Federal Judge Mocks State of Kentucky’s Opposition to Gay Marriage: Your ‘Arguments are Not Those of Serious People’

John-G.-Heyburn-IIA few weeks ago I wrote an article detailing the battle in Kentucky concerning their ban on same-sex marriage.  The state’s ridiculous “argument” was that same-sex marriage shouldn’t be legal because gay couples can’t procreate.  They also tried to claim that this would somehow negatively impact the state’s economy.

No, seriously, that was their argument.

Well, this past Tuesday, Judge John G. Heyburn ruled the ban unconstitutional and had a few choice words for the state of Kentucky:

“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.”

He also went on to say, “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.”

That response is nearly perfect.  Though I wish he would have put something in there about procreation not being a requirement for marriage and that banning same-sex couples based on their inability to procreate would also have to include any heterosexuals who couldn’t have children.

You don’t have to be a judicial scholar to see how weak of an “argument” the state of Kentucky put up here.  Because like I said, even if they were successful in winning this case, they would have then had to ban all heterosexual couples from marrying if they couldn’t have children for whatever reasons.

This fight against the legalization of same-sex marriage has just became pathetically sad.  Even in strongly Republican states, judges are overturning these bans right and left because there’s absolutely no argument that can be made to deny homosexuals their right to marry without blatantly violating their Constitutional rights.

It’s like I’ve said several times before, the debate on same-sex marriage is over – we won.  It’s no longer a matter of if same-sex marriage will be legal in the United States, but when.  

Allen Clifton

Allen Clifton is a native Texan who now lives in the Austin area. He has a degree in Political Science from Sam Houston State University. Allen is a co-founder of Forward Progressives and creator of the popular Right Off A Cliff column and Facebook page. Be sure to follow Allen on Twitter and Facebook, and subscribe to his channel on YouTube as well.


Facebook comments

  • Gary Smith

    I agree with your point 100%.

    But, as an editor, the “how weak of an argument” formulation is a major pet peeve. The “of” is completely superfluous and sounds amateurish. “[H]ow weak an argument” means exactly the same thing and sounds far less awkward. /unaskedfor_pedantry

    • Frank Hoffman

      Ditto on the misuse of “like” when comparing verb phrases. It’s not “like I said before;” it’s “as I said before.”


    These people are insane and should be analyzed and categorized for certain punitive medical action on the part of the State.

    • Kris Jackson

      Uh … “certain punitive medical action”? Which “these people” are insane, to you? And, ah, do people move away from you on the bus?

      • I_RIGHT_I

        Huh? Get on board will you? Pay attention. Those that don’t believe the way we do of course! I think forced commitment to psychiatric facilities where practical, reeducation facilities where it’s not. Mandatory medications and 8 hours per day education opportunities through various films, arts and discussions. Oh, I don’t ride buses. Too many little dark smelly people on them. You know what I mean.

  • Richard Clark Eckert

    I think there may have been a sociology professor who was so far to the right that he appeared to some to be Left when he argued that stem cell research would lead to lesbians eventually having their own procreated children. I have no idea as to how far off that is from science BUT it does leave open the question — IF and when procreation by same sex couples becomes possible where both parents really are the parents —- do I think for a second that right wing extremists will somehow recognize that procreation as a basis for marriage? NO. They are against LGBT marriages because those marriages threaten …. WAIT — what do LGBT marriages threaten? The economy? HUH?

    • Di Kelley

      Also when things such as artificial wombs become a thing so male same sex couples can have their own created-through-stem-cells-and-genetic-manupulation babies. Again, I have no doubt it will eventually be a thing.

  • Frank Hoffman

    Those who are still living in a false memory of the mid-20th century would argue, I suppose, that banning same-sex marriage does lead to more marriage and, hence, children — but only because they are comfortable with the idea of homosexuals entering into heterosexual marriages, as so many did in the past. Perhaps they, themselves, are in such a marriage — and are determined to vindicate their choice. But, as has been extensively proven, a lack of access to legal marriage has not prevented homosexuals from being in gay relationships. Nor is being a gay couple mutually exclusive with parenthood. Nor, for goodness’ sake, is human underpopulation a likely threat in any case.

    • Aloanstar

      I think you nailed it!

    • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

      well; give the regressive white trash republican religious loons the white house AND both wings of congress and they will start another war to cull the minorities from our country as well as killing off OTHER peoples

  • republic84

    The first time I heard this argument I honestly thought it was some sort of levity, there was going to be a witty punch line further into the article. Once I finished I thought, no one could possibly be that desperate and outstandingly stupid, then it hit me…Republican’s ARE that desperate and outstandingly stupid. We’ve almost reached 50%, who’s next?

  • Eg Kbbs

    Mockery entirely justified. By now, so many courts have ruled against same-sex marriage bans, any state continuing to pursue this in court is just wasting the money of the citizens (both of the state in paying for state costs as well as all the USA in paying for the federal costs – though at this point the lawyer suing the state barely has to be awake to win the case).

    Yet, saw the other day where one state is arguing against it in an argument that will clearly fall to “equal protection” / 14th amendment.

  • LLCisyouandme

    How is this any different than all the other utterly bewildering, hopelessly ignorant claptrap that people of faith swallow, proudly? They in fact use their ability to believe the impossible, on a regular basis, as a proof of their relentless faith. The most absurd notion held most closely to the breast *must* indicate a *powerful faith* to so easily overshadow transparent reason.

  • Conservative in the Lions Den

    Just thought I would share with you all that someone can be an open-minded “conservative”.

    I don’t care for labels, but usually categorize myself under Conservative or Constitutionalist…although some days, I’m down for anarchy, too. 🙂
    (I support the 2nd Amendment, I don’t like Common Core, I homeschool our 5 kids, I don’t like “big” government, I’m a Christian, yadda, yadda, yadda.)

    Here’s the kicker though: I fully support same sex marriage. So does my husband and he’s a pastor.

    I genuinely believe two people should be together if they love each other. If they want the benefits/downfalls of a state-recognized union..then by all means, have at it.

    Once each state recognizes it, there will probably be more adoptions, too. *gasp* Two mommies? Two daddies?
    Just my opinion here, but two people that fight hard for their relationship will not take for granted the small things..like raising a child(ren).
    (I know raising kids isn’t a small thing… just trying to be funny. Some of us conservatives/RWNJ have a sense of humor.)

    I’m also available to debate the Christians on this site that say man shall not lie with man because the Bible says so. (But, I’m going out of town for the weekend so you may have to wait until Monday morning for a reply.)

    Anyway – even though I’m on the other side, I agree wholeheartedly with you all. I hope I gave at least one of you a sigh of relief that the entire right side is not homophobic. 😉

    • soldout_in_bb

      Government needs to be the size that allows it to manage the economy and our resources. As our economy grows, government grows.

      Get over it.

      • Conservative in the Lions Den

        I’m sooo glad you told me to get over it.
        I can finally embrace a government that’s overbearing, intrusive, nosey and corrupt and both sides.

        Thanks for your pretentious assumption that rudeness will change my mind. 🙂

      • soldout_in_bb

        I’m sorry, did you say something? I wasn’t paying attention to you.

    • Wiccy Shackleton

      I know sensible conservatives exist. Sadly however its the nutty ones who are more vocal. Thanks for being one who speaks sense.

    • Common core really shouldn’t be an issue at all. Having examined the standard, it’s quite sensible. The problem is in the implementation – it was incorporated into all grade levels simultaneously instead of beginning with a new kindergarten class and moving on with them.

  • Sunnysmom

    Their argument is fundamentally flawed because it’s based on the falsehood that homosexuality is a choice. Like suddenly if people think it’s ok to be gay they’ll magically just want to be gay, be gay married and gasp, not procreate. So stupid, so scary that these are adult humans making these assertions.

    • gian keysTOOEASY flat mom

      “adult” humans???
      NO— parental; but NOT adult
      see: pedantic/bossy