Federal judge's preliminary injunction halts Texas same-sex marriage ban

My freaking gawd! Talk about rose colored glasses.

 

Indeed. It is a very slippery slope and I applaud you for recognizing the danger. We will eventually get to the point where you cannot discriminate against anyone and then what? Heck, I remember when nobody wore seat belts and people died horrible deaths in car crashes like God intended. Now, we not only have to wear seat belts but we have air bags too. Gays and air bags are two things the government is doing to take away our freedoms. Next thing you know, we will have air bags designed for gay Malamutes. When will this end? (My dog is not Malaphobic. Some of my dog's best friends are Malamutes and they play together very well, though this one Malamute really raises his tail when wagging and it is upsetting to my person.)

 

Open carry? you mean handguns? Oh my, you are against guns? This is Texas son, we dont allow communist thinking like that here.

Legalized weed? Oh my, cant have that. You know that will cause all the gays and minorities to go crazy and stay high everyday and rape all the white women.

Polygamy? but but....in the Bible many men had multiple wives, why is that a bad thing?

Thanks for making sure everyone lives by your moral values, Im sure there is nothing wrong with that.

 

Dr. Peter Venkman: This city is headed for a disaster of biblical proportions.

Mayor: What do you mean, "biblical"?

Dr Ray Stantz: What he means is Old Testament, Mr. Mayor, real wrath of God type stuff.

Dr. Peter Venkman: Exactly.

Dr Ray Stantz: Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling!

Dr. Egon Spengler: Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes...

Winston Zeddemore: The dead rising from the grave!

Dr. Peter Venkman: Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!

Mayor: All right, all right! I get the point!



RIP

 

Not sure this is worth starting it's own thread so posting it here.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/201...rriage-kentucky.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=0

Recognize Gay Marriage, Kentucky Is Told

LOUISVILLE, Ky. — A federal judge on Thursday signed an order directing officials in Kentucky to immediately recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states and countries.

U.S. District Judge John G. Heyburn II issued a final order throwing out part of the state's ban on gay marriages. It makes official his Feb. 12 ruling that Kentucky's ban on same-sex marriages treated "gay and lesbian persons differently in a way that demeans them."

Same-sex couples may change their names on official identifications and documents and obtain any other benefits of a married couple in Kentucky. The order doesn't affect a related lawsuit seeking to force the state to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

The order came just hours after the Kentucky's attorney general asked for a 90-day delay. The two-page filing says the delay is sought to give that office time to decide whether to appeal the Feb. 12 ruling and would give the state an opportunity to prepare to implement the order.

Heyburn's final order did not mention the request for a stay and he had not ruled on it as of mid-afternoon Thursday.

Dawn Elliott, an attorney for one of the couples pursuing recognition of a marriage performed in Canada, praised the ruling.

"It's a great day to be from the commonwealth of Kentucky," Elliott said. "I hope that the attorney general and governor that I voted for don't jump on the appeal bandwagon."

The order means same-sex couples are allowed to change their names on official identifications and documents and obtain any other benefits of married couples in Kentucky. Heyburn's ruling doesn't affect a related lawsuit seeking to force the state to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Final briefings in the marriage license case are due to Heyburn by May 28.

It was unclear if or how many people would seek to immediately take advantage of the rights recognized in the rulings. Elliott and co-counsel Shannon Fauver said their clients were considering doing so Thursday afternoon but had not decided.

Nore Ghibaudy, a spokesman for the Jefferson County clerk, said until the state issues a directive notifying clerks of the legal change, no same-sex name changes or other legal documents will be issued.

"We have to follow the law until we hear otherwise," Ghibaudy said. "Whatever it is, we'd have no problem doing it."

Kentucky Attorney General Jack Conway said in a statement late Thursday afternoon that he was reviewing Heyburn's order.

"I have 30 days to determine whether or not to file an appeal in this case, which is why I asked Judge Heyburn for a stay of his order this morning," Conway's statement said. "I will be determining promptly, in consultation with Gov. (Steve) Beshear, whether or not to file an appeal in this case."

The decision in the socially conservative state comes against the backdrop of similar rulings or actions in other states where same-sex couples have long fought for the right to marry. Kentucky's constitutional ban was approved by voters in 2004 and included the out-of-state clause.

On Wednesday, a federal judge in Texas struck down that state's gay marriage ban but immediately delayed the implementation of his ruling pending appeals by the state.

The Kentucky ruling came in lawsuits brought by four gay and lesbian couples seeking to force the state to recognize their marriages performed outside Kentucky.

Martin Cothran, a senior policy analyst for the Family Foundation of Kentucky, criticized Conway's handling of the case, accusing him of "spiking" the state's defense by not making persuasive arguments to keep the ban in place.

"The Attorney General's office was clearly not intending to do its job. It only did what it was supposed to do after someone shed light on the fact that he was about to take one more action that favored those who are trying to disenfranchise Kentucky voters on the issue of marriage," Cothran said.

Laura Landenwich, an attorney representing several of the couples who sued, said now that marriages must be recognized, state employees will have to adjust to the ruling.

"It'll be interesting to see what happens," Landenwich said.

In his 23-page ruling issued Feb. 12, Heyburn concluded that the government may define marriage and attach benefits to it but cannot "impose a traditional or faith-based limitation" without sufficient justification.

"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," wrote Heyburn, an appointee of President George H.W. Bush.

 

I feel quite certain the libs will end up winning this battle. Although I disagree with the decision this will just be another nail in the coffin before judgement.

 

Gay marriage is God's will my friend.

 

I find gay marriage wrong. Marriage should be between a man and a woman.

















Yeah.

 

I have no problem with anyone entering into a civil contract for mutual support, legal responsibility, and being recognized as a unit for tax purposes.

 

How dare you, good sir?

Excuse me while I go meet a woman at a Vegas craps table, walk with her to the nearest hitchin' post and have a man dressed as Elvis perform our holy, heterosexual union.

 

all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.


last time I checked, for most people anyway, being allowed to marry the person you want to marry comes under the heading of "pursuit of happiness"

So, logic dictates that folks that are against gay people being able to marry are against the Constitution. What do you righties and religious folks have against the Constitution? I thought that document was the end all be all for you guys.

 

His closet?

 

I agree with you...but the quote you listed ("Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness") is from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. And some would argue that while the language of the Declaration is beautiful and moving, it isn't really binding in a legal sense.

Having said that, I still have yet to hear a Constitutional reason gay people should not be allowed to marry.

 

Talk about a hypocrite. That's not in the Constitution, anywhere. "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is in the Declaration of Independence. Thanks for playing.

 

How in the world does that make him a hypocrite?

 

yeah yeah, I am in fact aware of that.

The point I was making is that they claim to revere the founding fathers original words, adn those are every bit as much the founding father's words as the other document they revere so.

geeze guys...

 

Lets not talk about who's a hypocrite now.

Pretty sure every Christian is one given how many of Bible's verses they don't follow.

 

14th amendment.