Posts Tagged ‘Judge John Heyburn’

I was waiting for WND to do this post, since it actually happened yesterday (Tuesday, July 1): “Judge Tosses Kentucky ‘Gay’-Marriage Ban.” It comes courtesy of the Courier-Journal as opposed to any of pretty much ALL the news outlets yesterday that talked about it.

Here’s why I wanted to talk about it: Because the Federal Judge (Senior U.S. District Court Judge John G. Heyburn II) pulled no punches with his ruling, calling the state’s defense “bewildering and irrational.” From The Raw Story:

“In America, even sincere and long-held religious beliefs do not trump the constitutional rights of those who happen to have been out-voted,” Heyburn wrote in his ruling.

The judge sharply rejected the only justification for the ban offered by Democratic Gov. Steve Beshear’s lawyers – who argued that traditional marriage contributed to a stable birth rate and the state’s long-term economic stability.

“These arguments are not those of serious people,” Heyburn said.

“Though it seems almost unnecessary to explain, here are the reasons why,” Heyburn continued. “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.”

…“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,” Heyburn wrote.

That’s right, Christians: “Even sincere and long-held religious beliefs do not trump the constitutional rights of those who happen to have been out-voted.”

And that’s right, Christians: If gays get to marry, it’s not going to suddenly cause all the straights to stop having children.

Most WND commenters of course disagree. Take “pi10107” who wrote, “Another activist judge without an IQ high enough to understand the Constitution. Judges do not have the right to overturn the votes of the people just because it does not go along with that judge’s personal desire. Our country is being ruled by an illegal alien Muslim ignoring our laws and our Constitution and the judges are in his pocket.” That’s actually true (that a judge can’t do something just because of their “personal desire”). But the rest is hogwash. A role of the judiciary is to protect the minority from the majority when the majority is violating the minority’s rights. Hence, this ruling. And, hence throwing out one of the lamest defenses ever offered against marriage equality (that it will lower birthrates among heaters).

I’m writing this post as comments are being posted to the very newly-posted WND snippet, and this response was just posted by “sirjonk” and I fully expect it to be deleted by a moderator: “lol. Harvard Law educated judge selected by Mitch McConnell, appointed by GHWB. And his IQ is low, and you, the anonymous internet poster, is the intelligent one. HAHAHA” (Update a half hour later, though still before this post goes up: Yes, his comments have been deleted.)

“American Tax Payer is a world of crazy:

Whatever State legalizes “gay marriage” will see an influx of homosexuals and then they will start demanding the “Right” to be parents (adopting) and then they will start demanding the “Right” to be propelled into positions they’re not qualified for just because they’re homosexual like the non-whites do with their Affirmative Action.

The problem is, homos are never happy. First they said they just wanted the same “Rights” so we gave them Civil Unions. Then they said they “needed” to take our word, “Marriage” from us so they could be “equal” and next, they’ll demand the “Right” to adopt our children so they can trick uninformed normal people into believing they can actually procreate like normal people can.

The threat to the Population of Kentucky comes in the form of Heterosexual Flight. It works the same way White Flight does.

I would actually argue that “[Christians] are never happy;” fully recognizing that most Christians are perfectly happy living and let living, I’m talking about those on the über-right wing. Those Christians won’t be happy until “God” is plastered on public buildings, the Bible is mandatory reading in schools, every public assembly/meeting starts with a prayer, and Biblical law is followed. If you think I’m exaggerating, read RightWing Watch for a week, and you will see that I’m not.

“Homos” won’t be happy until they have equal rights. It’s really that simple. The patronization to say that “we gave them Civil Unions” just says it all, and gives further credence to the need of at least one branch of government to tell this majority to STFU.

Maybe “Leonard Corwin” would be disappointed to learn who appointed the judge: “Toss the judge. The fool is incompetent and not fit to serve on the bench. Which screwball democrat appointed him?”

Ahem: “On the recommendation of Senator Mitch McConnell, Heyburn was nominated by President George H. W. Bush on March 20, 1992 to a seat vacated by Thomas Ballantine, Jr. as Ballantine went on senior status. Heyburn was confirmed by the US Senate on August 12, 1992 on a Senate vote and received commission on August 17, 1992.” —Wikipedia. Hardly a conservative or conservative-appointed jurist. But facts never get in the way of righteous indignation, with “Frank” asking, “so who bought off this judge?” and “Patti_Mi” responding, “He’s probably an Obama plant.”

Of course, there are a few commenters who agree with the ruling, such as “Dancewithme”: “I guess my (heterosexual) parents wouldn’t be allowed to get married in Kentucky since my mom can’t have kids and thus they can’t procreate….what a b*llsh*t argument by the govener!!!!” “Dancewithme” also responded to “Frank”‘s indignation: “Making a bad case in court doesn’t really equate to buying someone off…if you present a crappy case in court you’ll most likely loose.”