Kentucky AG Won't Appeal Same-Sex Marriage Order—Gay Marriage News Roundup

Order requiring Kentucky to recognize out of state same-sex marriages will go into effect on March 20.

The latest news: Kentucky's attorney general says that he will not appeal an order to recognize same-sex marriages from out of state. The order will take effect on March 20. 

Previous news on gay marriage: 

A group of Republicans from Western states are to urge the the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit in Denver to rule gay marriage bans unconstitutional.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) has responded to Reason's request for comment on a judge recently ordering Kentucky to recognize out of state same-sex marriages. Statement below:

I believe in the historic and religious definition of marriage.  I also believe this power belongs to the states and the people, not the federal government.  It is illegitimate for the federal courts to intrude here.

On Friday (2/28), the judge who ordered Kentucky to recognize same-sex marriages legally performed in other states put a three-week hold on his ruling.

On Thursday (2/27), Reason reached out to Brian Darling, a spokesman for Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), asking if the senator had a comment on the recent same-sex marriage ruling in Kentucky. At the time of writing Reason has yet to receive a comment. Darling said shortly after Reason contacted him that there was no comment from Paul "for now" and that he had not spoken to him about the ruling.  

On Thursday, the state of Texas appealed the ruling from a federal judge that declared the state's ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional.

In Kentucky, the state's attorney general has requested a court order to recognize same sex-marriages from other states be delayed by 90 days so that Kentucky can decide whether or not to appeal.

Earlier this week, Texas became the latest state where a federal judge has ruled a state ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional. That judge, Orlando Garcia, a Clinton appointee, immediately stayed his own ruling while a state appeal is working its way through the syste.

Related previous coverage from Reason:

Scott Shackford has written on whether gay marriage is to blame for straight couples getting kinky and on a federal judge's recent ruling against Virginia's ban on same-sex marriage.

Scott interviewed gay conservative activist Jimmy LaSalvia and asked him why he is turning his back on the GOP.

Steve Chapman on the myth of "traditional marriage."

Scott on why 2013 was America's gayest year so far.

Ed Krayewski on why gay marriage is one of the four issues Republicans could embrace this year to stay relevant.

More from Reason.com on gay marriage here.

Comments

[mad.casual]

"Go back to Oklahoma."

[Seamus_Cameron]

And where does the Federal Government get the power to involve itself in a State Issue?

[Spencer]

When the state enacts laws that are unconstitutional, the federal government intervenes. This has been the case since inception- correct?

[rogerfgay]

No, not really; and that's not how it happened. First, the federal government intruded arbitrarily into marriage and family law (welfare reform, 1980s and 1990s) in order to steal billions of dollars annually in federal funds; then the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals blessed the arrangement by legally redefining marriage from a private institution to a public social program (from civil law to social policy). From a constitutional perspective, that meant that the only constitutional principle involved in equal treatment, which must be applied without consideration for substance.

[Spencer]

Didn't perry v brown actually just state that the majority can't classify and oppress the majority by special election initiatives? (especially when that initiative has no basis in fact?)

Wasn't this really a simple protection against the tyranny of the majority?

[R C Dean]

where does the Federal Government get the power to involve itself in a State Issue

From the 14th Amendment?

[Charles.H.Anziulewicz@wv.]

"Where does the Federal Government get the power to involve itself in a state Issue?

DEAR SEAMUS:

As someone who believes very strongly in marriage equality for Gay couples, I need to point out that the federal government has complicated the issue more than anyone. While it is true that the Constitution says nothing about marriage, there are 1,138 legal benefits, protections, and responsibilities (according to the Government Accounting Office) that the federal government automatically bestows on married couples. Much of this has to do with tax law and Social Security. So it simply wouldn't do for a Gay couple that is legally married in Iowa to suddenly become UN-married if they move someplace else.

Straight couples have never had to jump through these kinds of hoops. Thanks to the "Full Faith & Credit" clause, if any Straight couple flies off to Las Vegas for a drunken weekend and gets married by an Elvis impersonator, that marriage is automatically honored in all 50 states. Gay couples, however, are held to a different (and hence unconstitutional) legal standard.

The only way marriage can be a "States Rights" issue is for the federal government to get out of the marriage business completely, and do away with the 1,138 benefits it grants to married couples. Tell me how thrilled most married couples would be with THAT.

[mad.casual]

Any straight couple flies off to Las Vegas for a drunken weekend and gets married by an Elvis impersonator, that marriage is automatically honored in all 50 states. Gay couples, however, are held to a different (and hence unconstitutional) legal standard.

1. I don't approve of the straight couples' drunken weekend getting them approved for any federal benefits.

2. Doesn't comparing a gay marriage to a bad marriage kinda imply subcionsciously suggest highlight the fact that the two aren't equal?

[darius404]

1. The government currently gives out benefits to married couples (as unwanted as that is by the both of us) and you don't get to invalidate someone else's marriage just because you don't like the circumstances.

2. He's not comparing gay marriage to a bad marriage, it's just a common example of an out-of-state marriage.

[mad.casual]

1. The government currently gives out benefits to married couples

Who's government? Of, By, and For, right?

(as unwanted as that is by the both of us)

Then why are you arguing with me?

and you don't get to invalidate someone else's marriage just because you don't like the circumstances.

"By the power vested in me by God and the state of..."

"Speak now or forever hold your peace."

If it falls under the purview of a Democratically elected Federal Republic in an era of redefining marriage then yeah, I get a voice if not a vote.

2. He's not comparing gay marriage to a bad marriage, it's just a common example of an out-of-state marriage.

Not buying it. He chose to say 'drunken weekend' not 'eloped to Vegas'. He's clearly equivocating a gay marriage to an inferior or ill-conceived traditional marriage.

[Rasilio]

"2. Doesn't comparing a gay marriage to a bad marriage kinda imply subcionsciously suggest highlight the fact that the two aren't equal?"

irrelivant, change it to a couple married in any other state who moves to the state which wants to ban gay marriage and the situation still holds.

You can have 2 couples each married for more than a decade with 2 children but one is straight and the other gay.

The straight couple automatically gets to keep their marriage and all rights and privileges it bestows, the gay couple does not. This is a violation of the equal protection clause.

There is a valid states rights issue on whether a state would perform a gay marriage and what state level legal benefits and privileges that are granted to married couples, however once any state recognizes a marriage regardless of who is in the marriage then all states must recognize it and provide the same protections and privileges to that marriage as they do to any other

[Hilda0414]

Get the intrusive federal government out of marriage? What a great idea....

[Pavlov's Cat]

Get the intrusive federal government out of marriage? What a great idea....

The best idea is to get all government out of marriage.
My marriage is between my wife and me. (You may include your religious organization if you choose to have one. I wouldn't, and I don't.) Anybody else wanting anything to do with it -- including my children -- can kiss my ass.

[Marshall Gill]

The only way marriage can be a "States Rights" issue is for the federal government to get out of the marriage business completely, and do away with the 1,138 benefits it grants to married couples. Tell me how thrilled most married couples would be with THAT.

It is insane to suggest that it is oppressive to those who wish to get "married" but fine and dandy for single people?

Since you concede that marriage fucks those not married, perhaps ending it, even if the recipients like it, is the answer, rather than expanding it?

[darius404]

It's oppressive for the federal government to create 2nd class marriage with unequal treatment.

Having the federal government treating all marriages the same isn't "expanding" anything, it's simply removing discrimination and providing equal protection under the law.

[mad.casual]

It's oppressive for the federal government to create 2nd class marriage with unequal treatment.

It's oppressive for the federal government to do lots of the things it does. Making special exceptions based on sex and love doesn't eliminate classes or make people any more equal.

Having the federal government treating all marriages the same isn't "expanding" anything, it's simply removing discrimination and providing equal protection under the law.

First, it's not removing discrimination. Heterosexism will always be the norm and unless you radically redefine marriage to obviate its relation to sexuality (such as by allowing polygamy) heterosexist marriage will be the normal bias.

Second, it's expanding the tax base. The liberal progressive tax plan was set up around traditional single-earner type marriages. Modern marriages (and presumably homosexual marriages) are more representative of dual-income households and fall into higher tax brackets. Many more married couples (gay and straight) fall above the magical $400K "one-percenter" line than do individuals.

Lastly, a significant portion of the protections offered by the Federal institution are in places where the Federal Gov't has no business or are protections from oppressive Federal policies.

[rogerfgay]

I know we're in the midst of a culture war and everything, but are you guys (all media, including Reason) just going to keep missing the point? The extremist nonsense is actually starting to bore me, no matter how it threatens whatever. No matter how much propaganda from both sides of the argument has been rubbed in everybody's faces, people are starting to figure it out for themselves. They will eventually fix it, blowing all the dishonest hard work away, and you'll end up looking like idiots.

[LibertarianX]

I agree. All will come in time, and trying to force the issue brings anger and hardens positions. You want to win the hearts and minds, not force it down their throats.

[Spencer]

Yep. that's why all oppressed people throughout history were able to wait out their oppressors. Much less icky and in your face that way.

[R C Dean]

that's why all oppressed people throughout history were able to wait out their oppressors.

Are we really dumbing down "oppressed" to include "no gay marriage"?

[Spencer]

"to burden with cruel or unjust impositions or restraints" Is this not an unjust imposition or restraint?

[RightNut]

I guess my parents repressed me a lot as a child then.

[mad.casual]

Why do you hate recreational drug users?

[mad.casual]

Are we really dumbing down "oppressed" to include "no gay marriage"?

The 'marriage penalty' was conceived with traditional marriage in mind and carries a notion of creating gender equality. The high income earner is penalized while the low/none income earner is 'subsidized'. Dual-income households, where the partners are less traditionally disparate are only penaltaxed. Moreover, Obama rolled back tax cuts on households making over $400K/yr. Two $201K/yr. individuals who are unable to file jointly don't qualify.

You are oppressed by not qualifying for higher taxes and getting the rights the government grants you wrt the money it collected.

[Calidissident]

There are a lot of protections that marriage provides besides welfare benefits and things like that. In a free society, licenses wouldn't be necessary to accomplish any of those things, and I do support ending marriage licenses, but if they are going to be given out, they should be available to straight and gay couples

[mad.casual]

There are a lot of protections that marriage provides besides welfare benefits and things like that.

Right, marriage lets spouses opt in to programs that are generally anti-libertarian in nature or are guises for more statist programs and policies. Programs that shouldn't exist, aren't sustainable long term, carry an ever larger tax burden, and require us to raise the debt ceiling every few months suddenly can include homosexuals and their spouses. Fucking people over, equally or not, is still fucking people over.

I do support ending marriage licenses, but if they are going to be given out, they should be available to straight and gay couples

No, they should be wholly revoked or offered to anyone who can cobble together any sort of loose social group that might want to share property, confer benefits, share spousal privileges, etc. Why should the privileges extend to a gay spouse with no children but not to a nanny who's lived with a different family and watched the kids for 15 yrs.?

For Christ's sake, I can cobble together a network of 12 people on my cellular plan with three separate bills, split six properties and three cars among two corporate entities, but social security can only be offered to me and *maybe* one other person? Bullshit.

[Spencer]

This was utter and total nonsense.

[bassjoe]

You missed the story where SCOTUS further legitimized civil seizure laws...

[deffmike]

Oh please, not this issue.. Does he really need to be involved in this?

[Joao]

This whole gay marriage issue is made up.

Soon many more people will be gay, despite what science claims, that it is in the genes, therefore, only so many will be gay. It is, in fact, in the CULTURE.

Sexuality is about sex. And sex is everywhere.

Since sexuality is now a social issue, soon enough folks will be gay or pro-gay to force any state to accept gay marriage.

That it is a social issue also means that it will be pushed on folks, even if they don't hate gays, but are against gay marriage.

No reason to worry that it will divide the country. It divides those who claim to believe in Liberty, thusly making them politically useless at reducing government power and spending.

[estevancarlos]

How does the "religious definition of marriage" fit into this libertarian perspective at all?

[american socialist]

So Mr. Libertarian turns out to be a gay marriage bigot. It's interesting how the commentary here conflates federalism with libertarianism. This site really has become a sad sack clearinghouse for right wing apologia.

[Michael Ejercito]

There is nothing bigoted about defining marriage as a "union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony" Murphy v. Ramsey, 114 U.S. 15 at 45 (1885) this definition predates the concept of sexual orientation.

[american socialist]

So libertarians are now citing case law to get the government involved in the process of sanctioning marriage? That's some funky, funky libertarianism. I second the comments of Ali below.

[Ali_Bertarian]

If the 14th Amendment forbids discrimination against people by gender, then how should the government be allowed to discriminate against any number of people, of any relationship, who don't even know each other, who don't live together, from getting "married" for the purpose of getting those 1,138 legal benefits, protections, and responsibilities? What part of the Constitution allows discrimination based upon number of people, cohabitation, or relationship, but not gender?

Those who think that the 14th Amendment forbids discrimination based upon gender can point to nothing in the Constitution that forbids the government from making distinctions among people in the laws. That is why one person can pay more taxes than another person, even though they are not treated equally. The 14th Amendment only states that the laws must be equally applied once those distinction-drawing laws are passed. The 14th Amendment was written to stop the former Confederate States from applying laws to whites, but not to blacks, even though the laws were clear that blacks were covered by the laws. The fact that the courts have ignored this meaning of the 14th Amendment does not mean that the Constitution says what the marriage-equality advocates claim; it just means that the courts have ignored the Constitution and made their own law of the land.

[Ali_Bertarian]

Why do so-called libertarians of Reason want marriage laws to remain on the books? Do libertarians want some people to get those 1,138 legal benefits, protections, and responsibilities, but not others? I thought that libertarians wanted less government intrusiveness. So why do they want the government stamp of approval upon their personal relationships? A cynic might think that Reason is just pandering to a demographic that they think can be brought into the fold.

[~Knarf Yenrab~]

We don't; No; We want to end the state; We don't; Being cynical is bad for your health.

[AnCapNow!]

Search Results

mar?riage
?marij/
noun
noun: marriage; plural noun: marriages
1.
the formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife.

People who try to change the meanings of words to suit ideology are nothing short Orwellian.

[highnumber]

I'd respect your point of view a wee bit more if you had commented in Old English.

[mad.casual]

I'm still waiting for Rand Paul and the other faux libertarians to show where states were EVER delegated this power. They weren't, and neither were the feds, which makes it a judicial matter (by definition).

SCOTUS in a little known case of Windsor v. United States:
"the definition and regulation of marriage has been treated as being within the authority and realm of the separate States."

I won't hold my breath until you're able to find your own ass with both hands.