefits, oh the horror!

We're only going to see this kind of ruling more and more. The last resistance will be in the deep south, perhaps a decade from now, but it's only a matter of time.

@jimkabrhel:

It's actually quite amazing how far things went forward just last year alone.

at some point ... @toast_burner will appear

Its quite admirable just how much dedication this place has for gay rights and gay causes. Such altruism and humanism.

You could kill half of the world's population and no one would be batting an eye. But if anything gay-related happens OT is the first to report it and celebrate it. I had people stop talking to me around here just because I once said homosexuality is a choice rofl. I didn't antagonize gays or anything, I just said its a choice because we choose to act on our impulses.

QFT

How large was the print in the 23 page ruling?

No it's not, as evidenced by the fact that something like 30-35% of members in the other thread voted that they'd prefer their children to be racist than homosexual. And if you really did make that argument, then people should be pointing out how meaningless the conclusion is because by that logic, all sexual orientations are a "choice".

This is not the point I was making, I was referring to the odd fascination and extreme dogmatism of a lot of OTers when the subject at hands is gays.

It's nothing unusual and probably fairly mainstream in Western politics. And what's so dogmatic about supporting and reporting good same-sex marriage laws?

I was referring to the reaction one would get if he or she voiced any kind of dissent from the public opinion on gays and anything related to them. I was particularly referring to the reaction I received for merely voicing a very mild objection to the received concept pertaining to choice, or the lack of it, relating to sexual preference. All I did was getting the idea that acting on one's sexual impulses is a choice out to the public. It was quite the scene, most "pro gays" lost their minds. That's what I find to be dogmatic. I did not antagonize gays and I did not stated anything that would undermine their liberty to choose who they shag. It was as if I were calling for their persecution or something.

if I recall correctly you were saying that in support of the Russian law that makes it illegal to be gay. Being ignorant is one thing, but supporting incredibly harmful laws and attitudes is wrong.

@limpbizkit818: This. This this this.

Frankly this is one of the most uninteresting threads imaginable. I'll start making threads about what some judge in Bohuslän thinks about this.

@GazaAli: Apparently I'm a transphobe because I use the pronoun he for males who feel female. Or something.

You're a transphobe because you can't seem to understand that they are female, not "males who feel female."

You're a male if you were born with male genitals, and a female if you were born with female genitals. That's about it as far as sex is concerned, the discussion on sexual classification ends right there and goes no further, and the distinction between "sex" and "gender" is quite ridiculous and flat out stupid. Now whatever funky stuff you'd like to do with your body is your choice but you can't change your sex, at least science hasn't progressed enough to make it possible and probably won't.

what a load of shit

Seems like gender studies is the right field for you.

Even if that was true then that would make me ignorant, not transphobic.

why not both

Do you think your BS statement deserves a serious answer?

Considering that yours deserved no answer at all, I say I'm being quite generous here.

Why would it in itself be transphobic?

1.) Not supporting something doesn't necessarily mean you hate those who follow such a belief.

2.) No, we don't need to be tolerant of every belief as some are genuinely harmful.

3.) Who the hell cares who marries whom and why should anyone care?

4.) The government does not need to be in the business of marriage.

By purposely referring to men who have undergone treatment to become women as "he"?

You do realize he was being sarcastic, right?

and number 4 is just funny

No because in today's day and age when anyone speaks against gay marriage they are classified as a homophobe.

Number four might be funny but the government is in the marriage business and somehow feels it is an appropriate involvement.

lmao

I didn't mention treatment. Even if I did, even if I thought undergoing a treatment is not enough to make you female as long as you have the wrong chromosomes, why is that in itself transphobic?

Oh and you're being transphobic now since you referred to women being born in a male body as "men". Douchebag.

...

You know what, i don't really give enough of a shit to argue this

Okidoki

No it isn't. Sex is between your legs and gender is between your ears. Just because you think it's stupid and plug your ears, going "lalalala" when the facts meet them, doesn't suddenly mean transgendered people don't exist or that sex and gender don't always match. It just makes you an idiot.

That's probably because they are. I've never heard a good reason against gay marriage.

Using your logic, if someone is not in support of smoking that means they are against the individual smoker rather than just the act? In other words, disliking an action or lifestyle means you hate the person as well? Yes?

The media is fast to poll people and ask their thoughts on many issues but they never seem to further the questioning by asking if they dislike the person.

Leaving aside your ridiculous simplification of gender identity disorder and your off-hand dismissal of psychology, the main reason sane people call transsexuals by their gender because it's basic politeness. Transwomen consider themselves female, their brain basically tells them that they are female and people who actually study this issue say that transwomen are male-bodied with a female gender. Same if it's the other way round.

There's no damn reason not to call someone by the gender that they identify as and want to be called unless you're trying to be a pointlessly intransigent dickhead. It would be the same thing with other people who get screwed by biological circumstances like A.I.S. women. If someone actually went up to an A.I.S. woman and called them a man because they have male chromosomes and had male genitals inside their female-gendered female body, that person would be called a fucking asshole and rightfully so.

It's the same thing with transexuals - you can use something resembling biological logic to call a female gendered person a dude or a male gendered person a chick but it doesn't do anything other than annoy/hurt/anger the other person. Or you can do it like psychologists and/or non-assholes and not be pointlessly and purposelessly rude because it hardly takes any fucking effort.

So explain to me on what ground does "gender" exist independent of sex.

Sex is between your legs. Gender is what you want between your legs.

If you go back to my post you'll realize that I was not addressing the issue of pronouns' choice when addressing transgender people. I was talking about the original premise or conviction of gender being something divisible from sex. If I knew a transgender, I'd probably call him whatever the hell he prefers me to out of courtesy as I'm generally speaking not too big on being a dickhead. How I personally perceive him however won't change and it does not have to by any rationale whatsoever.