Federal Judge: Kentucky Must Recognize Homogamy

In 2004, when asked about gay marriage in the Vice Presidential debate, Sen. Jonathan Edwards (D-SC) insisted that it was a non-issue, because, “under the law of this country for the last 200 years, no state has been required to recognize another state’s marriage.”

Edwards, a master salesman, disingenuously failed to include the word yet at the end of the sentence.

He also ignored what conservatives had realized years earlier: the strategy for the gay rights movement was to get one or more states to grant marriage licenses to gay couples, then use this as a pretext for forcing all other states to recognize such “marriages” by invoking the Full Faith and Credit clause in the Constitution.

Yesterday, U.S. District Judge John G. Heyburn continued this charade by refusing to consider theĀ  common law prohibitions against sodomy–which predate our Constitution by over a thousand years–and force Kentucky to accept gay “marriages” from other states.

In so doing, Heyburn has forced Kentucky to accept a definition of marriage that is akin to forcing one to recognize a naked emperor as fully-clothed. (Declaring falsehood to be true does not make it any less false.)

Once again, a small but well-connected and vocal minority has succeeded in getting the courts to impose on states what could not be accomplished via legislation.

Conservatives understood that, to defeat gay “marriage”, a Constitutional Amendment is necessary. That Amendment must either (a) define marriage as one man and one woman, or (b) declare that neither the federal government nor the several states may regulate marriage, and remand that back to religious institutions.

But make no mistake: no state law, no State Constitutional Amendment, no federal law, will stop this. Only a Constitutional Amendment or a national Christian resurgence will carry the day.

But until we get the latter, we have no chance of getting the former. And the decline will continue.

9 thoughts on “Federal Judge: Kentucky Must Recognize Homogamy

  1. and probably for the same reason we still have abortion … b/c Christians will not unitedly stand against it privately as well as publicly, as you have previously stated, because they want to keep that ‘out’ just-in-case … Christians will not unitedly stand against gay marriage. they have a family member, a brother, cousin, etc who is gay, and they don’t want to stand against them. and what-if someone else they love wants to be openly gay?

    so sad that the Christian culture has deteriorated so far … b/c if all those who truly believed in Jesus Christ took a stand for what God stands for, culture would change.

  2. Virginia just joined that parade too. One judge just overturned a a popular law. Basically, any judge can say anything is unconstitutional, no matter how far fetched it is. I’m still waiting for one to say the constitution is unconstitutional.

  3. What I am annoyed at is that a judge can just say something is “unconstitutional,” and then, automatically, everyone must bow to the will of that judge-even if it is in a red neck state like Kentucky where most of the members of the state wouldn’t accept homosexual “marriage” in the first place! In other words, a judge says it, and it completely overruns the will of the people, the existing law, the church, and anything that opposes it. It seems to me that the ones who really rule our country are the judges. Even Obama was afraid a while back that the Supreme Court would overturn his health care law! These judges need to have accountability to someone, but it just seems like they don’t. If the Supreme Court says it, it is the law of the land.

    • In the northeast, in the big cities, and on the west coast, few people care about this.

      But in flyover country, at this rate you are going to see the mother of all pushbacks. The flaps over Chick-fil-A and Duck Dynasty were the shots across the bow.

      What that pushback will look like, I have no idea. But there will come a point where people are going to say they have had enough of this crap.

      And when that happens, nothing a federal judge says is going to matter. That is because a ruling is only as good as the ability of the government to enforce it.

      And when the defecation hits the fan, the federal government will have a very limited ability to touch it, as they will have worse things to worry about than marriages.

Leave a Reply to singleman Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published.

Connect with Facebook

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.