Kentucky Governor Offers Possibly the Most Absurd Argument Against Gay Marriage I’ve Ever Heard

governor-beshearNo matter how much I try to understand it, I just can’t grasp why there are some people who are absolutely obsessed with the private lives of homosexuals – but there are millions of Americans who seem to be just that. The illogical and irrational comments I’ve seen made by many concerning gay rights and same-sex marriage are often so absurd that they actually border on being comical.


It’s hard not to laugh at someone who claims legalizing gay marriage is the first step toward people marrying their toasters or a whole host of other ridiculous scenarios. No sane, rational or logical person should ever take these types of people seriously.

And while most of this kind of anti-gay nonsense comes from Republicans, it seems Kentucky Governor Steve Beshear is eager to remind the country that there are still some people who call themselves Democrats who can be complete fools when it comes to gay rights.

You see, the Kentucky governor doesn’t feel that his state’s ban on same-sex marriage is discriminatory because straight people aren’t allowed to marry someone of the same sex either.

No, seriously, that’s an official statement he’s using to defend his state’s ban on gay marriage to the Supreme Court:

Kentucky’s marriage laws treat homosexuals and heterosexuals the same and are facially neutral. Men and women, whether heterosexual or homosexual, are free to marry persons of the opposite sex under Kentucky law, and men and women, whether heterosexual or homosexual, cannot marry persons of the same sex under Kentucky law.

In other words, if homosexuals would just stop being gay – then they could get married in Kentucky. After all, that would “solve” everything, right?

Honestly, that might be the dumbest argument against same-sex marriage I’ve heard since the last time the state of Kentucky tried to support their stance against marriage equality by claiming that gay marriage would harm the economy and gay couples shouldn’t be allowed to marry because they can’t procreate. As if having children had suddenly become a prerequisite for couples to get married.


I honestly can’t wrap my mind around the fact that the state is literally trying to argue that bans on same-sex marriage are “fair” because they also prevent heterosexuals from marrying someone of the same sex.

Considering heterosexuals and homosexuals are different, at least along the lines of their sexual orientation and who they’re attracted to physically, these bans absolutely discriminate against homosexuals; obviously they’re the only ones being prevented from marrying someone solely based on their sexual orientation. To argue that these bans are “fair” because they impact everyone equally is ludicrous.

Seeing that this is the level the state is having to stoop to in order to defend their ban on same-sex marriage only serves to underscore the fact that they know they’re fighting a losing battle. These comments just reek of last-ditch desperation in an effort to toss anything out there with the faintest of hope that it might actually stick, and Governor Beshear should be embarrassed with himself for continuing to perpetuate this nonsense.




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.

Comments

Facebook comments

  • Derek

    Q: How do you separate the men from sheep in Kentucky?

    A: A jackhammer.

    • Genju

      the gay ones too?

      • Derek

        No silly. You need a crowbar for that.

  • Genju

    I’ve yet to hear any actual arguments for gay marriage…

    • noah vail

      then maybe you should change channels…fux news is never going to give you an argument for gay marriage, only against it, with the lamest reasoning? that can be imagined

  • Woodrow_Plant

    On the road to becoming all things to all people, one must ask whether the potential outcomes will keep us altogether for the good of all for all-time. Are you a messenger, the message or both? Is the message carried for the good of all for all-time OR is it just an end unto itself? Once all things to all people is achieved, are you ready for the inherent responsibility that goes with that awesome task. What greater purpose or good does homosexual ‘marriage’ serve?