George H.W. Bush appointee U.S. District Court Judge John G. Heyburn II tore into what he called the “bewildering” and “illogical” arguments for Kentucky’s same-sex marriage ban Tuesday, saying, “These arguments are not those of serious people.”
Though the judgment does not have much significance legally as an August 6th federal appellate court will address the issue, thus superseding it, the tone of Heyburn’s ruling is noteworthy as it is perhaps the most dismissive to date of some traditional marriage arguments.
Addressing the state’s argument that marriage is in part designed for procreation, Heyburn blasted the argument as so unserious and "illogical" that it shouldn’t even require explanation:
These arguments are not those of serious people. Though it seems almost unnecessary to explain, here are the reasons why. Even assuming the state has a legitimate interest in promoting procreation, the Court fails to see, and Defendant never explains, how the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage has any effect whatsoever on procreation among heterosexual spouses. Excluding same-sex couples from marriage does not change the number of heterosexual couples who choose to get married, the number who choose to have children, or the number of children they have…
The state’s attempts to connect the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage to its interest in economic stability and in “ensuring humanity’s continued existence” are at best illogical and even bewildering.
Heyburn ultimately argued that religious views, no matter how long-held, cannot trump others’ constitutional rights, and the equal protection of same-sex couples was a “uniquely ‘free’ constitutional right”:
Those opposed by and large simply believe that the state has the right to adopt a particular religious or traditional view of marriage regardless of how it may affect gay and lesbian persons. But, as this Court has respectfully explained, in America even sincere and long-held religious views do not trump the constitutional rights of those who happen to have been out-voted…
Sometimes, by upholding equal rights for a few, courts necessarily must require others to forebear some prior conduct or restrain some personal instinct. Here, that would not seem to be the case. Assuring equal protection for same-sex couples does not diminish the freedom of others to any degree. Thus, same-sex couples’ right to marry seems to be a uniquely “free” constitutional right. Hopefully, even those opposed to or uncertain about same-sex marriage will see it that way in the future.
H/T HotAir.
