tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post2129571681512781882..comments2024-03-28T15:39:28.239-04:00Comments on Vital Remnants: A prominent Kentucky conservative caves on the marriage issueMartin Cothranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16452612266051351726noreply@blogger.comBlogger18125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-78676769099899639892014-03-04T11:49:36.189-05:002014-03-04T11:49:36.189-05:00KyCobb,
That's wrong. Even if the reasons pro...KyCobb,<br /><br />That's wrong. Even if the reasons proffered by the state are not legitimate, there just needs to be a conceivable reason that would be legitimate.<br /><br />And, really, Heyburn was applying elements from intermediate and strict scrutiny, over-inclusivity and narrow tailoring respectively.Thomas M. Cothranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07824873424225826685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-55095733131433211132014-03-02T16:33:49.238-05:002014-03-02T16:33:49.238-05:00Martin,
As a practical matter, that means the pla...Martin,<br /><br />As a practical matter, that means the plaintiffs have to demonstrate the irrationality of the of the reasons proffered by the state. Which is what happened, according to Judge Heyburn's opinion.KyCobbnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-27482007986495712572014-03-01T09:34:25.128-05:002014-03-01T09:34:25.128-05:00KyCobb,
Sorry, it doesn't work that way.
&qu...KyCobb,<br /><br /><i>Sorry, it doesn't work that way.</i><br /><br />"Plaintiffs have the burden to prove either that there is no conceivable legitimate purpose for the law or that the means chosen to effectuate a legitimate purpose are not rationally related to that purpose."<br /><br />John G. Heyburn, <i>Boarke v. Beshear</i>, p. 10Martin Cothranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16452612266051351726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-49980915123194196862014-03-01T01:26:40.331-05:002014-03-01T01:26:40.331-05:00Martin,
Sorry, it doesn't work that way. Onc...Martin,<br /><br />Sorry, it doesn't work that way. Once the plaintiffs showed that the state uses a discriminatory classification, the state has to show that it is rationally related to a legitimate state purpose. One judge after another all over the country has found there is no such rational basis for denying same-sex couples marriage licenses.KyCobbnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-42541007784090592872014-02-28T23:33:19.817-05:002014-02-28T23:33:19.817-05:00KyCobb,
I don't need an argument. YOU need an...KyCobb,<br /><br />I don't need an argument. YOU need an argument since the burden of proof is on the person challenging the law.Martin Cothranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16452612266051351726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-63678084275732517602014-02-28T11:46:27.970-05:002014-02-28T11:46:27.970-05:00Martin,
Well what is your argument? What is the ...Martin,<br /><br />Well what is your argument? What is the legitimate, conservative state interest, and how is it promoted by prohibiting homosexual couples from marrying?KyCobbnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-11152123556584427922014-02-28T11:00:04.171-05:002014-02-28T11:00:04.171-05:00KyCobb,
The logic of this case doesn't requir...KyCobb,<br /><br /><i>The logic of this case doesn't require the striking of all classifications, or allowing polygamy or incestuous marriages. Most classifications merely have to have a rational relationship to a conceivable legitimate state interest, so they easily withstand constitutional challenge. But opponents of same-sex marriage have been singularly unable to identify a legitimate Martin Cothranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16452612266051351726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-35810540958389528382014-02-28T10:43:16.594-05:002014-02-28T10:43:16.594-05:00Anonymous,
Wow. You and the Global Warming alarmi...Anonymous,<br /><br />Wow. You and the Global Warming alarmists need to get together.Martin Cothranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16452612266051351726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-9016098435700856822014-02-28T01:23:32.926-05:002014-02-28T01:23:32.926-05:00Universal GAYety is Coming !
Gays are found ... Universal GAYety is Coming !<br /><br /> Gays are found throughout history. For the first time ever - finally - they're almost worldwide! Wow!<br /> This global gaydom is even foretold in the Bible - predicted by Jesus (see "days of Lot" in Luke 17 and compare with Genesis 19).<br /> And the Hebrew prophet Zechariah (14th chapter) says that during the same Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-77597568424252351932014-02-27T10:00:20.575-05:002014-02-27T10:00:20.575-05:00Dear Mr. Adams,
You said:
"I don't think...Dear Mr. Adams,<br /><br />You said:<br />"I don't think the people who wrote Kentucky's 1850 Constitution, which included Section 2, ever considered same sex marriage but, given the many examples of polygamy in the Bible, perhaps they gave it some thought. "<br /><br />So, they gave polygamy (practiced in the OT) some thought and decided to do what? Make it legal? Or did they Billy Hendersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09648894589512825267noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-15661431436738300342014-02-27T07:55:15.233-05:002014-02-27T07:55:15.233-05:00Martin,
You mean Heyburn's opinion? Yes I hav...Martin,<br /><br />You mean Heyburn's opinion? Yes I have. In the latest news, it was reported that Heyburn is going to go ahead and make his initial opinion a final order, meaning that same-sex couples' out-of-state marriages will have to be recognized unless the state moves to obtain a stay from the 6th Circuit or SCOTUS.KyCobbnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-19064664071236765502014-02-27T01:50:26.545-05:002014-02-27T01:50:26.545-05:00KyCobb,
Have you read the case?KyCobb,<br /><br />Have you read the case?Martin Cothranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16452612266051351726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-81451574877632213142014-02-26T19:41:21.057-05:002014-02-26T19:41:21.057-05:00Martin,
Your post serves only to expose your igno...Martin,<br /><br />Your post serves only to expose your ignorance of the law. The logic of this case doesn't require the striking of all classifications, or allowing polygamy or incestuous marriages. Most classifications merely have to have a rational relationship to a conceivable legitimate state interest, so they easily withstand constitutional challenge. But opponents of same-sex KyCobbnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-64921930258018623462014-02-26T14:23:05.315-05:002014-02-26T14:23:05.315-05:00Those Bush judges are great, aren't they?Those Bush judges are great, aren't they?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-89687598479183404082014-02-26T13:57:26.724-05:002014-02-26T13:57:26.724-05:00I don't think the people who wrote Kentucky...I don't think the people who wrote Kentucky's 1850 Constitution, which included Section 2, ever considered same sex marriage but, given the many examples of polygamy in the Bible, perhaps they gave it some thought. Nevertheless, I believe the people who wrote that "Absolute and arbitrary power over the lives of freemen exists nowhere in a republic, not even in the largest majority&David Adamshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07868018032704003876noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-4647801393017675992014-02-26T13:05:29.840-05:002014-02-26T13:05:29.840-05:00I am glad to see someone standing up for the defin...I am glad to see someone standing up for the definition of marriage. It is what it is and cannot be changed, any more than saying that an animal that purrs and catches mice is a rhinoceros. Rush Limbaugh made this same argument several months ago:<br /><br />http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2013/03/28/we_lost_once_we_modified_the_definition_of_the_word_marriage<br /><br />I heard this same Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-31681280285775456672014-02-26T12:22:11.748-05:002014-02-26T12:22:11.748-05:00Caving on fundamental issues may not identify a co...Caving on fundamental issues may not identify a conservative, but it serves as a fairly reliable Republican detector.Leehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12974887002402743628noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-87454380115590090102014-02-26T10:37:12.067-05:002014-02-26T10:37:12.067-05:00The "logic teacher" does a "no true...The "logic teacher" does a "no true Scotsman". Ha!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com