Skip to main content

Gov. Beshear participates in the Lexington kick-off of kynect, Kentucky's health benefit exchange. October 2, 2013.
A thought: When it comes to defending same-sex marriage bans, either try harder or don't try at all?
One of the defining characteristics of recent state defenses of their bans against same-sex marriages seems to be the rapid descent into silliness. Perhaps it is that public opinion on the issue has changed so much that only the silliest people are still on the anti- side of the fence, or maybe there is an anti- think-tank full of dimwits cranking these things out for use by each state as needed? Who knows. But Kentucky's appeal to preserve their recently toppled same-sex marriage ban is, true to form, bristling with The Crazy from the get-go.
Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear filed an appeal last week in federal court defending his state's ban on same-sex marriage, after a federal judge invalidated a portion of the law earlier this year. In the appeal, the state argues that legalizing interracial marriage in 1967 made sense because those unions made babies, but gay couples should not be allowed those same rights. Why? Because that would harm Kentucky's birth rate. [...]

According to the state, the case for legalizing same-sex marriage in Kentucky is different from Loving v. Virginia—the landmark 1967 Supreme Court case that invalidated state laws banning interracial marriage—because "man-man and woman-woman couples cannot procreate" and Kentucky has an interest in encouraging procreation in the name of promoting "long-term economic stability through stable birth rates."

So the official argument would seem to be that the state can't recognize same-sex marriage because the profit margins are terrible. That may be the most Republican objection to marriage equality I've ever heard, but when it comes to penning ridiculous defenses of same-sex marriage bans the party lines still can get a bit blurred.

The obvious flaw in the argument, of course, is that the state enforces fertility in no other context. There is no ban against the infertile getting married, or the elderly, or (yet) against married couples choosing to practice birth control; no state attorney general has demanded those marriages be similarly invalidated for insufficient contribution to the future tax base. No state has offered the argument in those other contexts because it is patently asinine—an argument for Gileadesque management of the citizenry as livestock. The notion that marriage exists only as profit center for the state would be offensive, and should be offensive, if it weren't just too damn ridiculous to take seriously.

The state of Kentucky has an interest in "encouraging procreation?" Very well, what forms does that interest take? If Virginia is For Lovers, does that make Kentucky the Wham-Bam Thank You Ma'am state? Does the State Board of Procreation put out advertisements on the late-night shows reminding residents to spend some quality time each night humping? Does the state tourism board nullify the motel room tax if you can prove your sheets are sufficiently soiled? While I eagerly await the explanation of how states should encourage procreation aside from the old standby of ditching sex education and letting their children find these things out the hard way, there doesn't seem to be any other context in which the state demands procreation. Shockingly, many Kentuckians seem to procreate just fine outside of marriage; the state has few if any programs to encourage such procreation. And finally, if Kentucky truly has a vested interest in gay couples having children, guess what? It turns out they can! Go figure.

Once again, marriage equality is coming nationwide. If you want to know why, read the state-sponsored arguments against it—any of them, in fact. The absurdity of the premises, the abject goofiness of the straws at which "traditionalists" grab to toss at the courts as defensive chaff, shows that the forces arrayed against equality have no actual case to make.

Originally posted to Hunter on Tue May 13, 2014 at 11:13 AM PDT.

Also republished by Kossacks for Marriage Equality and Daily Kos.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  They can't have it both ways (10+ / 0-)

    They can't oppose abortion while forbidding same-sex marriages and adoption.

    “If the misery of the poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin.” Charles Darwin

    by ivorybill on Tue May 13, 2014 at 11:22:55 AM PDT

    •  They can, and they will. (7+ / 0-)

      Because, after all, IOKIYAR.

      "People should not be afraid of their government; governments should be afraid of their people." --V

      by MikeTheLiberal on Tue May 13, 2014 at 12:11:38 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Logic (5+ / 0-)

      You're attempting to apply logic to those completely bereft of it.  If their masters said the sun was red they'd slather over claiming whoever disagreed was a communist (or insert whatever other term they have no chance of understanding).

      They don't actually want to understand anything.  I know this because I'm surrounded by conservative relatives who show an infuriating disdain for anything that smacks of knowledge or showing any compassion for groups that aren't them.  For a long time I attempted to use logic and reason to reach them.  I tried to show them there was no reason for them to hold the views they do and that in fact their views were often quite frequently completely wrong.

      Suffice it to say I'd have a better chance of teaching calculus to my dog, and he's not a smart dog.  At this point I've given up trying to use reason when dealing with conservatives and any time I have to put up with them and they go on a rant I use tried and true ridicule of their baseless ideology.  Granted it doesn't seem to move the worst of them but the more casual of them know to shut up around me about it for fear of being shamed.

    •  Call Joe the plumber. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bleedingheartliberal218

      Uhhh, excuse me but how is a gay marriage going to produce a child? Seems to me the plumbing ain't right. Is that what fear will ruin their economy?

      No country can be both ignorant and free - Thomas Jefferson

      by fjb on Wed May 14, 2014 at 04:44:00 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I could live with a ban on same-sex marriage (8+ / 0-)

    if it included a ban on people beyond the age of procreation from being married (or re-married) and if it contained a provision that any couple who practiced birth control would have their marriages voided if they failed to create a baby after 18 months and required fertility tests of both parties before a marriage license was granted and furthermore, prohibited divorce under any circumstances.

    That might be fair. What they are arguing, well, is not.

    SPES MEA IN DEO EST.

    by commonmass on Tue May 13, 2014 at 11:26:35 AM PDT

    •  Ah no, that's different you see because SHUT UP (7+ / 0-)

      I can almost guarantee that will be the reply. Cognitive dissonance: they won't see the issue.

      UNDELETE my socialist f*ckstick Markos!

      by T J Lewis on Tue May 13, 2014 at 12:19:53 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I'd believe them more IF... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      thanatokephaloides

      If the DOMA fanatics would first outlaw divorce, and require marriage upon the birth of a child, then I would say, OK, I can live with it.  But we all know that ain't gonna happen; how many pols are on their 2nd or 3rd marriage?

    •  bans of marriage (0+ / 0-)
      I could live with a ban on same-sex marriage if it included a ban on people beyond the age of procreation from being married (or re-married) and if it contained a provision that any couple who practiced birth control would have their marriages voided if they failed to create a baby after 18 months and required fertility tests of both parties before a marriage license was granted and furthermore, prohibited divorce under any circumstances.

      That might be fair.

      Wrong.

      No matter how you slice it, marriage is about the partners, first and foremost.

      What you describe is dangerously close to Roman Catholic teaching on marriage. Birth control is forbidden; any marriage with even one partner expressing unwillingness to breed is void ipso facto; and divorce is prohibited.

      Light years from fair.

      "It's high time (and then some) that we put an end to the exceptionalistic nonsense floating around in our culture and face the fact that either the economy works for all, or it doesn't work AT all." -- Sean McCullough (DailyKos user thanatokephaloides)

      by thanatokephaloides on Wed May 14, 2014 at 03:41:23 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I think you should take the previous comments (3+ / 0-)

        as an exercise in taking the argument for opposing marriage equality to its logical extreme. In fact, 7 or 8 years ago, marriage equality supporters in the state of Washington proposed a law -- similar to what's being talked about here -- that would only allow people to stay married if they had a child.

        Same-sex marriage supporters disagreed with the procreation argument and proposed Initiative 957[1] to challenge the court's assertion.[2] It would have required that all marriages recognized by the state to produce offspring within three years of their solemnization.[3] The initiative was created by the Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance, a LGBT rights group.
        http://en.wikipedia.org/..._(2007)#Aftermath
        I doubt anyone here is truly comfortable with a law that limits marriage in that way.

        While Democrats work to get more people to vote, Republicans work to ensure those votes won't count.

        by Tamar on Wed May 14, 2014 at 05:17:44 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  takes care of equal protection arguments, (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JerryNA

      but some district courts have found a fundamental due process right to marriage.  Of course, i can see how you were being snarky, but there are some folks who criticize Roe v. Wade for relying on DP and not EP, but EP arguments kind of miss the point - the reason for a woman to want an abortion isn't that men aren't banned from having one, it's that it's her body.  The same is true of marriage - it's not that straight people can marry, it's the ability to be with someone you love and have that recognized.  

      Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

      by Loge on Wed May 14, 2014 at 05:09:00 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Uhm... OK, I'll take a shot at this: (10+ / 0-)

    Because procreation is not dependent on marriage?  Plenty of procreation goes on without marriage.

    And so by extension, interracial marriage was prohibited... to prevent procreation of a certain sort?  But any procreation is better than none, so interracial marriage is OK?

    What?   This hurts to even try to think through.

    I'm part of the "bedwetting bunch of website Democrat base people (DKos)." - Rush Limbaugh, 10/16/2012 Torture is Wrong! We live near W so you don't have to. Send love.

    by tom 47 on Tue May 13, 2014 at 11:27:03 AM PDT

    •  I'll take another shot... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JerryNA

      They want to prohibit same sex marriage because it doesn't lead to fertility and procreation.  Tell me this: how many kids are those same couples going to produce if they are NOT married but still living together as partners?

      Whether or not they are married doesn't change the fertility rate of Kentucky one whit.

      "The most dangerous worldview, is the worldview of those who have not viewed the world." Alexander von Humboldt

      by TX Freethinker on Wed May 14, 2014 at 07:41:47 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  True! (0+ / 0-)

        If this were anything but a specious argument, they would instead introduce a bill forcing LGBT individuals into straight relationships for the purpose of procreation...

        Even Hitler didn't force procreation for the sake of the state...  Though he did reward it.

      •  Actually, gay marriage might lead to more children (0+ / 0-)

        by encouraging in vitro fertilization. And happier kids, by adoption. These GOPsters really don't think things through. But this isn't a rational argument, it's a rationalization, a cover for their entrenched bigoted position.

  •  The GOP answer to promoting procreation? (5+ / 0-)

    Rape is god's will.  Go for it, guys!

    “The future depends entirely on what each of us does every day.” Gloria Steinem

    by ahumbleopinion on Tue May 13, 2014 at 11:29:24 AM PDT

  •  That is the governor of OH, not KY. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Karl Rover, Hunter

    “The future depends entirely on what each of us does every day.” Gloria Steinem

    by ahumbleopinion on Tue May 13, 2014 at 11:30:30 AM PDT

  •  By the way, Hunter, it's the (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MikeTheLiberal

    Commonwealth of Kentucky, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Massachusetts. ;)

    SPES MEA IN DEO EST.

    by commonmass on Tue May 13, 2014 at 11:38:11 AM PDT

  •  Is Kentucky, by any chance, (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    anon004

    one of those places where they teach "Abstinence Only" in lieu of Sex Ed?
    'Cuz that would blow this argument right outta the water, no?

    If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

    by CwV on Tue May 13, 2014 at 11:39:19 AM PDT

  •  What's next, ... (5+ / 0-)

    a ban on Recreational Sex??? Isn't it time we legalize marijuana? Sorry, wrong issue.


    I’m not a big fan of vegetable gardens. Like my chickens, I prefer my salads to be cage free.

    by glb3 on Tue May 13, 2014 at 11:44:45 AM PDT

  •  All side issues: (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    commonmass

    The legal argument for same sex marriage is that the 14th Amendment guarantees equal protection of the law. Since the law privileges marriage, it is unconstitutional to deny gays the right to marry their partners.

    The legal argument against SSM is that any gay person has the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex as straight people have.

    The kicker: Since marriage is a state function, without a Supreme Court ruling or an act of Congress, it is possible for states to come down on different sides of the marriage equality issue.

    The parties to these law suits need to get marriage equality to the Supreme Court. If SSM wins there, the issue is settled. If not, then the issue will be decided state by state.

    •  A little deeper... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jayden, anon004

      While it is true that the (one of the) argument(s) against Marriage Equality is that a gay person has the same right to marry someone of the opposite gender as straight people have -- THAT IS NOT THE QUESTION THAT THE COURTS ARE GRAPPLING WITH.
      That's because sexuality NEVER REALLY ENTERS INTO THE LEGAL question. Society ASSUMES that an opposite gender couple is heterosexual, but there is nothing in the process that even ADDRESSES sexuality. And can you imagine what the reaction would be if anyone tried to determine that? Who would administer this "test"? What would it consist of?
      The actual legal question is, "Is there a reason for restricting access to legal marriage SOLELY on the basis of gender?" Since procreation is NOT a requirement of entering into civil marriage -- the answer is "No". It's only tradition, religion and the 'ick' factor that has kept those restrictions in place. But, those are not LEGAL REASONS for maintaining the restrictions.
      The SCOTUS would rather not have to decide this, until the evidence is overwhelming -- then they can say, "Well, we gave you (the anti-side) every chance and all the time we could to mount a defense. You failed. Therefore, we must agree with the lower courts." Et cetera.

      "Free your mind and the rest will follow...."

      by midknightryder13 on Tue May 13, 2014 at 12:22:20 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  You're just extending the 14th Amendment (0+ / 0-)

        argument.
           I think that, in the present atmosphere, the 14th Amendment argument wins at the SCOTUS level. I would like to see the whole thing decided on that basis once and for all. Then you would have national marriage equality.
          However, the Supreme Court could possibly (not likely, IMHO) decide that federalism obtains and that states have the right to make the rules on marriage.
          In that case, the equal right to marry someone of the opposite sex argument becomes relevant as the issue is debated in each state.
          If the states can set arbitrary age limits for marriage, why wouldn't they have the right to say that only heterosexual marriages can be performed?
           Legal logic won't decide the issue if the Supreme Court rules against mandating national marriage equality. The problem recalcitrant states will have is that, with the ruling against DOMA, they will have to recognize same sex marriages performed in other states. Eventually, gays who want to marry will simply do so in states that allow it.
           That's why I think SSM wins at the SCOTUS level. The only caveat is that conservative Roman Catholics are in the majority on the court. Otherwise, the Greece. NY, case would not have been decided as it was.

    •  I would venture... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      skrekk

      ...that the whole question could be couched in a discussion of gender equality.  Let's say two folks request a marriage license, one of them a male, and the other one a female.  They both want to marry the same third person.  There is no legal reason in the state that they may not marry (all parties are of age, none of them currently married, they are not related, etc.).  One of those two people will be denied a license for ABSOLUTELY NO OTHER REASON than their gender.

      Talk me down here.  What's wrong with this statement?

      Incorrigible punster; please do not incorrige.

      by Ran3dy on Tue May 13, 2014 at 01:16:46 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Technically speaking... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        thanatokephaloides

        ...in your scenario, they might not be denied with no regard their gender, just based on their timing.

        Let's say Amy and Jack both apply to marry Carl. If Jack applies first, and they lived in a state which allowed gay marriage, Amy would still be turned down - with no regard to her gender - because approving her license while Jack's is out there, would amount to allowing bigamy - which is still against the law in the whole of the U.S. as far as I know.

        Actually, I'm guessing if Jack and Carl weren't already married, before Amy's application, they'd find some excuse to yank Jack's license too, just allowing to the impression that Carl, Jack and Amy were attempting to engage in the illegal act of polygamy.

        But again, even if they lived in a state which allowed gay marriage, Jack might also be turned down, not because of his gender, but because he applied after Amy did.

        Of course, things go more complicated when we finally get rid of laws which prevent completely consensual polygamy between adults. But obviously few are eager to get into that conversation yet.

        •  Partly because they would wreak havoc (0+ / 0-)

          with the tax code, and invite abuses with inheritances, among other problems.

          I suspect there will be some losses to the Treasury from allowing gay couples to file as Married Filing Jointly, but the actual changes to the code, if any, will be editorial.

          •  I agree... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            libera nos

            ...that is a tricky issue. And it's not just taxes - there's also issues like child custody in a plural marriage. For instance, if one of the biological parents leaves that relationship and the non-biological parents feel they are entitled to some custodial rights, at what point are they?

            But it's one of those times when you think, "Ok, so because it's complicated, that makes it OK that you're criminalizing consensual adult behavior?" The legal protections of marriage aren't limited to tax codes. For instance, if a man has three wives, all three should be able to visit him in the hospital, during times when only family are allowed to visit. But legally, the hospital is not required to allow that, any more than some hospitals are required to allow a patient family-time visits from a same-gender life partner, in a state where gay marriage is not recognized.

            Unfortunately a slippery slope argument for any marriage law, doesn't hold the water it used to.

            I'm pretty sure there have been projections on the affect of gay marriage being applied to filing status, which also stated it will be a negligible result in taxes collected. But I agree the tax law changes for gay marriage, would be basic pronoun multiplication, and for plural marriage it would require a whole rewrite.

            Or they'd have to force anyone in a plural marriage, to assign a single individual as their tax or inheritance applicable partner. Perhaps with a trickle-down clause, like having multiple beneficiaries on a life insurance policy. So if husband B is the only one legally entitled to inherit the house owned by wife A, but then both die in a car crash, husband C can still inherit as her "secondary" beneficiary.

            •  Great analysis, thanks (0+ / 0-)

              Lots of non-governmental issues as well. As a couple of examples: family medical insurance, family tuition benefits for college employees.

              Also, just think of other legal complications, like the situation in which partner A wants to be divorced from B and not C, and B and C do not want to get divorced. As a serious issue for consideration, do we want a situation in which marriage is a set of overlapping arrangements, or only to allow closed sets of individuals, each of whom is married to all of the others?

              I agree that this isn't a good enough reason to prohibit plural marriage, but it's a good reason to take it slowly and carefully. That being said, if society is going to go this way, I'd welcome some recognition of a multi-person domestic partner arrangement in the interim.

              •  Multi-person domestic partner arrangement... (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                libera nos

                Doesn't that just remind you a little, of Global Thermonuclear War?

                Actually, maybe you've hit the nail on the head. Those of us who support marriage laws based on lack of harm (i.e. whatever relationships adults choose, with full consent, should be legal as long as no one is harmed by it), have long argued that part of the problem is "marriage" as a personal social contract shouldn't be part of the legal protections involved in current matrimonial law.

                Instead of focusing our efforts on changing the laws, to no longer make bigamy illegal, perhaps we should create an entirely new set of laws, based on setting up legal family protections to members of a "domestic partner arrangement," in which there is no limit to the number of people who can be added to the partnership. It could be far more useful than just for the polyamorous too - it could redefine how we approach legal family relationships. For instance...

                Say Sam, Ed and Nathan have been best friends for most of their lives. Sam was recently in a car accident, suffered irreparable brain injury, and will need constant assistance for the rest of his life. As his best friends, Ed and Nathan stepped up. They decide to all move in together, and share a permanent legal relationship as Sam's caretakers.

                Now sure, Ed and Nathan can do this under current laws, but it's going to 3 times longer and 10 times more paper work, to set up all the legal protections necessary (i.e. power of attorney, medical guardianships, etc.), than if either or both of them could just marry Sam and be done with it. And even if they were willing to marry him for that simplicity, it means if either of them ever meets someone they do want to marry, they're screwed.

                But if they could go to the courts, and set up a "domestic partner arrangement," that has nothing to do with romantic/sexual relationships or the societal contract of marriage, that would be ideal. They could - in a few simple steps - have everything set up so they could continue to be Sam's caretakers, without a boatload of legal fees, and eliminating romantic marriage from their lives in the future. And aside from the work of helping take care of Sam, who wouldn't marry guys who are so selfless? :)

                It's almost like setting up a set of laws, that give next-of-kin and marriage-like protections, to members of a commune (hopefully a nice sane one, not a scary cult one). You allow people to choose who their caretakers are, if they ever need them - and you get the bonus of allow the polyamorous to set up legal protections currently denied to them, and the legal penalties of bigamy.

                Ooh, and another bonus I just thought of. I've long believed that, if you're willing to live with someone for at least 3-5 years, and enter into a legally binding relationship, for the purposes of giving a person access to citizenship in this nation, there is no reason you should have to claim a romantic relationship with that person. So you could eliminate the non-sense of fake green-card marriages entirely. If you create a domestic partnership arrangement they can enter into, that puts the same expectations on them (i.e. you must live with them, and share a legally binding relationship with them), in order to sponsor them for a green card, no one has to pretend they share a bed.

                Ahh, the endless possibilities, when you stop trying to thrust subjective morality onto other people's relationships, and treat family as something we create more than we are born to.

              •  And thanks for the compliment - I live to analyze. (0+ / 0-)
                •  And you keep doing it (0+ / 0-)

                  Good job in Round 2. And I'd be much happier in with an arrangement like this, in which the reciprocal rights and obligations would be clearly spelled out, without relying on overloading "marriage", which as you point out may not be always appropriate, but also has many precedents and assumptions attached.

  •  So, menopause turns a marriage illegal? (6+ / 0-)

    Are we talking about passing annual fertility tests to get and keep a marriage license?  
    I just don't understand these guys....  

  •  Anyone who has kids would know (7+ / 0-)

    that economic stability and dependent children are not compatible, especially in the long-term.

    •  Many of us childfrees figured THAT one out! (0+ / 0-)

      My short answer to "How come you never had children?" "I crunched the numbers - didn't look good."

      “[Sir Arthur Conan Doyle] created Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson - which proves he was way ahead of his time on gay marriage.” - Bill Maher

      by gardnerhill on Wed May 14, 2014 at 08:28:24 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Logically this only makes sense if one believes (10+ / 0-)

    gay couples will have babies if they don't get married and the act of marriage prevents this in some manner.

    Which proves it makes no logical sense at all.

    Join the DeRevolution: We are not trying to take the country, we are trying to take the country back. Get the money out of politics with public financed campaigns so 'Of the People, By the People and For the People' rings true again.

    by fToRrEeEsSt on Tue May 13, 2014 at 12:18:29 PM PDT

  •  So the argument is that in Kentucky (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Calamity Jean, anon004, loco moco

    if given the choice heterosexuals will opt to get gay-married instead of straight-married and thus not produce any income-producing offspring?

    Damn, I need to move to Kentucky if the men there are that easy.

  •  "Because that would harm Kentucky's birth rate" (6+ / 0-)

    Whether or not SSM is allowed, does it have any impact what so ever on the birth rate? Given their proclivities, a gay couple (of either sex) is unlikely to marry a partner of the opposite sex and have children. Thus, their contribution to the birth rate is zero. Assuming they marry each other, they still, most likely, won't have children. Contribution, nada. If they choose to have a child through artificial means or with a donor, then there is a minuscule impact in the desired direction.

    Net result: Bashear and the like-minded bigots are full of shit.

    Oh my god, it's full of cheese! - 2001 first draft

    by sizzzzlerz on Tue May 13, 2014 at 01:08:20 PM PDT

  •  This could be Bashear going through motions (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bobcat41702

    Defending the ban for the wackos, doing it in a wacked-out way because he really doesn't want to.

    "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." --M. L. King "You can't fix stupid" --Ron White -6.00, -5.18

    by zenbassoon on Tue May 13, 2014 at 01:37:11 PM PDT

  •  Is it lost on the good folks of KY that gay (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Calamity Jean

    marriage does NOT cause more people to become gay and/or fail to procreate, it just gives those already existing couples the same rights as straight couples? The same percentage of KY's population that is gay will still be gay.  The same percentage that does not wish to or is unable to procreate, gay or straight or anything in between, will still be unwilling or unable to procreate.  Allowing gay couples the same rights as straight couples will have no effect on those couples' desires or abilities to have or raise children.

    I'm actually kind of dumbfounded here.  They seem to be under the bizarre impression that without gay marriage homosexuality cannot exist, or that people are chomping at the bit, waiting for legalized gay marriage to finally be able to take the plunge and fulfill their lifelong dreams of becoming gay, finding a gay life partner, and refusing to raise children, either their own or adopted ones.

    "On their backs were vermiculate patterns that were maps of the world in its becoming. Maps...of a thing which could not be put back. Not be made right again."

    by middleagedhousewife on Tue May 13, 2014 at 01:53:39 PM PDT

  •  A modest logical extension (3+ / 0-)

    Kentucky should allow only people who have proven descendants to vote, hold public office, own a firearm and consume alcohol.*

    Non-procreators are welcome to live elsewhere.

    ------------------

    * Might be a problem here. Studies suggest** sex with a new partner is often under the influence of alcohol.

    ** i.e. I'm making this up

    This is not a sig-line.

    by Joffan on Tue May 13, 2014 at 03:04:07 PM PDT

  •  Are the gay people (2+ / 0-)

    somehow preventing Kentuckians from procreating their brains out? Not now but if they marry? How would that work? What an odd man.

  •  Uh.... (7+ / 0-)

    Liberal Kentuckian here, and just want to point out that our governor is a Democrat. While I absolutely disagree with this decision and think it's backwards, stupid, and our state constitution is wrong to deny equal rights, the conversation seems to be focused on how 'republican' this is.

    By definition, it's not, because he's a democrat. Doesn't mean it isn't crappy or a bad decision, but the facts are what they are. Just because this is an attitude found most commonly among republicans, it doesn't mean the honesty of the discussion should suffer. Beshear is doing the wrong thing, but he's doing it with a (D) next to his name. Just because we're ashamed of that doesn't mean we should avoid it or pretend it isn't true.

    I say this because a lot of comments seem to be along the lines of "How can they do this?" "Will they never learn?"

    The implication seems to be that 'they' are republicans. Which in almost any other case would be accurate, just not here.

  •  Another huge flaw in the procreation argument (2+ / 0-)

    There is a thing in logic called a false dichotomy. Basically, narrowing an entire spectrum of possibilities down to only two possible outcomes.

    1) We allow gays to marry and they will never pro-create

    2) We ban gay marriage and those gays will inevitably see the light, marry heterosexually, and have kids.

    They ignore the most likely outcome that gays will simply co-habitate without marriage. There are so many other possible outcomes like surrogacy, adoption as if they were infertile, etc...

    I understand the point of the diary in that the state doesn't pursue a vested interest in pro-creation in any other marriage type.

    I'm just pointing out how absolutely fucking ignorant the average conservative mind is. They really think they made convincing case with a false dichotomy of absolute fucking illogical nonsense.

    Cracks me up every time.

  •  Soooooo, (4+ / 0-)

    the unmarried same-gendered couples who aren't having children now can't get married because they might not have children after their wedding. Makes complete sense.

    Of course, if children were really at all the issue, one might point out that the stability of marriage might encourage some childless couples to adopt where they might not otherwise, but that would just be silly.

    •  or, in the case of lesbians, to procreate just as (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JerryNA, InFlagrante

      Kentucky says it wants. Well, I guess it's not really what Kentucky wants because they don't want people "like that" to procreate.

      While Democrats work to get more people to vote, Republicans work to ensure those votes won't count.

      by Tamar on Wed May 14, 2014 at 05:26:04 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  This is a Democratic Governor fighting to lose (9+ / 0-)

    He is teeing up the stock arguments that have lost in every other court where they have been tried for years now. Which is all he can do, since there are no other arguments, but he has promised to go through the motions.

    He favors Marriage Equality and thinks the ban is unconstitutional, but he has nutjobs to placate. Being able to placate them is one of the reasons his popularity is so high, and he gets to do Progressive things like running one of the best state Obamacare exchanges in the country, without actually calling it that.

    Back off, man. I'm a logician.—GOPBusters™

    by Mokurai on Wed May 14, 2014 at 12:27:27 AM PDT

  •  Question: (4+ / 0-)

    Isn't a high birth rate associated with poverty?  And isn't Kentucky poor enough already?  Wouldn't it make more sense for Kentucky to discourage the birth of children?

  •  *Sigh* (6+ / 0-)

    If I may invoke that silly thing called logic for a moment, I doubt the birth rate in KY would deflect by any appreciable amount.  First off because the good God-fearin' heterosexual couples of Kentuckah are still procreatin' at the same rate as before, second because married or not, the godless homosexuals ain't procreatin' AT ALL.  (Except, of course, for the ones who do -- as the diarist noted.)

    So, to sum up, apart from a very small number of folks who decide to go along to get along and make a babby in the process, the number of procreators doesn't change.  Ergo, the number of babbies remains stable and the argument is moot.

    But this is NOT the silliest argument I've heard.  No, that award has to go to an anonymous commenter on the local news channel's website 2 years ago when Amendment One was on the ballot here in NC.  HIS argument in favor of the amendment was that if you allow same sex marriages, then you get all these furriners getting into sham green-card marriages so they can stay here in the Murrica.  Or sham marriages for the tax advantages or the health insurance.  Because FSM knows no hetero couple would EVER do such a thing.  Teh stoopid is strong with this one, I tell ya.

    I'll believe corporations are people when one comes home from Afghanistan in a body bag.

    by mojo11 on Wed May 14, 2014 at 11:10:10 AM PDT

  •  Aw, man, my wife and I don't have children.... (3+ / 0-)

    does that mean our marriage is "invalid" in Kentucky?

    Time sets all things right. Error lives but a day. Truth is eternal. - General James Longstreet

    by kbrown2225 on Wed May 14, 2014 at 11:24:43 AM PDT

  •  He wants to bolster the birthrate? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    thanatokephaloides

    So let him open Kentucky's borders to immigrants.

  •  (Heavy Sigh) ... (3+ / 0-)

    Usually Governor Beshear is forward thinking -- think about our top-notch medical insurance plan.  But he dropped the ball on this one.  At least the Attorney General said he wouldn't appeal the ruling, so the governor had to go and find someone else to take the case.

    What a waste of my money!

  •  Well that's ridiculous - but you knew that... (5+ / 0-)

    The presumption is that if you can't marry a member of your own gender, that you'll split up and each marry a member of the opposite gender, and get busy producing some progeny.  However many years have gay people not been able to get married?  Do you see any of them breaking up just so they can get married to somebody?  

    When will one of these suits actually be honest and say we need to not let gays get married because Eww!  

  •  DINK's (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    thanatokephaloides

    Double Income No Children...it's pretty simple, gay couples don't tend to have children. Yes, some do, and that's wonderful. But when they don't choose to, they can form a life long bond that can create enough income to pay taxes,  live in blighted areas that they revive (Gentrification is real and it's silly to vilify it) and they can do so much good that it does miracles for entire cities. Of course, looking at this "advantage" is at risk of being so cynical and downright distasteful when in fact it's about two people, in love, who yearn, deeply, to formalize their commitment to each other before the world. That in itself is all any of us need to know. But I guess that's just too much for some "people" to handle.

  •  I suppose (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    thanatokephaloides

    I suppose the Gubner of Clowntucky is right. After all, he needs people to continue procreating so his Rethuglican peers and handlers have a population of workers to exploit. Low wages, no benefits, poor education. Aw shucks,you don't need shoes, and you only need one finger to pick your nose.

  •  This argument reminds me... (4+ / 0-)

    of the argument against the legalization of Marijuana. The argument relies on the notion that more people will be gay if gay marriage exists, just like they think that more people will smoke Marijuana if it is legalized. A stupid conclusion, to say the least.

    Clue. The same amount of children will be born from heterosexuals as before, because the same amount of heterosexuals will be around when gay marriage is legal.

    Lastly, gay parents were put on this Earth for a reason, which is to take care of all the children that heterosexuals abandon. One more example of how Repugs couldn't care less about children after they are born.

    If you like bicycles, check out the newest and coolest products at my site, "ZiggyboyBullet.com." You can also find my products at e-Bay under the name, "Ziggyboy." See all the products on my "See seller's other items" link.

    by JohnnieZ on Wed May 14, 2014 at 01:42:40 PM PDT

  •  There Are Always Many Excuses (2+ / 0-)

    for hatred and bigotry.

  •  My take; they don't really want to fight this... (4+ / 0-)

    Appealing the decision is just a bone to the far right.  That is why they are throwing all these ridiculous arguments against same sex marriage.  In the end the ban will be thrown out completely.  

  •  To the bereft of logic, everything seems logical! (2+ / 0-)

    Do they suppose that if they prevent gay people from getting married, those gay people will turn straight and start having kids?

  •  So let me get this straight... (2+ / 0-)
    In the appeal, the state argues that legalizing interracial marriage in 1967 made sense because those unions made babies, but gay couples should not be allowed those same rights. Why? Because that would harm Kentucky's birth rate.
    So if "teh gays" are forbidden to marry, they will have no choice but to go out and find someone to procreate with, and since straight couples just aren't popping out babies fast enough, this is the only way to save Kentucky from being a giant, state-sized ghost town.

    Am I missing anything here?

  •  gays can have children (4+ / 0-)

    My neighbors are gay.  Three gay men in part of the house, and then two gay women living together in a separate unit  - oh and two children.  Fertilization no longer requires the sexual union of a man and a woman.  All it requires now is the sperm and a woman.  I guess one could try to guess which of the three men's sperm was successful, but the kids simply call all three of them dad.  Nice people.  Good neighbors.  Nice kids.

  •  totally ignoring the fiscal stimulus (3+ / 0-)

    from fabulous gay weddings.  

    Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

    by Loge on Wed May 14, 2014 at 05:12:58 PM PDT

  •  Kentucky is a terrible state for gay people. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bleedingheartliberal218, JerryNA

    It's just as discriminating and hateful as any other state in the South when it comes to gays. Times have changed--you have decent people like Jack Conway, who when asked to appeal by the governor, tearfully declined in a speech. But ignorance and intolerance still prevails there in some very big ways.

  •  It's the same argument used in the Prop 8 case (3+ / 0-)

    They use it because it is a legal argument that is harder to refute than most.

    It seems silly to us, but there's enough legal precedent for it to give cover.

    Essentially they have to show a "rational basis" for their bans, which means they have to show that the state has some reason to care why a marriage should be restricted to only man-woman.

    Since the slightest whiff of "because we hate the gay" invalidates their argument at the legal level, they come up with stuff like this to try to make an economic argument.

    Most of the other defenses rested on the idea that kids did better in father+mother environments, but the problem with that line in 2014 is that there is now a significant body of evidence from careful experiments and science that this is simply not true.   The only changes in outcomes not based on simple affluence were that having two married individuals (of any gender) had better outcomes than a single parent or even two cohabitating but unmarried parents.

    Which means that argument strengthens the argument for gay marriage...you are HARMING children by NOT allowing them to marry...by leaving them in a cohabitating-only state.

    So we're left to stuff like this, to defend the indefensible.

  •  The last thing (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bleedingheartliberal218

    we need are more babies, whether in Kentucky, or any other state.

  •  Dear Goddess, Hunter, you are so funny! (3+ / 0-)
    If Virginia is For Lovers, does that make Kentucky the Wham-Bam Thank You Ma'am state? Does the State Board of Procreation put out advertisements on the late-night shows reminding residents to spend some quality time each night humping? Does the state tourism board nullify the motel room tax if you can prove your sheets are sufficiently soiled?
    I hope we get marriage equality here in Virginia. I ought to write to our new, sane, Democratic Attorney General and thank him for his efforts to end the ban on marriage equality. Perhaps one day Virginia will be for Universal Marriage Rights as well as lovers!

    "Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon

    by Diana in NoVa on Wed May 14, 2014 at 05:25:30 PM PDT

  •  oof (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bleedingheartliberal218

    the arguments get stupider and stupider.

    God forbid we have a lower birth rate. I've never heard that a lower birth rate could be a problem.

    KOS: "Mocking partisans focusing on elections? Even less reason to be on Daily Kos."

    by fcvaguy on Wed May 14, 2014 at 05:28:13 PM PDT

  •  Is Rape Going to Be Legalized in Kentucky for (0+ / 0-)

    economic reasons in conjunction with outlawing abortion to increase the birth rate?!

    Those right-wing assholes are breathing, drinking, and eating too much arsenic, cadmium, mercury, and other toxic heavy metals from coal-fired power plants' waste streams.

  •  Wait. Let me get this (ahem) straight (2+ / 0-)

    If gay couples couldn't marry, they'd have sex that leads to procreation, but since they can marry they won't?

    Ahem.

    When gay couples marry they can have children.

    They can adopt. Couples of two women can do IVF. Couples of two men can get surrogate mothers. Double couples (two of each) can do various combinations.

  •  If you had to be fertile to get married (1+ / 0-)

    then I would be single and I would have no kids.

  •  An embarrassment to Kentucky (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JerryNA

    I have to say, while I was proud of Gov. Beshear for expanding Medicaid with the ACA, it is now very apparent that if there were no federal monies involved, he would not have done so.  That makes me worried for the future, because if/when federal monies run out, will Kentucky renege?  For that matter, it is another point of interest whether Kentucky will continue to expand Medicaid should (God forbid) a Republican be elected Governor.

    Be that as it may, in this case concerning same-sex marriage, Gov. Beshear has it all wrong.  Not only is he fighting a losing battle he simply cannot win, but he's squandering Kentucky resources - resources, I might add, that Kentucky does NOT have enough of to begin with - to do so.

    This argument of non-procreation is silly and actually, offends the intelligence of every Kentuckian.  Same-sex couples can still procreate - just not with each other.  Just because a guy is gay doesn't mean he doesn't produce viable sperm.  And just because a woman is a lesbian doesn't mean she doesn't have viable eggs that can be fertilized or that she can't carry a baby to term and give birth.

    Is the Governor addle-brained?

    Many same-sex couples have children "naturally", via surrogates and sperm donors.  Or is the Governor really THAT clueless?

    Either way, I'm embarrassed for him.  And I'm embarrassed for Kentucky.  And I'm outraged at Gov. Beshear for spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on something he can't and won't win.  He may as well be flushing that money down the toilet. I could think of so many other good things that money could be spent on.  There are so many people in poverty in Kentucky, and maybe this is one of the reasons why - because our State government isn't spending wisely.  

    Personally, Gov. Beshear, I could use some of that money, myself, to pay off this years high heating bills and to pay the outrageously high water bills in Louisville.  I'm sure some of my neighbors could use some help, as well.

  •  he's just bluedogging it; he's not bible waving (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JerryNA

    it's a stupid legal argument but the people of the Commonwealth aren't quite as enlightened as on this august online community

    and at least he's not bible thumping - you can be damn sure 1/3 of the state legislature is

  •  Is it possible that they deliberately (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JerryNA

    chose a ridiculous argument? They can tell the base that they appealed, while not taking the (slight) risk of being sustained.

    •  I see I was anticipated at least twice (0+ / 0-)

      But I still think it's plausible. And if the Governor making the appeal preempts the Legislature, it even makes sense. Let's see how much energy the State's attorneys put into the case.

  •  ... the profit margins aren't good enough. (0+ / 0-)

    And that's what it always comes down to, isn't it?

  •  Beshear shows Dems need to be big tent party (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JerryNA

    Lets remember Kentucky is a difficult state for social progressives to succeed.  55% of kentucky residents support a ban on marriage equality according to a Bluegrass poll from Feb 2014.  Beshear has been absolutely superb in advocating for and implementing the ACA in the commonwealth.  Although this stance on gay marriage in abhorrent, we may need to give Beshear some latitude.  Some people are suggesting that the commonwealth's argument against gay marriage is so illogical that Beshear may be attempting to lose the appeal on purpose.
      Its still important for dems to support people like Beshear while the populations in those state continue to "evolve" on marriage equality.  We should still push Beashear to accept equality but at the same time we should not abandon them at election time if there is not socially progressive alternative.  Its better to advance some of the progressive agenda than none of it

  •  If Kentucky believes population increase (1+ / 0-)

    is a legitimate and overriding concern of the state, then the solution is obvious. Marriage, as we well know, has little to do with reproduction; heterosexuals often have children out of wedlock and married couples often fail to produce children.

    So, they can safely allow gay marriage, as it is unimportant and irrelevant to this issue. Next, they urgently need to pass the Margaret Atwood Population Act.

    The APA will mandate that all Kentucky males 18 years or older must report to state sperm banks each month to donate a sample. All Kentucky females between 18 and 40 will report to the state fertility clinic for artificial insemination yearly. Then the (oh so sadly, Democratic) governor and his Republican legislative partners in imbecility can rest assured that Kentucky will never wither away to  near extinction like the Shakers did.

    •  Considering the high teen pregnancy rate in (0+ / 0-)

      conservative states, partly due to abstinence-only miseducation, withering away is not a significant problem. (Underfunded education, poverty and sexually transmitted disease are.)

  •  This is typical for Beshear and other Dems in KY (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JerryNA

    You all have to understand one thing about Democrats in KY: they are terrified of being on the "wrong" side of a social issue.  Being on the right side of a social issue means endorsing the conservative position.  Beshear did this when he approved state subsidies for the so called Noah's Ark theme park, which will never get built.  He was running for reelection, and he wanted to make sure no one could accuse Beshear of being godless.  

    Does Beshear think that gay men or lesbians shouldn't be allowed to get married?  Who knows.  But I wouldn't put it past him to be crassly trying to "neutralize" the issue of gay marriage for Alison Lundergan Grimes.  While Beshear is appealing the court's decision, Grimes will probably say, "I think we shouldn't comment on something that is being litigated right now.  Let's wait and see what a higher court says."

    If any of you think that I'm being overly critical of my fellow Democrats in KY, the Kentucky Democrats fear on social issues was made plan to me when I blogged about the Noah's Ark theme park.  I was informed by one of Beshear's aides that I was "mistaken" about the subsidies, and he would be happy to address this at the next Metro Democratic Club meeting in Louisville.  

    The guy never got back to me or the club.

    I was also informed by a Democratic activist that outside of Louisville and parts of Lexington that the rest of the state thinks being socially conservative is fine.  And I was warned that my complaints on the Noah's Ark theme park would be ignored.  And I suspect that the rest of the state is fine with discriminating against the LGBT community.

    •  Democrats in republican southern states ... (0+ / 0-)

      are almost all of the same ilk as Gov. Beshear. They are mostly gutless and cojones free from courageously championing liberal social issues in order to get elected or stay elected. But then the electorate is an ignorant lot of conservative Dixiecrats who they cater their politics towards.

      But I will give Gov. Beshear credit for embracing the ACA in Kentucky that helps the uninsured in his state.

  •  So if a dude can't marry another dude (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JerryNA

    He's just gonna say "fuck it, I guess I'll have to start screwing women now 'cause I needs babies"?

    People who went to law school actually make arguments like this?

  •  The "no procreation" notion is wrong (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JerryNA

    What gets me about statements like what the Kentucky government said is that they are flat-out wrong.

    Same gender couples CAN procreate using methods that have been available to opposite-gender couples for decades.

    A female same gender couple can produce children using donor sperm and/or in-vitro fertilization, just like an opposite-gender couple can when the male is infertile.

    A male same gender couple can produce children using a surrogate, just like an opposite-gender couple can when the female is infertile or can't carry a child to term.

    If the couple doesn't want to go through the expense and discomfort of these methods, they could also adopt one of the thousands of kids in Kentucky that need good loving parents to provide for them.

    Well they could... if the Kentucky government got off its collective "holier-than-thou" butt and actually allowed same-gender couples to adopt kids.

    What better way to contribute to the state's financial security than to take a foster kid off the state's hands and turn them into a well adjusted and functional adult?

  •  There are, of course, MANY ... (0+ / 0-)

    ... anti-think tanks across our great land.  The one that cranks out legislation for the silly states is called ALEC, the American Legislative Exchange Council.  You should look into them - fascinating and scary!

    OF COURSE the New Right is wrong - but that doesn't make WRONG the new RIGHT!

    by mstaggerlee on Thu May 15, 2014 at 10:39:03 AM PDT

  •  Perhaps it has not occurred to Mr Beshear... (0+ / 0-)

    ... that the people seeking to marry someone of the same sex are unlikely to procreate in any event?

    And given the global overpopulation crisis, what's so great about encouraging procreation anyway?  ESPECIALLY in any American red state, where we might we might be better off discouraging a significant portion of the population from passing their genetics forward.

    OF COURSE the New Right is wrong - but that doesn't make WRONG the new RIGHT!

    by mstaggerlee on Thu May 15, 2014 at 10:45:34 AM PDT

  •  Anything that consrvative have to say... (0+ / 0-)

    Nothing the conservatives have to say surprise me anymore. After all Ignorance, Arrogance and Incompetence are their only known assets.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site