Judge rules SSM legal in Kentucky

[Cory]

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

Unfortunately the fact that he is a Democrat in Kentucky means he actually has even more political incentive to challenge this.

The "Only Nixon can go to China" logic applies here. Being a Democrat he kind of has to "prove" he isn't pro-SSM somehow.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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.

One could argue that the purpose of government recognition of marriage is to foster procreation.  Not a particularly good option IMO since that is far from the only reason, and plenty of other ways to encourage the production of future taxpayers, but it would be a reason not dependent upon religion.  Now if we still had traditional marriage in which the wife became the property of the husband, that would be a reason, but until the Sons of Jacob take power, that won't be a valid reason either.

[MaxQue]

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?

Don't worry, hifly has the values of an imam of the Middle Ages.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

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.

He sure as hell isn't in touch with the LGBT community of his state.  But they're a minority, so we can just brush them aside, right?  Such is the attitude that has dominated human relations for centuries.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

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

Kentucky is closer to the south than the Midwest.

[7,052,770]

If Grimes speaks out against gay marriage, the national party should completely pull the plug on all of her funding. Drop her from the ballot if possible.

Would we run a racist if it meant we might win? Of course not. Anti-gay bigots shouldn't be treated any differently.

[Bacon King]

If Grimes speaks out against gay marriage, the national party should completely pull the plug on all of her funding. Drop her from the ballot if possible.

Would we run a racist if it meant we might win? Of course not. Anti-gay bigots shouldn't be treated any differently.

Don't worry Harry. Grimes has already made clear she supports same sex marriage, even if she has only done so in the most roundabout and inoffensive way possible.

quote source

You must be logged in to read this quote.

also jesus christ she sounds like a terrible public speaker, i'm starting to think her candidacy is way too hyped

[Hifly]

That will go down well in Eastern Kentucky.

[Niemeyerite]

If Grimes speaks out against gay marriage, the national party should completely pull the plug on all of her funding. Drop her from the ballot if possible.

Would we run a racist if it meant we might win? Of course not. Anti-gay bigots shouldn't be treated any differently.

What if it's Childers vs. McDaniel? I think both of them oppose SSM.

[7,052,770]

If Grimes speaks out against gay marriage, the national party should completely pull the plug on all of her funding. Drop her from the ballot if possible.

Would we run a racist if it meant we might win? Of course not. Anti-gay bigots shouldn't be treated any differently.

What if it's Childers vs. McDaniel? I think both of them oppose SSM.

Childers hasn't mentioned gay marriage and probably won't. The fact that he was touting his anti-abortion and pro-gun positions and specifically left out gay marriage should tell you what you need to know.

Count him in the Bob Casey/Joe Donnelly/Jim Hood camp.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

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

He's the Governor of Kentucky, for pete's sake.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

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

He's the Governor of Kentucky, for pete's sake.

In KY, sometiems (D) means (R).

[Miles]

Conway: "I wanted to be on the right side of history."

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Conway: "I wanted to be on the right side of history."

May I say that while I approve of his decision that quote is highly cringe-worthy for me.  The idea that we can predict with certainty what the future will think of our actions is one of the more ludicrous ideas that has entered the realm of public discourse.

[Joe Republic]

Conway: "I wanted to be on the right side of history."

May I say that while I approve of his decision that quote is highly cringe-worthy for me.  The idea that we can predict with certainty what the future will think of our actions is one of the more ludicrous ideas that has entered the realm of public discourse.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/future-us-history-students-its-pretty-embarrassing,19099/

[IceSpear]

Conway: "I wanted to be on the right side of history."

May I say that while I approve of his decision that quote is highly cringe-worthy for me.  The idea that we can predict with certainty what the future will think of our actions is one of the more ludicrous ideas that has entered the realm of public discourse.

In some cases it's pretty damn obvious. This is one of them.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Conway: "I wanted to be on the right side of history."

May I say that while I approve of his decision that quote is highly cringe-worthy for me.  The idea that we can predict with certainty what the future will think of our actions is one of the more ludicrous ideas that has entered the realm of public discourse.

In some cases it's pretty damn obvious. This is one of them.

Hardly.  While given current demographic momentum, it's fairly obvious that support for recognition of same-sex marriage will continue to grow for the next couple of decades, that it will certainly be the case that society will consider it a good idea a couple centuries from now is not at all obvious.  History does not travel in an inexorable straight path towards the future we want.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Conway: "I wanted to be on the right side of history."

May I say that while I approve of his decision that quote is highly cringe-worthy for me.  The idea that we can predict with certainty what the future will think of our actions is one of the more ludicrous ideas that has entered the realm of public discourse.

In some cases it's pretty damn obvious. This is one of them.

Hardly.  While given current demographic momentum, it's fairly obvious that support for recognition of same-sex marriage will continue to grow for the next couple of decades, that it will certainly be the case that society will consider it a good idea a couple centuries from now is not at all obvious.  History does not travel in an inexorable straight path towards the future we want.

My, my, aren't you quite the pessimist?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Conway: "I wanted to be on the right side of history."

May I say that while I approve of his decision that quote is highly cringe-worthy for me.  The idea that we can predict with certainty what the future will think of our actions is one of the more ludicrous ideas that has entered the realm of public discourse.

In some cases it's pretty damn obvious. This is one of them.

Hardly.  While given current demographic momentum, it's fairly obvious that support for recognition of same-sex marriage will continue to grow for the next couple of decades, that it will certainly be the case that society will consider it a good idea a couple centuries from now is not at all obvious.  History does not travel in an inexorable straight path towards the future we want.

My, my, aren't you quite the pessimist?

No.  A realist.  If I were a pessimist, I'd be saying that the current changes would inevitably be reversed in a couple centuries, which is just as ludicrous.  I just doubt our ability to predict what societal norms will be a couple centuries from now.

[Brittain33]

No.  A realist.  If I were a pessimist, I'd be saying that the current changes would inevitably be reversed in a couple centuries, which is just as ludicrous.  I just doubt our ability to predict what societal norms will be a couple centuries from now.

I think Conway's usage could be quite reliable if we're only thinking about the next 30-50 years, i.e. his own lifetime, rather than extending it arbitrarily into the future. People today can speak about being "on the right side of history" for the civil rights movement. Does that usage bother you, too, because it doesn't take into account that we could be living in Waterworld or Mad Max in 2314 where civil rights are viewed differently?

The U.S. isn't going backwards on gay rights any more than it's going to go backward on anti-Semitism or bigotry against the Irish. End of story.

[fartboy]

This will help the GOP by giving them a red meat issue for their base in the fall. On a side note, good for them.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

No.  A realist.  If I were a pessimist, I'd be saying that the current changes would inevitably be reversed in a couple centuries, which is just as ludicrous.  I just doubt our ability to predict what societal norms will be a couple centuries from now.

I think Conway's usage could be quite reliable if we're only thinking about the next 30-50 years, i.e. his own lifetime, rather than extending it arbitrarily into the future. People today can speak about being "on the right side of history" for the civil rights movement. Does that usage bother you, too, because it doesn't take into account that we could be living in Waterworld or Mad Max in 2314 where civil rights are viewed differently?

The U.S. isn't going backwards on gay rights any more than it's going to go backward on anti-Semitism or bigotry against the Irish. End of story.

Yes, it bothers me in any context and it won't take a apocalyptic catastrophe to cause things to go backward, tho I will admit it is more likely to cause it to happen, not because such events are likely to cause society to become evil but because such events are more likely to cause society to change, both for good and for evil.

[Brittain33]

Yes, it bothers me in any context and it won't take a apocalyptic catastrophe to cause things to go backward, tho I will admit it is more likely to cause it to happen, not because such events are likely to cause society to become evil but because such events are more likely to cause society to change, both for good and for evil.

We've never, in the history of the world, had a society as accepting of openly gay people as the U.S. is today, with the exception of some other contemporary cultures. There have been societies with a space for homosexuality, but never on the basis of equality or social acceptance.

We have had societies move forward on anti-Semitism and take a sharp jump back, true. However, with gays, we're fully integrated into society because we're nearly all born into heterosexual families.

I don't see any case to be made for backwards movement. I won't argue with pure skepticism or pure nihilism, but I also don't have reason to respect it.