Part Of Kentucky Gay Marriage Law Struck Down Due To Reciprocity

I don’t really care about this ruling vis a vis gay marriage as much as two other interesting points it brings up

(Courier-Journal) In a ruling that could open the door to gay marriage in Kentucky, a federal judge has struck down the state’s ban on recognizing same-sex unions performed in states where it is legal.

U.S. District Judge John G. Heyburn II ruled Wednesday that Kentucky’s prohibition violates the U.S. Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection under the law by treating gays and lesbians “differently in a way that demeans them.”

Ruling in a suit brought by four gay and lesbian couples and their children, Heyburn said that, while “religious beliefs … are vital to the fabric of society … 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.”

Heyburn’s decision strikes down part of Kentucky’s marriage amendment, enacted in 2004 by 74 percent of the voters, which says “only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Kentucky.”

Now, we could probably continue on with a discussion on the merits of what Judge Heyburn declared, in effect flushing the votes of 74% of Kentucky residents down the toilet, dismissing the 1st Amendment along religious liberty lines, and other notions. But, let’s consider some other issue, first with the 14th Amendment, which is the “equal protection clause” (the 5th amendment is also an equal protections amendment, however, that deals more with criminal behavior) Heyburn cites

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

At the heart of the ruling, this is about affording gays who have been legally married in other states the same recognition if they move to Kentucky (an interesting thought is “why did the gay married couples move to a state that doesn’t recognize their marriage in the first place?” ). Since they were afforded that right in another state, the judge says they should have the same right in Kentucky. Let’s consider, while this might be bad for gay marriage opponents, and even the judge notes that this opens the door to full gay marriage for all in Kentucky, it can also mean that other states MUST recognize …. gun rights. If you have obtained a concealed carry permit in Kentucky, if you move to, say, New York, they have to recognize that right. If Kentucky allows you to own a Bushmaster with a 30 round magazine, California must allow you to own it if you move their. If you have a Walther P99 with a 15 round magazine, Washington D. C. must allow ownership.

This may also have implications for simply visiting or passing through a state. Traveling to New York for a fishing trip? They must allow you gun that doesn’t comply with their law, but complies with your own state laws. Driving through D.C.? Same thing.

Let’s also consider that this applies to Obamacare. Regardless of his add-ons, Obamacare is treating different entities/individuals differently under the law. Some groups and companies are given waivers, while others aren’t. The employer mandate for all is extended out to 2015, the individual mandate isn’t. Companies with 50-99 employees have the employer mandate extended to 2017, those with more are not getting the same benefit. Individuals/small businesses are treated differently in different areas of the country. Young people are penalized for being young. Healthy people are penalized for being healthy. People are charged different rates on the federally run exchange than those in other states and counties. Some people get subsidies, others don’t.

Furthermore, Obamacare was supposedly an attempt to help the minority of US citizens without health insurance, but, in passing the legislation, it created negative effects on those with insurance, essentially penalizing them, violating the 5th and 14th Amendments. For a more detailed, legalistic view of this, please read this post.

Many have wondered why Republicans haven’t gone after Obamacare due to its equal protection violations. Judge Heyburn just opened that door. We should use it.

And don’t forget about your gun rights.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

3 Responses to “Part Of Kentucky Gay Marriage Law Struck Down Due To Reciprocity”

  1. Blick says:

    Captain, I find it odd that Judges find what they go looking for to justify their personal prejudice. You suggest the decision should also apply to 2nd amendment concealed carry. I agree, but I could argue the opposite that the most restrictive law applies so that all states must recognize the most restrictive state law not the most liberal. The judge rules that the most liberal marriage law becomes the recognized standard. This essentially allows one state to set the law for the whole nation. That makes a mockery of representative state government. I find the judge to be out of Order and in contempt of the People.

  2. john says:

    Staes law is subject to the US Constitution, doesn’t really matter what the majority of the voters want. That is the way it works here in the USA

  3. Toasty_Warm_Gumballs says:

    Wrong J. As Blick mentioned, it makes a mockery of state’s rights and the rights of citizens to choose their laws.

    This precedent would then mean the feds have the only say now in state’s laws. Or that any state law, would be immediately binding in all other states. THis is a travesty of law and of the rights of a state and its peoples to choose what laws to live under.

    Does this mean now that all states must recognize legalized marijuana? All states must recognize FREE and Unpermitted Open Carry? All states must have the same speed limits? All states now must pay the same oil and gas royalties, like AK pays? All states must now offer the same exact ObamaCare packages?

    All peoples must now pay the same tax rate? at a federal AND! state level? All peoples must be under the jurisdiction of another state’s law enforcement division?

    What is then the point of each state’s constitution? Of each state choosing laws?

    Proof that judges are as biased, as inept, and as in the tank for social causes as reporters are.

Pirate's Cove