Judge Strikes Down Kentucky’s Gay Marriage Ban
Mother Jones gets to the heart of Judge Heyburn’s ruling…
Kentucky had argued that legalizing gay marriage would harm the state’s birth rate. “These arguments are not those of serious people,” wrote US district judge John Heyburn. “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 Wire expounds upon the Judge’s decision…
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. These arguments fail for the precise reasons that Defendant’s procreation argument fails. Numerous courts have repeatedly debunked all other reasons for enacting such laws. The Court can think of no other conceivable legitimate reason for Kentucky’s laws excluding same-sex couples from marriage.
“In America, even sincere and long-hold religious beliefs do not trump the constitutional rights of those who happen to have been out-voted,” the judge wrote.
LGBTQ Nation addresses the inevitable appeals…
Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear said the state will appeal the decision.
Dan Canon, one of the attorneys for the plaintiffs, said he was excited about the ruling because the day will arrive soon when same-sex couples can get a marriage license in Kentucky, even though the decision was put on hold pending appeals.
“We believe the opinion forcefully lays to rest any notion that Kentucky’s anti-marriage laws are based on anything other than discrimination against homosexuals,” Canon said.
The Full Ruling is available here.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:13-CV-750-H