Kentucky ban on gay marriages from other states struck down by federal judge

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Courier-Journal

[RedSLC]

The judge made the right decision.

Also, IIRC, Kentucky is close to the bottom among states the support legalizing SSM, so it will be interesting to see the reaction here.

I think Conway will most likely defend the ban in court (much like, NC, MO, and MS), but I know the Lt. Gov (Jerry Abramson) supports SSM, and I think Beshear has remained neutral on the issue (but appears to personally support SSM), so how the local politicians react will be interesting, too.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

The judge made the right decision.

Also, IIRC, Kentucky is close to the bottom among states the support legalizing SSM, so it will be interesting to see the reaction here.

I think Conway will most likely defend the ban in court (much like, NC, MO, and MS), but I know the Lt. Gov (Jerry Abramson) supports SSM, and I think Beshear has remained neutral on the issue (but appears to personally support SSM), so how the local politicians react will be interesting, too.

I'm not sure where Conway stands on gay marriage, but he's ineligible to run for reelection in 2015 due to term limits anyway, so he shouldn't have much to worry about if he refuses to defend it.  I wouldn't count on anything just yet.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

I'm not sure where Conway stands on gay marriage, but he's ineligible to run for reelection in 2015 due to term limits anyway, so he shouldn't have much to worry about if he refuses to defend it.

He might run for governor.

But by that time, there will be more people supporting gay marriage than ever before.

[Badger]

I'm not sure where Conway stands on gay marriage, but he's ineligible to run for reelection in 2015 due to term limits anyway, so he shouldn't have much to worry about if he refuses to defend it.

He might run for governor.

But by that time, there will be more people supporting gay marriage than ever before.

"More than ever before" will remain a highly relative term in Kentucky even a year from now.

[Warren 4 Secretary of Everything]

I'm not sure where Conway stands on gay marriage, but he's ineligible to run for reelection in 2015 due to term limits anyway, so he shouldn't have much to worry about if he refuses to defend it.

He might run for governor.

But by that time, there will be more people supporting gay marriage than ever before.

I think Conway's broken goods after that loss to Paul in 2010. I'd prefer that Edelen took a whack at running for higher office. What do you think Bandit?

[Bandit3 the Worker]

I think Conway's broken goods after that loss to Paul in 2010. I'd prefer that Edelen took a whack at running for higher office. What do you think Bandit?

I would have thought Edelen would be much better, but I saw an article a few weeks ago that said both major parties had private internal polls that showed Conway would win easily. But the article provided no numbers.

Conway keeps talking about how he's "learned his lesson" after losing to Rand Paul.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

This won't sit well in eastern KY.  Lol.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

This won't sit well in eastern KY.  Lol.

Eastern Kentucky is rapidly shrinking in population.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

This won't sit well in eastern KY.  Lol.

Eastern Kentucky is rapidly shrinking in population.

No sh**t. From the WV/KY line to Lexington there's not much there for the people, is there?  My point was they don't exactly have cosmopolitan attitudes in the east.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

No sh**t. From the WV/KY line to Lexington there's not much there for the people, is there?

There's not much there, and not much in northern Kentucky either. Young adults are moving out of the rural counties rapidly.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

No sh**t. From the WV/KY line to Lexington there's not much there for the people, is there?

There's not much there, and not much in northern Kentucky either. Young adults are moving out of the rural counties rapidly.

What about the areas to West?  What areas are doing well?  (genuinely curious)

[Bandit3 the Worker]

What about the areas to West?  What areas are doing well?  (genuinely curious)

Louisville, Lexington, and Frankfort are doing very well.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

What about the areas to West?  What areas are doing well?  (genuinely curious)

Louisville, Lexington, and Frankfort are doing very well.

Thanks.  One of my dearest friends moved from Magoffin to Pike County because of the job situation....the wrong direction I suppose. 

[Bandit3 the Worker]

What about the areas to West?  What areas are doing well?  (genuinely curious)

Louisville, Lexington, and Frankfort are doing very well.

Thanks.  One of my dearest friends moved from Magoffin to Pike County because of the job situation....the wrong direction I suppose. 

Magoffin is a lot more rural than Pike is. Pike at least has Pikeville.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

What about the areas to West?  What areas are doing well?  (genuinely curious)

Louisville, Lexington, and Frankfort are doing very well.

Thanks.  One of my dearest friends moved from Magoffin to Pike County because of the job situation....the wrong direction I suppose.  

Magoffin is a lot more rural than Pike is. Pike at least has Pikeville.

Yep, I know it is.  Yes, she works in Pikeville.  Formerly worked in Salyersville. 

[Cryptic]

Good news!  Now, if only we can strike down the ban on gay marriage in-state too.

[DemPGH]

I think we'll get to a point sooner rather than later where it's best to just let the courts handle this and not wait for a lot of backward states to catch up. Handling it at the federal level will be tough with the GOP, of course, but if in the coming years it's possible to get a reasonably broad SCOTUS ruling on it (currently still too conservative, IMO), just take them to court.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Good news!  Now, if only we can strike down the ban on gay marriage in-state too.

Indeed, they should have been both struck down simultaneously, and there is no justification for doing this half measure. This is a terrible decision that ignores all precedent concerning the full faith and credit clause.  The judge should either have struck the ban down all the way and required Kentucky to recognize SSM performed in Kentucky as well as elsewhere, or the judge should have left it alone if he couldn't bring himself to do that.

This moderate heroish decision that means that Kentucky doesn't have to recognize SSM done within the state, but does have to recognize those performed in other states is a terrible misapplication of the full faith and credit clause.  The clause does not allow other states to force their laws on other states, but only requires that if two states do essentially the same thing, then once it is done in one state it is recognized in other states without having to be redone or relitigated despite any minor differences in procedure that might exist.  Hence there is no constitutional requirement that a state recognize SSMs done in other states unless it recognizes them done within its own boundaries.

[Хahar 🤔]

That implies that a same-sex marriage is something different from a marriage.

[SteveRogers]

Good news!  Now, if only we can strike down the ban on gay marriage in-state too.

Indeed, they should have been both struck down simultaneously, and there is no justification for doing this half measure. This is a terrible decision that ignores all precedent concerning the full faith and credit clause.  The judge should either have struck the ban down all the way and required Kentucky to recognize SSM performed in Kentucky as well as elsewhere, or the judge should have left it alone if he couldn't bring himself to do that.

This moderate heroish decision that means that Kentucky doesn't have to recognize SSM done within the state, but does have to recognize those performed in other states is a terrible misapplication of the full faith and credit clause.  The clause does not allow other states to force their laws on other states, but only requires that if two states do essentially the same thing, then once it is done in one state it is recognized in other states without having to be redone or relitigated despite any minor differences in procedure that might exist.  Hence there is no constitutional requirement that a state recognize SSMs done in other states unless it recognizes them done within its own boundaries.

Um, except that the decision appears to have turned on the equal protection clause and didn't involve the full faith and credit clause at all. The judge held that recognizing some out of state marriages but not others was an equal protection violation. It's just a narrow decision. The judge didn't strike down the larger marriage ban because that wasn't the specific question before the court (similar to the Ohio decision that only invalidated the state's gay marriage ban as it applies to death certificates). Of course if the next case in the same court involves a couple seeking to get married in Kentucky, the precedent would suggest that the state's ban must be overturned entirely. 

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

That implies that a same-sex marriage is something different from a marriage.

Didn't the judge effectively imply that by his ruling since his limited scope meant that as far as in-state marriage is concerned, same-sex marriage is not the same as opposite-sex marriage.

Good news!  Now, if only we can strike down the ban on gay marriage in-state too.

Indeed, they should have been both struck down simultaneously, and there is no justification for doing this half measure. This is a terrible decision that ignores all precedent concerning the full faith and credit clause.  The judge should either have struck the ban down all the way and required Kentucky to recognize SSM performed in Kentucky as well as elsewhere, or the judge should have left it alone if he couldn't bring himself to do that.

This moderate heroish decision that means that Kentucky doesn't have to recognize SSM done within the state, but does have to recognize those performed in other states is a terrible misapplication of the full faith and credit clause.  The clause does not allow other states to force their laws on other states, but only requires that if two states do essentially the same thing, then once it is done in one state it is recognized in other states without having to be redone or relitigated despite any minor differences in procedure that might exist.  Hence there is no constitutional requirement that a state recognize SSMs done in other states unless it recognizes them done within its own boundaries.

Um, except that the decision appears to have turned on the equal protection clause and didn't involve the full faith and credit clause at all. The judge held that recognizing some out of state marriages but not others was an equal protection violation. It's just a narrow decision. The judge didn't strike down the larger marriage ban because that wasn't the specific question before the court (similar to the Ohio decision that only invalidated the state's gay marriage ban as it applies to death certificates). Of course if the next case in the same court involves a couple seeking to get married in Kentucky, the precedent would suggest that the state's ban must be overturned entirely. 

If that was indeed his reasoning, he goofed.  Equal protection does not apply to the recognition of out-of-state contracts, including marriage.  Full faith and credit does.  If he wanted to use equal protection to require full recognition of out-of-state SSMs, he needed to strike down the ban entirely.  As I understand it, the death certificate case in Ohio also impacted some out of state property issues, in which case Ohio's refusal to apply its death certificate procedures to a SSM led to some full faith and credit problems.

[SteveRogers]

That implies that a same-sex marriage is something different from a marriage.

Didn't the judge effectively imply that by his ruling since his limited scope meant that as far as in-state marriage is concerned, same-sex marriage is not the same as opposite-sex marriage.

Good news!  Now, if only we can strike down the ban on gay marriage in-state too.

Indeed, they should have been both struck down simultaneously, and there is no justification for doing this half measure. This is a terrible decision that ignores all precedent concerning the full faith and credit clause.  The judge should either have struck the ban down all the way and required Kentucky to recognize SSM performed in Kentucky as well as elsewhere, or the judge should have left it alone if he couldn't bring himself to do that.

This moderate heroish decision that means that Kentucky doesn't have to recognize SSM done within the state, but does have to recognize those performed in other states is a terrible misapplication of the full faith and credit clause.  The clause does not allow other states to force their laws on other states, but only requires that if two states do essentially the same thing, then once it is done in one state it is recognized in other states without having to be redone or relitigated despite any minor differences in procedure that might exist.  Hence there is no constitutional requirement that a state recognize SSMs done in other states unless it recognizes them done within its own boundaries.

Um, except that the decision appears to have turned on the equal protection clause and didn't involve the full faith and credit clause at all. The judge held that recognizing some out of state marriages but not others was an equal protection violation. It's just a narrow decision. The judge didn't strike down the larger marriage ban because that wasn't the specific question before the court (similar to the Ohio decision that only invalidated the state's gay marriage ban as it applies to death certificates). Of course if the next case in the same court involves a couple seeking to get married in Kentucky, the precedent would suggest that the state's ban must be overturned entirely.  

If that was indeed his reasoning, he goofed.  Equal protection does not apply to the recognition of out-of-state contracts, including marriage.  Full faith and credit does.  If he wanted to use equal protection to require full recognition of out-of-state SSMs, he needed to strike down the ban entirely.  As I understand it, the death certificate case in Ohio also impacted some out of state property issues, in which case Ohio's refusal to apply its death certificate procedures to a SSM led to some full faith and credit problems.

Who ever said equal protection doesn't apply to recognition for out of state contracts?

Look at it this way: The out of state contracts will be identical for a straight couple and a gay couple. Let's say you have two couples from Connecticut. Couple A is straight, couple B is gay, but their CT marriage licenses are both equally valid and will not differ in any way. The physical documents themselves will be identical and will contain exactly the same terms and language except for the names of the parties. If Kentucky chooses to recognize and enforce couple A's out-of-state contract but chooses not to do the same for couple B's identical contract, and Kentucky has no legitimate non-discriminatory reason for doing so, then Kentucky's disparate treatment of the people involved  (the people, not just the contracts) violates the 14th amendment's equal protection clause.

You would have a point if the judge had struck down the part of the ban addressing out of state marriages while upholding the rest of the ban. That would be a horribly inconsistent ruling. But the judge in fact didn't "uphold" the general ban because the judge didn't address the other sections of the law at all because those portions were not involved in the question before the court.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

That implies that a same-sex marriage is something different from a marriage.

Didn't the judge effectively imply that by his ruling since his limited scope meant that as far as in-state marriage is concerned, same-sex marriage is not the same as opposite-sex marriage.

Good news!  Now, if only we can strike down the ban on gay marriage in-state too.

Indeed, they should have been both struck down simultaneously, and there is no justification for doing this half measure. This is a terrible decision that ignores all precedent concerning the full faith and credit clause.  The judge should either have struck the ban down all the way and required Kentucky to recognize SSM performed in Kentucky as well as elsewhere, or the judge should have left it alone if he couldn't bring himself to do that.

This moderate heroish decision that means that Kentucky doesn't have to recognize SSM done within the state, but does have to recognize those performed in other states is a terrible misapplication of the full faith and credit clause.  The clause does not allow other states to force their laws on other states, but only requires that if two states do essentially the same thing, then once it is done in one state it is recognized in other states without having to be redone or relitigated despite any minor differences in procedure that might exist.  Hence there is no constitutional requirement that a state recognize SSMs done in other states unless it recognizes them done within its own boundaries.

Um, except that the decision appears to have turned on the equal protection clause and didn't involve the full faith and credit clause at all. The judge held that recognizing some out of state marriages but not others was an equal protection violation. It's just a narrow decision. The judge didn't strike down the larger marriage ban because that wasn't the specific question before the court (similar to the Ohio decision that only invalidated the state's gay marriage ban as it applies to death certificates). Of course if the next case in the same court involves a couple seeking to get married in Kentucky, the precedent would suggest that the state's ban must be overturned entirely.  

If that was indeed his reasoning, he goofed.  Equal protection does not apply to the recognition of out-of-state contracts, including marriage.  Full faith and credit does.  If he wanted to use equal protection to require full recognition of out-of-state SSMs, he needed to strike down the ban entirely.  As I understand it, the death certificate case in Ohio also impacted some out of state property issues, in which case Ohio's refusal to apply its death certificate procedures to a SSM led to some full faith and credit problems.

Who ever said equal protection doesn't apply to recognition for out of state contracts?

Look at it this way: The out of state contracts will be identical for a straight couple and a gay couple. Let's say you have two couples from Connecticut. Couple A is straight, couple B is gay, but their CT marriage licenses are both equally valid and will not differ in any way. The physical documents themselves will be identical and will contain exactly the same terms and language except for the names of the parties. If Kentucky chooses to recognize and enforce couple A's out-of-state contract but chooses not to do the same for couple B's identical contract, and Kentucky has no legitimate non-discriminatory reason for doing so, then Kentucky's disparate treatment of the people involved  (the people, not just the contracts) violates the 14th amendment's equal protection clause.

But under Kentucky law, a marriage contract can only be entered into in certain circumstances and only conveys particular defined benefits.  Applying equal protection in this way allows one state to make laws for other states and that is most definitely not the intention of either the equal protection or the full faith and credit provision.  This is a bad decision because it means other states can make laws that must be applied in Kentucky even if Kentucky has explicitly chosen to not have such a law.  If one were to apply this logic, pre-13th Amendment, then no State could have banned slavery without all of them having banned it, since an employment contract that was the equivalent of slavery could certainly have been entered into in South Carolina for example, and then the "employee" could accompany his "employer" to Massachusetts and remain bound to that term of service. (To be fair, some alarmists felt that the Taney court was ready to do such a thing in a future slavery case after Dred Scott.)

The effect of the decision is admirable, but it is bad law that is contrary to the Federal nature of our union.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

Hopefully, a court will legalize gay marriage in Kentucky altogether.