tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post2689152669143438040..comments2024-03-04T05:55:35.225-05:00Comments on Vital Remnants: Marriage Policy Under Martial Law: Federal judge strikes down KY's Marriage AmendmentMartin Cothranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16452612266051351726noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-81269419821350162042014-07-04T11:28:15.197-04:002014-07-04T11:28:15.197-04:00Martin,
The 14th Amendment requires the equal pro...Martin,<br /><br />The 14th Amendment requires the equal protection of law. So if the government is going to treat a class of persons differently, it has to be at least have a rational relationship to a legitimate state purpose, and if it impinges on a suspect classification or a fundamental right the justification for the classification has to be significantly stronger. Also, in light of the KyCobbnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-75840364604135245322014-07-03T20:36:29.519-04:002014-07-03T20:36:29.519-04:00Izambeni,
So you're saying that the 14th amen...Izambeni,<br /><br />So you're saying that the 14th amendment requires a genderless concept of marriage? How is it that no one was aware of this until gay rights groups gained political power?Martin Cothranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16452612266051351726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-84795473155928559402014-07-03T19:39:49.624-04:002014-07-03T19:39:49.624-04:00Since I apparently belong to the large swath of re...Since I apparently belong to the large swath of retrogrades “lacking in an understanding of basic 8th-grade civics,” my defense is that same-sex marriage was never mentioned in my 8th-grade civics class because nobody had dreamed up anything quite so absurd. In fact, by the time I got to law school, same-sex marriage was still unheard of. All that changed basically yesterday at the whim of Hank Reynoldsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-33166883779003194812014-07-03T10:31:48.361-04:002014-07-03T10:31:48.361-04:00Hollow Man,
If you're going to criticize some...Hollow Man,<br /><br />If you're going to criticize someone else for their views on a legal decision, you should take the trouble to actually read it yourself. It's pretty clear that you didn't. <br /><br />Heyburn did <i>not</i> apply "stricter scrutiny," he applied the rational basis test (the one you said he didn't apply) which is the lowest of the three levels of Martin Cothranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16452612266051351726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-88763877491036285412014-07-03T01:13:33.189-04:002014-07-03T01:13:33.189-04:00Martin is a logic teacher whose political writings...Martin is a logic teacher whose political writings generally consist of straw men, slippery slopes and false equivocations. He is in no way, shape or form a lawyer nor is he the modern day Chesterton he likes to portray himself as. Heyburn is the only federal judge that has properly decided the issue. All the cases striking down gay marriage bans have been based on the laws failing "the The Hollow Mannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-32223321125054183542014-07-02T20:17:40.732-04:002014-07-02T20:17:40.732-04:00Judge Heyburn's decision has not declared &quo...Judge Heyburn's decision has not declared "martial law" on marriage in Kentucky - he has upheld CONSTITUTIONAL law. Martin Cothran's comment is sheer right wing hyperbole and ignorance meant to stir up a frenzy with his right wing base. All these bans, including Kentucky's, are in direct and patent violation of, and have been struck down based upon, the Equal Protection lzambenihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17325688076032877783noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-84602011652089437482014-07-01T16:42:04.413-04:002014-07-01T16:42:04.413-04:00Martin, that was the point about judges not interf...Martin, that was the point about judges not interfering. Here is the point about marriage being between two people of the same race, which was regularly made in support of anti-miscegenation laws: “Why the Creator made one white and the other black, we do not know; but the fact is apparent, and the races are distinct, each <br />producing its own kind and following the peculiar law of its <br />KyCobbnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-71612087794718223762014-07-01T16:33:47.655-04:002014-07-01T16:33:47.655-04:00KyCobb,
Are you serious? You really think this es...KyCobb,<br /><br />Are you serious? You really think this establishes your point? Then why does it explicitly say "the marriage relation between the two sexes"? If you are <i>defining</i> marriage so as to exclude different races you could literally not say this.<br /><br />I'd try another tack if I were you.Martin Cothranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16452612266051351726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-83865263512172067682014-07-01T14:01:53.417-04:002014-07-01T14:01:53.417-04:00KyCobb,
The whole point is that no one ever made ...KyCobb,<br /><br />The whole point is that no one ever made that argument. Do you have a source? Martin Cothranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16452612266051351726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-67289277061671071662014-07-01T13:59:45.230-04:002014-07-01T13:59:45.230-04:00Marriage was defined as between one man and one wo...Marriage was defined as between one man and one woman of the same race. How dare activist judges take the definition of marriage out of voters hands?KyCobbnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-19276223504463610892014-07-01T13:52:47.775-04:002014-07-01T13:52:47.775-04:00Miscegenation was an issue of who marriage applied...Miscegenation was an issue of who marriage applied to, not how marriage was defined.Martin Cothranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16452612266051351726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-91071995235435517702014-07-01T13:31:40.644-04:002014-07-01T13:31:40.644-04:00That is a very fine whine, Martin. I presume you t...That is a very fine whine, Martin. I presume you think it was wrong for the Supreme Court to take the issue of banning interracial marriage out of voters hands in Loving v. Virginia?KyCobbnoreply@blogger.com