SHARE

Sorry not sorry, Kentucky

Would you like to read Kentucky’s latest sad “logic” for why it is OK to ban The Gay from gay-marrying each other? You know, the Kentucky whose governor is a “Democrat”?

In an argument labeled absurd by gay marriage advocates, [Gov. Steve] Beshear’s lawyer says in a brief filed last week at the U.S. Supreme Court that “men and women, whether heterosexual or homosexual, cannot marry persons of the same sex” under Kentucky law, making the law non-discriminatory.

So all of those heterosexuals ladies and dudes in Kentucky who are trying to gay-marry other, respectively, ladies and dudes are also barred from doing that, ergo, the state’s ban applies to EVERYONE, fairly and equally, which makes it fair and equal! And also a terrible argument that will probably not sway the Supreme Court, but it may garner a few chuckles during oral arguments, so there’s that.

You may recall that last year, U.S. District Court Judge John G. Heyburn II told the state its ban was unconstitutional because he is a biased judicial activist, obviously. Oh, and also:

In America, even sincere and long-hold religious beliefs do not trump the constitutional rights of those who happen to have been out-voted.

But like all the other sad states who’ve gone cry-babying to higher courts for a second opinion, Kentucky did not leave well enough alone and accept defeat. Homo-lovin’ freedom-hatin’ Jack Conway, the state’s attorney general, said he wasn’t even going to bother wasting his time and the taxpayers’ money to fight to the bitter end for the right to discriminate against gays (and straights who want to do gay marriage, apparently), so “Democrat” Gov. Steve Beshear hired himself some private attorneys to keep fighting anyway, not that you should read into that AT ALL:

Beshear has declined to discuss his personal view of gay marriage and said he is defending the state’s ban because he thinks the issue should be decided by the nation’s highest court.

Kentucky — as well as Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee — found a sympathetic ear at the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, which opined that those states’ bans on gay marriage should stay in place, ACTUALLY, because “tradition” and also, they are but lowly caveman judges, so who are they to question the wisdom of voters who passed the ban in the first place? No, really, that is what they said:

How can we say that the voters acted irrationally for sticking with the seen benefits of thousands of years of adherence to the traditional definition of marriage in the face of one year of experience with a new definition of marriage? A State still assessing how this has worked, whether in 2004 or 2014, is not showing irrationality, just a sense of stability and an interest in seeing how the new definition has worked elsewhere. Even today, the only thing anyone knows for sure about the long-term impact of redefining marriage is that they do not know.

The Sixth Circuit also concluded that despite the Supreme Court’s various rulings on marriage equality in recent years, it is UNPOSSIBLE to know what the Supreme Court thinks about marriage equality. So until Kentucky and those other states get a handwritten note that says “Dear Kentucky, your ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional, stop that,” it’s best to leave the ban in place, just to be safe.

FYI, Kentucky, that note from the Supreme Court will probably be typed, not handwritten, but as we’ve mockingly said to you and all the other sad gay-haters, we are quite confident it will be on its way to you shortly.

Check your mail in June.

As the execution date for bans on marriage equality draws nigh, Bigot-Americans are desperately gasping for any possible justification (spoiler: there is none) to keep their beloved discriminatory laws in place. Not that it will work, because we have boldly predicted that the Supreme Court will soon issue a once-and-for-all decision this term that no, you cannot ban The Gay from getting married because that is “unconstitutional” and also “wrong” and sweet holy Moses, lawfully wedded buttsex and scissoring is NOT going to destroy your marriage or America, kindly shut the fuck up.

[The Courier-Journal]

$
Donate with CCDonate with CC
  • Zippy

    In America, even sincere and long-hold religious beliefs do not trump
    the constitutional rights of those who happen to have been out-voted

    *except in Indiana

    • MsAnthropesMr

      They want me, and I can’t go back there.

      • Villago Delenda Est

        Nor would I want to.

  • MsAnthropesMr

    You can’t argue with that “logic”. You really can’t.

  • Callyson
  • zerosumgame0005
  • Nounverb911

    Will someone please invent a vaccine for the stupids, please.

    • Zippy

      it wouldn’t work- they’re all anti vaxxers

      • willi0000000

        Catch-22

  • Zippy

    So if ghey marriage was the law of the land, it wouldn’t discriminate against straight people because nobody would be allowed to marry someone of the other gender?

    I’d bet that would go over real well with the fundies…

  • cousin itt

    “men and women, whether heterosexual or homosexual, cannot marry persons of the same sex” under Kentucky law, making the law non-discriminatory.

    I, I, I’m just gobsmacked. Back to where or when I don’t even know. The sheer magnitude of execrable malevolent bile contained in one sentence is simply so Vogon.

    • MsAnthropesMr

      Wait until the TeaHadis start writing poetry to make that judgment.

      • Toomush_Infer

        Volgon libel!..

        • sw19womble

          It’s okay, I’m carrying my towel

  • Callyson

    “men and women, whether heterosexual or homosexual, cannot marry persons of the same sex” under Kentucky law, making the law non-discriminatory

    What does this crap remind me of? Oh yeah:

    The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.

    Anatole France

    • willi0000000

      i’m going yo have to tab The Book of Wonderfulness™ . . . i’m three hours late with that quote.

      [or do you just use that (vastly overrated in my opinion) thing you youngs call memory?]

  • elviouslyqueer

    Sorry, but the winner for sheer argumentative stupidity still goes to the Tennessee AG who used the whole GHEYS CAN’T HAVE THE BABBIES, SO TOO BAD SO SAD canard. Apparently it never occurred to him that old folks, post-menopausal women, infertile couples, or anybody who just didn’t WANT to have children were also royally screwed by this line of “thinking.”

    tl;dr summary: Flaming idiots be idioting. And flaming.

    • willi0000000

      at least the TN argument is attached to reality by a thread . . . a stupid, thin, weak, frayed and on fire thread . . . but an actual thread.

      this KY argument doesn’t even aknowledge reality.

      [i know . . . splitting hairs]

  • Callyson

    Oh, for fuck’s sake, again with this “redefinition of marriage” crap? Yeah, that definition has changed over centuries, pal:

    Actually, the institution has been in a process of constant evolution. Pair-bonding began in the Stone Age as a way of organizing and controlling sexual conduct and providing a stable structure for child-rearing and the tasks of daily life. But that basic concept has taken many forms across different cultures and eras. “Whenever people talk about traditional marriage or traditional families, historians throw up their hands,” said Steven Mintz, a history professor at Columbia University. “We say, ‘When and where?'” The ancient Hebrews, for instance, engaged in polygamy — according to the Bible, King Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines — and men have taken multiple wives in cultures throughout the world, including China, Africa, and among American Mormons in the 19th century. Polygamy is still common across much of the Muslim world. The idea of marriage as a sexually exclusive, romantic union between one man and one woman is a relatively recent development. Until two centuries ago, said Harvard historian Nancy Cott, “monogamous households were a tiny, tiny portion” of the world population, found in “just Western Europe and little settlements in North America.”

    • Villago Delenda Est

      Until two centuries ago, said Harvard historian Nancy Cott, “monogamous
      households were a tiny, tiny portion” of the world population, found in
      “just Western Europe and little settlements in North America.”

      Western European and North American exceptionalism RULZ!

    • Lizzietish81
  • docterry6973

    And segregation wasn’t discrimination because NO ONE could allow black people into the whites-only waiting rooms. Black or white, you couldn’t let the blacks inside.

  • AmusedAmused

    The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.

    – Anatole France

  • schmannity

    Lorretta Lynn will be singing Co-Parents Daughter by July.

  • Lot_49

    What good is democracy if you can’t vote someone else’s rights away?

  • Oblios_Cap

    Why do you have a picture of Flor-i-duh’s AG up there?

    Bondi’s enough to make a man turn gay, if he wasn’t already.

  • Lizzietish81

    Ah the old “A gay man can marry a woman just like a straight man” argument. I know someone from na old message board who thinks this is awesome. Because he is a jackass.

  • dslindc

    I just want to vote the living shit out of these people sometimes!

    Sorry, Kentucky! Just be happy we reminded you about June in advance so you would have time to go out and get some throat lube to be ready for the cramming. You’re welcome!

    • Zippy

      Kentucky throat lube- AKA Early Times bourbon in a dirty Dixie cup

      • Lot_49

        But only in the wet counties!

    • Celtic_Gnome

      They need a roadkill flavor. That’ll make it go down real easy.

  • Ducksworthy

    “men and women, whether heterosexual or homosexual, cannot marry
    persons of the same sex” under Kentucky law, making the law
    non-discriminatory.” Logic. Wait. It that how logic works?

    • MrBlobfish

      Cuz shut up. That’s why.

  • Spotts1701

    Okay, then. I’m sure this made sense on whatever planet you’re from, fella. But here on this ball of mud we call “Earth”, it does not flow.
    http://rgh.cc/albums/userpics/10001/Can_t_argue_with_that_logic.gif

    • Zippy

      the wheels on the bus go round and round

      • Blank Ron

        And fall off in Kentucky.

  • Lizzietish81

    You do have to wonder about the small minded pettiness of these people. I mean, ten years ago when it was first blossoming in MA you can see them thinking they had a chance to stop it, but now? It’s like trying to deny the Emancipation Proclamation while Gen Sherman is outside taking liberties with your cows, or dressing like a lady while Richmond burns around you so you can escape for a week.

    • maxneanderthal

      Yup, Reminds you of Hitler threatening to arrest his generals, when the entire Soviet Army is blowing the shit out of the Riechstag above his head…

    • sw19womble

  • Dudleydidwrong

    I guess this is what passes for “critical thinking skills” that KY is passing along to young Kentuckians in the school system? I wonder what the test for this looks like.

    “KY: it’s more than a lube–but not much.”

    • Lot_49

      The rich history of denial goes at least as far back as 1925.

  • Biel_ze_Bubba

    Anti-miscegenation laws applied to blacks and whites equally too.
    Ergo, not racist at all!

    ex contradictione quodlibet
    Teabagger logic does not form a self-consistent system.

    • Blank Ron

      ‘Consistently moranic’ doesn’t count?

    • Jared James

      And some Asians. I swear I did not make that up; it stood out as especially absurd in a fairly ridiculous argument.

  • FauxAntocles

    Katnip says:

  • Barry_D

    That argument is the ***exact*** same one used against interracial marriage (‘whites and blacks are free to marry people of their own race’).

    • Mehmeisterjr

      Alls we’s sayin’ is white The Gays can’t marry black The Gays. But they is all equally free to not marry each other.

  • Last Hussar

    I think its disgusting that SCOTUS will end the ban on Gay Marriage.

    THAT’S WHAT YOU HAVE POLITICIANS FOR – YOU SHOULDN’T BE WAITING FOR JUDGES TO SEE WHAT A LAW SAYS TO SEE IF THAT CAN BE APPLIED. YOU SHOULD BE DEMANDING THAT THE LAWMAKERS RECOGNISE PEOPLE’S RIGHTS NOT TO BE INTERFERED WITH BY GOD-BOTHERERS.

    Ahem – sorry for shouting.

    • Toomush_Infer

      What!?….

      • Last Hussar

        Equality shouldn’t rely on legal manoeuvrings, but should spring from the will of the people.

        • Blank Ron

          Pfft, what do the PEOPLE know? Always whining for ‘fair treatment’ and ‘a living wage’ and ‘health care.’ You’d think there were documents somewhere that promised these things, but who’d be stupid enough to write such a thing?

        • Incoming Ham

          That’s cute.

  • MrBlobfish

    March Madness

  • cessnadriver

    History repeating itself as farce.

  • Guest

    How can we say that the voters acted irrationally for sticking with the
    seen benefits of thousands of years of adherence to the traditional
    definition of marriage in the face of one year of experience with a new
    definition of marriage?

    Y’know. All this BS would disappear if they just got rid of all the “special rights” that married people have and allowed them for all couples that entered into a mutual contract. Then the word “marriage” wouldn’t have to be involved at all.

    But noooooo!

    It’s easier to beat the bible and whine, whine, whine.

  • chicken thief

    I know when I want to know how the world is in 2015, or think about how it should be in the future, I always first look to the wisdom of those backwoods motherfuckers in KY. Because Jesus is always yacking at them for some reason.

  • maxneanderthal

    “Adherence to the traditional definition of marriage” er, I think you’ll find that’s always been a lot more fluid than you think it has…….

    • Blank Ron

      We’re talking about people who have a VERY specific date in mind for ‘tradition.’

  • Me not sure

    “…and despite what the Bible says, in KY (the personal lubricant state ), lions and lambs lying down together is not gonna happen either!”

    • Blank Ron

      But what if she’s really, REALLY cute and wooly?

      – a very confused lion

      • Me not sure

        Don’t pretend to be a lion. We are fully aware of your type!

        • Celtic_Gnome

          And make sure you use the right bathroom!

          • Me not sure

            Ewe betcha!

  • MAZS

    So its okay so long as everyone is permitted to discriminate against everyone. Extra discrimination magically solves discrimination. Better watch out heterosexual, white males.

    • RJ (TO)

      It’s discrimination to discriminate against discrimination but not if you discriminate first. See? Easy peasy.

    • Blank Ron

      A bigoted society is a polite society.

  • OneYieldRegular

    How did those judges get put on the Sixth Circuit? The principle for their argument seems to be something along the lines of “Unless the future can be precisely predicted, we should remain in the past.”

    • Mehmeisterjr

      Eight appointed by Dubya. One each appointed by Reagan and Papa Bush. Get the picture?

  • Rabbit_Rebozo

    and also, they are but lowly caveman judges, so who are they to question the wisdom of voters who passed the ban in the first place?

    They haven’t even been unfrozen yet.

  • Wonkaholic

    Okay, so, I’m a single breeder, but you’re saying that in Kentucky I can’t marry my gardener, Lupe, so he can get a green card? Unfair! I’m not even a feygeleh!Also, too, it’s not Gay if your balls don’t touch, right? Asking for a friend.

  • Toomush_Infer

    So….the fear, then, is that all those heterosexuals will switch over to being gay married over the further course of history?…makes perfect sense….

    • sw19womble

      It’s a choice, remember? Just ask Dr Carlson and his bit on the side, Dan Savage.

  • Gleem-McShinez

    “The long-term impact of redefining marriage” is that God just might start smiting!!

    Like Klingenschmarmosett said, when God hates abortions, He makes psycho-slashers slash babies!
    So because God hates gay marriage, He’s going to make a handful of straight marriages fail.
    DON’T MAKE GOD SMITE RUSH LIMBAUGH’S MARRIAGE, SELFISH GAYLIBTARDS!

  • Rebecca Gardner

    Attorneys actually wrote this? Ones that passed the BAR?

    • RJ (TO)

      They were probably IN the bar when they wrote it.

      • DahBoner

        A bar so low, they call It The Mine Shaft

  • Gleem-McShinez

    This is why bans on certain kinds of guns are ok with everyone.

    Because they keep both gun-nuts as well as gun-haters from owning certain kinds of guns.

    MAKES PERFECT SENSE, RIGHT?

  • m3bosha

    “All we know, is that we know nothing” — The 6th Circuit Court

    • RJ (TO)

      Please let the 6th Circuit Court know there are places where marriage equality has been legal nationwide for a decade or more with no society-destroying effects or Armageddon-type happenings. I mean, Canada hasn’t been swallowed by the earth, has it? I haven’t looked in a while, though, so who knows.

      • Blank Ron

        Nope, though we’ve had rather a lot of snow lately, so maybe that was it?

    • DahBoner

      Odd, isn’t it?

      Those who know nothing are certain of everything…
      http://media.giphy.com/media/qrGm0i7LhTN4c/giphy.gif

  • I guess that’s why anti-abortion laws are fair, too. They also prevent men from having abortions.

  • Virginia Dreaming

    When this doesn’t work, will they try holding their breath until they turn blue?

    • VirginiaLady

      We can only hope to see the video of that on YT!

  • Baby_Raptor

    A lot of people seem sure that the bigots on the Supreme Court are going to make a legal, sound ruling.

    I don’t understand how anyone can expect that.

    • Paperless Tiger

      It is unnerving since the Supreme Court went partisan and began acting as a politburo. The Roberts clique will do whatever they consider politically expedient for their party, which is also unnerving, since their party is full of fanatics lately. However, they do not seem to take orders from their party leaders, but rather directly from the corporatist oligarchy, which is aloof from the Tea Party dupes.

      • Which is why I’m confident they will let Obamacare stand. The insurance corporations are making boffo box office off it, which is of course why Barry pushed for it rather than single-payer; he wanted Wall Street on HIS side.

      • david green

        I’m inclined to agree with you. Der Wonkette is being way too optimistic that the SCOTUS will make a rational decision. After the hatchet job done to logic in the Hobby Lobby case, I dread to see what kind of Frankenstein monster Roberts and his clique of grumpy old men can cobble together instead of a clean decision.

  • ViveLaRes

    “Would you like to read Kentucky’s latest sad “logic” for why it is OK to ban The Gay from gay-marrying each other?”
    No.

  • DahBoner

    Being out-voted never stopped George W. Bush.

    http://media3.giphy.com/media/bS3QQjYp39gXK/200w.gif

    • ahughes798

      Ni!

  • zerosumgame0005

    The Bachmanns better not visit KY!

  • Pseudonym

    Right, and both blacks and whites alike are banned from marrying a member of a different race, so of course anti-miscegenation laws aren’t discriminatory either.

  • Incoming Ham

    How can we say that the voters acted irrationally for sticking with the seen benefits of thousands of years of adherence to the traditional definition of marriage in the face of one year of experience with a new definition of marriage?

    Thousands of years of traditional marriage?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFkeKKszXTw

  • valgalky23

    Putting in the absurd argument was a way for a Dem Gov and Dem Attny General (now running for Gov) in a red state make certain the Supremes would nix the state law because everyone has to placate the many bible thumper voters in KY, at least for awhile. It’s a clever thing really, it makes the thumpers believe it’s full proof when really it’s fool proof. Meanwhlle said Gov is setting up a successful health care exchange and has to go the extra mile to make sure it doesn’t “really” have anything to do with Obama. The Gov had a lot on his plate and frankly it was a clever way to beat the bible thumpers in the end. In states like KY you just have to do things that way sometimes. Whatever works.
    late edit: You might say they beat the right wing by playing it’s own game of crazy. Make the law ridiculous and it will certainly be shot down. Dems and progressives are working hard down here in the red states, it ain’t easy.

  • geoffalnutt

    Look. Can we just keep it simple here!!! Yes, No or George. Geez.

  • fratdawgg23

    These “religious freedom” and “protect str8 marriage” laws are surely being helped along by alumni of Jerry Falwell’s or Oral Roberts’ law schools.

    • Rabbit_Rebozo

      Huh huh huh. You said ‘oral’.

  • Serolf Divad

    And requiring black folks to sit at the back of the bus was perfectly non-discriminatory, too, because the rules applied to both African Americans and also to Caucasians who happened to be black.

Previous articleWonkette Buys Human Again, A Queer Gay Homosexual One For A Change
Next articleWhat Really Happened To Harry Reid? The Wingnut Theories Might Not Surprise You!