Judge rules SSM legal in Kentucky

[Miles]

Breaking.

[TNF]

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

That'll go over well, especially in the eastern part.

[ZonedOut]

I believe that as of right now, it only means recognition of marriages performed in other states, not that gay couples can get married in Kentucky.

[SteveRogers]

I believe that as of right now, it only means recognition of marriages performed in other states, not that gay couples can get married in Kentucky.

Correct. This ruling only requires that Kentucky recognize out-of-state marriages, but the judge is now allowing other plaintiffs to join the suit and challenge the overall ban.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

I wish some brave county clerk, judge-exec, or mayor would have gone ahead and started performing gay marriages already. This would have at least effectively legalized it in certain counties or cities.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I wish some brave county clerk, judge-exec, or mayor would have gone ahead and started performing gay marriages already. This would have at least effectively legalized it in certain counties or cities.

While on this issue you would like that to happen, I think that in general you wouldn't like it if officials start doing whatever they please instead of following the law.  Especially since I expect that what would please most officials certainly wouldn't please you.

[pbrower2a]

We are wise to see whether the decision is upheld. Appeals could eventually go to the US Supreme Court.

Nothing in the Constitution bans SSM. We are going to discover soon whether states with SSM have the vile consequences that gay-baiters say will happen.

(Really I think that SSM will promote domestic tranquility and that states with SSM will get more business).

[bedstuy]

We are wise to see whether the decision is upheld. Appeals could eventually go to the US Supreme Court.

Nothing in the Constitution bans SSM. We are going to discover soon whether states with SSM have the vile consequences that gay-baiters say will happen.

(Really I think that SSM will promote domestic tranquility and that states with SSM will get more business).

They've had gay marriage in Massachusetts for 10 years.  That seems like confirmation enough that there are no negative consequences from marriage equality.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

We are wise to see whether the decision is upheld. Appeals could eventually go to the US Supreme Court.

Nothing in the Constitution bans SSM. We are going to discover soon whether states with SSM have the vile consequences that gay-baiters say will happen.

(Really I think that SSM will promote domestic tranquility and that states with SSM will get more business).

They've had gay marriage in Massachusetts for 10 years.  That seems like confirmation enough that there are no negative consequences from marriage equality.

It also had Romney as Governor for 4 years.  Does that mean there are no negative consequences to having him in charge?

[HagridOfTheDeep]

We are wise to see whether the decision is upheld. Appeals could eventually go to the US Supreme Court.

Nothing in the Constitution bans SSM. We are going to discover soon whether states with SSM have the vile consequences that gay-baiters say will happen.

(Really I think that SSM will promote domestic tranquility and that states with SSM will get more business).

They've had gay marriage in Massachusetts for 10 years.  That seems like confirmation enough that there are no negative consequences from marriage equality.

It also had Romney as Governor for 4 years.  Does that mean there are no negative consequences to having him in charge?

Yes.

[bedstuy]

We are wise to see whether the decision is upheld. Appeals could eventually go to the US Supreme Court.

Nothing in the Constitution bans SSM. We are going to discover soon whether states with SSM have the vile consequences that gay-baiters say will happen.

(Really I think that SSM will promote domestic tranquility and that states with SSM will get more business).

They've had gay marriage in Massachusetts for 10 years.  That seems like confirmation enough that there are no negative consequences from marriage equality.

It also had Romney as Governor for 4 years.  Does that mean there are no negative consequences to having him in charge?

The difference is that I can point to a slew of mistakes Mitt Romney made as governor, but nobody can find any negative effect of same sex marriage in Massachusetts.  I lived in Massachusetts during the tail end of the Romney term and he was pretty universally disliked as far as I could tell.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Romney was disliked mainly because he stopped being Massachusetts governor and started running for President. He was trashing his own state when he'd do appearances elsewhere. It got really bad.

[The Mikado]

I'm starting to think that Pennsylvania will be literally the last state in its region with gay marriage. All it'd require is one trolling judge in West Virginia.

[Hifly]

Grimes will have to take a position on this.

[old timey villain]

We are wise to see whether the decision is upheld. Appeals could eventually go to the US Supreme Court.

Nothing in the Constitution bans SSM. We are going to discover soon whether states with SSM have the vile consequences that gay-baiters say will happen.

(Really I think that SSM will promote domestic tranquility and that states with SSM will get more business).

They've had gay marriage in Massachusetts for 10 years.  That seems like confirmation enough that there are no negative consequences from marriage equality.

It also had Romney as Governor for 4 years.  Does that mean there are no negative consequences to having him in charge?

The difference is that I can point to a slew of mistakes Mitt Romney made as governor, but nobody can find any negative effect of same sex marriage in Massachusetts.  I lived in Massachusetts during the tail end of the Romney term and he was pretty universally disliked as far as I could tell.

That's because by the end of his term it became abundantly clear to anybody with a brain that all he cared about was taking the next step to the White House. He hardly spent any time in the state and he suddenly became severely conservative.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Grimes will have to take a position on this.

The Landrieu position is probably the safest.

[Antonio the Sixth]

[eric82oslo]

Nice picture. It all falls into place.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Apparently Governor Beshear is going ahead without the AG's help.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/03/04/kentucky-gay-marriage/6012237/

FRANKFORT, Ky. -- Gov. Steve Beshear announced Tuesday that the state will hire outside counsel to appeal a federal judge's ruling that the state must recognize same-sex marriages legally performed outside the state.

The announcement came moments after state Attorney General Jack Conway's emotional announcement that he would not appeal U.S. District Judge John G. Heyburn II's ruling and would not pursue any more stays

[eric82oslo]

But why? He's a Democrat for pete's sake. Democrats are not supposed to be bigots.

[Hifly]

But why? He's a Democrat for pete's sake. Democrats are not supposed to be bigots.

You're a bigot by default.

[eric82oslo]

But why? He's a Democrat for pete's sake. Democrats are not supposed to be bigots.

You're a bigot by default.

How come?

[Hifly]

But why? He's a Democrat for pete's sake. Democrats are not supposed to be bigots.

You're a bigot by default.

Beshear isn't a hacktivist Governor; he's in touch with the views of the people of Kentucky, and that's precisely the reason why he is so popular in a state which displays so much hostility towards national Democrats.

If he had been so ignorant as to follow your guidelines it would ruin the credibility of the State Democratic Party, especially in the heartlands of Eastern Kentucky.

It would be an embarrassment for Beshear to listen to someone like you and Praise the Lord that he has common sense and is upholding the constitution of the state of Kentucky which is supported by such an overwhelming majority of her citizens that it makes social progressives tremble.

[Flake]

There is no valid argument from SSM opponents other than using religion (which isn't a valid argument because there is a separation of church and state in the US).

So kudos to this judge for acknowledging that the ban on SSM is an attempt from a majority to infringe the rights of a minority.



So uh guys, whats going on?