Kentucky Bill Passes: Gay Marriage & Normal Marriage Licenses Now Different

[Skylar]

that whole separate but equal thing hasn't held up since 1950

For race, but behaviors are not about race. So not sure why you brought that up. People make distinctions on behavior every single day of the week. Ever hear of penal codes?

Religion is a behavior. Speech is a behavior. Keeping and bearing arms is a behavior. Yet none of those are the basis of exclusion from marriage either.

Thankfully Kentucky hasn't even tried to change the legal status of same sex married couples. Nor does their law even recognize 'same sex marriage'. Merely 'marriage'. Which both same and opposite sex couples can participate in.

USSC New York vs Ferber (1982) however IS a basis for exclusion from marriage... Here's what it found with respect to the damage to children by legally stripping them of either a father or mother for life as a matter of the newly revised contract and "civil right" your cult is claiming:

More pseudo-legal gibberish. Ferber never so much as mentions marriage. You're making shit up again. Nor does Ferber ever find that same sex marriage hurts children. You've imagined it.

While WIndsor and Obergefell both find that same sex marriage benefits children. While denying same sex marriage hurts children.

And it humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples. The law in question makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives....

...DOMA also brings financial harm to children of samesex couples. It raises the cost of health care for families by taxing health benefits provided by employers to their workers’ same-sex spouses. And it denies or reduces benefits allowed to families upon the loss of a spouse and parent, benefits that are an integral part of family security.

And again reiterated in Obergefell:

Without the recognition, stability, and predictability marriage offers, children suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser. They also suffer the significant material costs of being raised by unmarried parents, relegated to a more difficult and uncertain family life. The marriage laws at issue thus harm and humiliate the children of same-sex couples.

With Obergefell affirming the benefits of same sex marriage for children;

Under the laws of the several States, some of marriage’s protections for children and families are material. But marriage also confers more profound benefits. By giving recognition and legal structure to their parents’ relationship, marriage allows children “to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives.” Windsor, supra, at ___ (slip op., at 23). Marriage also affords the permanency and stability important to children’s best interests. See Brief for Scholars of the Constitutional Rights of Children as Amici Curiae 22–27.

With the court finding that same sex couples provide loving, nurturing homes to their children:

As all parties agree, many same-sex couples provide loving and nurturing homes to their children, whether biological or adopted. And hundreds of thousands of children are presently being raised by such couples. See Brief for Gary J. Gates as Amicus Curiae 4. Most States have allowed gays and lesbians to adopt, either as individuals or as couples, and many adopted and foster children have same-sex parents, see id., at 5. This provides powerful confirmation from the law itself that gays and lesbians can create loving, supportive families.

And of course, Obergefell obliterated your entire argument again when it found that marriage isn't predicated children:

This does not mean that the right to marry is less meaningful for those who do not or cannot have children. Precedent protects the right of a married couple not to procreate, so the right to marry cannot be conditioned on the capacity or commitment to procreate.

And you straight up ignore the findings of the Supreme Court on the matter. All while literally hallucinating passages in Ferber that don't exist.

That's not a legal argument. Which explains the perfect failure of your claims under the law. And why same sex marriage is still legal in 50 of 50 States.

 

[Skylar]

you cross lickers have already lost

1. I'm not a practicing Christian.

Then you've been lying on your website.

2. Do you consider the separate marriage licenses in Kentucky a "loss" for Christians? It is precisely because of Christians the legislation passed. The rationale is that calling a man a "wife" or a woman a "husband' is disrespectful to Christians and the webster's dictionary for that matter.. So the law passed. And it is a small but significant victory in the opposite direction for Christians who don't want to participate in LGBT cult behaviors; which include reinventing the english language to advance their delusionary and perverse behavior into the heart of our culture. (Marriage)

Two grand problems with your theory:

1) Kentucky treats same sex marriage the same way it does opposite sex marrigae. Its all 'marriage' under Kentucky law.

2) Kentucky passing a law doesn't mean that the law is constitution. As their laws preventing same sex marriage being overturned as unconstitutional demonstrate elegantly.

 

[guno]

you cross lickers have already lost

1. I'm not a practicing Christian.

2. Do you consider the separate marriage licenses in Kentucky a "loss" for Christians? It is precisely because of Christians the legislation passed. The rationale is that calling a man a "wife" or a woman a "husband' is disrespectful to Christians and the webster's dictionary for that matter.. So the law passed. And it is a small but significant victory in the opposite direction for Christians who don't want to participate in LGBT cult behaviors; which include reinventing the english language to advance their delusionary and perverse behavior into the heart of our culture. (Marriage)

lying for your jezzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzuz again

 

[guno]

you cross lickers have already lost

1. I'm not a practicing Christian.

2. Do you consider the separate marriage licenses in Kentucky a "loss" for Christians? It is precisely because of Christians the legislation passed. The rationale is that calling a man a "wife" or a woman a "husband' is disrespectful to Christians and the webster's dictionary for that matter.. So the law passed. And it is a small but significant victory in the opposite direction for Christians who don't want to participate in LGBT cult behaviors; which include reinventing the english language to advance their delusionary and perverse behavior into the heart of our culture. (Marriage)

I'm not a practicing Christian.

nice picture of christer statues on you web site, you must be a statue humper

 

[Silhouette]

nice picture of christer statues on you web site, you must be a statue humper

Still, haven't been to church in *checks watch* about 10 years...maybe longer. How will you protect yourselves without the Christian-bashing when seculars start objecting based on everyone's agreement that depriving a child of either a father or mother for life as a matter of binding contract (gay marriage) is the wrong thing to do?

That visceral belief crosses the boundaries of faith and factories..

 

[BULLDOG]

nice picture of christer statues on you web site, you must be a statue humper

Still, haven't been to church in *checks watch* about 10 years...maybe longer. How will you protect yourselves without the Christian-bashing when seculars start objecting based on everyone's agreement that depriving a child of either a father or mother for life as a matter of binding contract (gay marriage) is the wrong thing to do?

That visceral belief crosses the boundaries of faith and factories..

Which would you prefer. A child being kept in orphanages and group homes with no family to love and take care of him, or that same child being adopted by a loving gay couple?

 

[Silhouette]

Which would you prefer. A child being kept in orphanages and group homes with no family to love and take care of him, or that same child being adopted by a loving gay couple?

I prefer the situation where a child has a shot at both a mother and father. Would you prefer a situation where the child is legally-barred from that vital need?

 

[BULLDOG]

Which would you prefer. A child being kept in orphanages and group homes with no family to love and take care of him, or that same child being adopted by a loving gay couple?

I prefer the situation where a child has a shot at both a mother and father. Would you prefer a situation where the child is legally-barred from that vital need?

Banning gay couples from adopting is legally barring many children from having any kind of family. They all don't get adopted. The ones that don't would be much better off with loving gay parents than with no parents at all. You still didn't answer my question. Which would you prefer. A child being kept in orphanages and group homes with no family to love and take care of him, or that same child being adopted by a loving gay couple?

 

[mdk]

The instant Sil can't use children to harm gay people she discards them like last week's leftovers. She doesn't give the slightest of shits about children.

 

[jillian]

********
FRANKFORT, Ky. – Kentucky's state Senate approved a bill Thursday that creates different marriage license forms for gay and straight couples, with one Republican senator saying any form that does not include the words "bride" and "groom" is disrespectful to traditional families.

The primary purpose of the legislation was to remove the names of county clerks from marriage licenses, a response to the controversy surrounding Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis and her refusal to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

But the Republican-controlled Senate amended the bill as a way to show their support for traditional marriage. Former Democratic Gov. Steve Beshear changed the marriage license form last summer once same-sex marriages became legal, removing "bride" and "groom" and replacing it with "first party" and "second party."

"Quite frankly, it's almost disrespectful to the traditional family," said Republican state Sen. John Schickel of Union. "That's' why, wisely, we decided to have two forms. That has nothing to do with bigotry, nothing to do with discrimination. It has to do with the vast majority of Kentuckians that respect traditional marriage."

Democratic Sen. Morgan McGarvey of Louisville tried to amend the bill to create one form, where a person would have the option to check "bride," ''groom" or "spouse" beside their name. He said having one form would be cheaper and more efficient, and it would treat everyone fairly. It failed. Kentucky Senate approves bill creating separate marriage license forms | Fox News

******

This would make the two unions distinct. It will be helpful when later certain couples try to use "marriage" to adopt children which would strip them of either a mother or father for life as a matter of binding contract.

they're wasting our tax money. thet will be unconstitutional, too.

idiots.

Unless you live in Kentucky they are not wasting your tax money. And, if the the majority of Kentuckians do not approve of the legislation, they can vote their representative out of office.

it was a federal court case. federal courts are paid for by federal tax dollars.

it doesn't matter WHAT the kentucky legislature wanted. the law iwas unconstitutional. so it doesn't matter. you do understand that's the court's job, right? and that if the court says it's not constitutional, the legislature can't go pass another law that violates the same decision just to churn controversy.

thanks.

 

[Montrovant]

Two marriage licenses is a good thing since there are obvious differences. Hats off to Kentucky.

Gays can use either of the lincense to marry. Just like straight couples. Other than wasting paper this doesn't really accomplish very much.

And according to the article, there was a proposal for a license which gave participants the option to choose husband, wife, or spouse, but that didn't get passed. This might pass constitutional muster because it does allow anyone to use either form, but it's so clearly an attempt to separate same sex from opposite sex marriage it seems childish.

 

[mdk]

Two marriage licenses is a good thing since there are obvious differences. Hats off to Kentucky.

Gays can use either of the lincense to marry. Just like straight couples. Other than wasting paper this doesn't really accomplish very much.

And according to the article, there was a proposal for a license which gave participants the option to choose husband, wife, or spouse, but that didn't get passed. This might pass constitutional muster because it does allow anyone to use either form, but it's so clearly an attempt to separate same sex from opposite sex marriage it seems childish.

A petty and toothless victory for the anti-gay marriage whiners.

 

[Carla_Danger]

Holy Shit......we've noted that Sil is self soothing with thumb sucker threads. But she's apparently raised her cognitive dissonance to a whole new level. And created an entire message board dedicated to her obsession.

Where she is the only participant. And she currently has 29 active threads of Sil talking to herself.

Marriage Forum

And just so there is no confusion that IowaRoots is Silhouette....she's also created a website begging for donotions to help fund her illness:

SILHOUETTE'S EFFORT

....P.S. Be sure to visit the chat forums at http://effortmatters.yuku.com ~ Silhouette

INFORMATION

I'm pretty sure referring to yourself in the third person is what happens just before a psychotic break. Or a viagra commercial.

Holy shit, that's just insane.

 

[Skylar]

Holy Shit......we've noted that Sil is self soothing with thumb sucker threads. But she's apparently raised her cognitive dissonance to a whole new level. And created an entire message board dedicated to her obsession.

Where she is the only participant. And she currently has 29 active threads of Sil talking to herself.

Marriage Forum

And just so there is no confusion that IowaRoots is Silhouette....she's also created a website begging for donotions to help fund her illness:

SILHOUETTE'S EFFORT

....P.S. Be sure to visit the chat forums at http://effortmatters.yuku.com ~ Silhouette

INFORMATION

I'm pretty sure referring to yourself in the third person is what happens just before a psychotic break. Or a viagra commercial.

Holy shit, that's just insane.

Yup.

 

[Skylar]

Which would you prefer. A child being kept in orphanages and group homes with no family to love and take care of him, or that same child being adopted by a loving gay couple?

I prefer the situation where a child has a shot at both a mother and father. Would you prefer a situation where the child is legally-barred from that vital need?

How does denying marriage to same sex parents in any way effect the issue you've raised? If you deny same sex parents marriage it doesn't mean that they are magically transformed into opposite sex parents. It merely guarantees that their children will never have married parents.

Which hurts their children and helps no one.

 

[TooTall]

********
FRANKFORT, Ky. – Kentucky's state Senate approved a bill Thursday that creates different marriage license forms for gay and straight couples, with one Republican senator saying any form that does not include the words "bride" and "groom" is disrespectful to traditional families.

The primary purpose of the legislation was to remove the names of county clerks from marriage licenses, a response to the controversy surrounding Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis and her refusal to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

But the Republican-controlled Senate amended the bill as a way to show their support for traditional marriage. Former Democratic Gov. Steve Beshear changed the marriage license form last summer once same-sex marriages became legal, removing "bride" and "groom" and replacing it with "first party" and "second party."

"Quite frankly, it's almost disrespectful to the traditional family," said Republican state Sen. John Schickel of Union. "That's' why, wisely, we decided to have two forms. That has nothing to do with bigotry, nothing to do with discrimination. It has to do with the vast majority of Kentuckians that respect traditional marriage."

Democratic Sen. Morgan McGarvey of Louisville tried to amend the bill to create one form, where a person would have the option to check "bride," ''groom" or "spouse" beside their name. He said having one form would be cheaper and more efficient, and it would treat everyone fairly. It failed. Kentucky Senate approves bill creating separate marriage license forms | Fox News

******

This would make the two unions distinct. It will be helpful when later certain couples try to use "marriage" to adopt children which would strip them of either a mother or father for life as a matter of binding contract.

they're wasting our tax money. thet will be unconstitutional, too.

idiots.

Unless you live in Kentucky they are not wasting your tax money. And, if the the majority of Kentuckians do not approve of the legislation, they can vote their representative out of office.

it was a federal court case. federal courts are paid for by federal tax dollars.

it doesn't matter WHAT the kentucky legislature wanted. the law iwas unconstitutional. so it doesn't matter. you do understand that's the court's job, right? and that if the court says it's not constitutional, the legislature can't go pass another law that violates the same decision just to churn controversy.

thanks.

The article stated that this law passed one house in the Kentucky legislature and is pending in the other, and you say the Supreme Court has already ruled on a law that has not been signed into law.

Thanks!

 

[AvgGuyIA]

********
FRANKFORT, Ky. – Kentucky's state Senate approved a bill Thursday that creates different marriage license forms for gay and straight couples, with one Republican senator saying any form that does not include the words "bride" and "groom" is disrespectful to traditional families.

The primary purpose of the legislation was to remove the names of county clerks from marriage licenses, a response to the controversy surrounding Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis and her refusal to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

But the Republican-controlled Senate amended the bill as a way to show their support for traditional marriage. Former Democratic Gov. Steve Beshear changed the marriage license form last summer once same-sex marriages became legal, removing "bride" and "groom" and replacing it with "first party" and "second party."

"Quite frankly, it's almost disrespectful to the traditional family," said Republican state Sen. John Schickel of Union. "That's' why, wisely, we decided to have two forms. That has nothing to do with bigotry, nothing to do with discrimination. It has to do with the vast majority of Kentuckians that respect traditional marriage."

Democratic Sen. Morgan McGarvey of Louisville tried to amend the bill to create one form, where a person would have the option to check "bride," ''groom" or "spouse" beside their name. He said having one form would be cheaper and more efficient, and it would treat everyone fairly. It failed. Kentucky Senate approves bill creating separate marriage license forms | Fox News

******

This would make the two unions distinct. It will be helpful when later certain couples try to use "marriage" to adopt children which would strip them of either a mother or father for life as a matter of binding contract.

Nope. They're both still marriage under Kentucky law.

Remember, you don't actually have the slightest clue what you're talking about.

The homo marriage is actually a faux-marriage. It's not the same as real marriage between a man and woman.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

********
FRANKFORT, Ky. – Kentucky's state Senate approved a bill Thursday that creates different marriage license forms for gay and straight couples, with one Republican senator saying any form that does not include the words "bride" and "groom" is disrespectful to traditional families.

The primary purpose of the legislation was to remove the names of county clerks from marriage licenses, a response to the controversy surrounding Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis and her refusal to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

But the Republican-controlled Senate amended the bill as a way to show their support for traditional marriage. Former Democratic Gov. Steve Beshear changed the marriage license form last summer once same-sex marriages became legal, removing "bride" and "groom" and replacing it with "first party" and "second party."

"Quite frankly, it's almost disrespectful to the traditional family," said Republican state Sen. John Schickel of Union. "That's' why, wisely, we decided to have two forms. That has nothing to do with bigotry, nothing to do with discrimination. It has to do with the vast majority of Kentuckians that respect traditional marriage."

Democratic Sen. Morgan McGarvey of Louisville tried to amend the bill to create one form, where a person would have the option to check "bride," ''groom" or "spouse" beside their name. He said having one form would be cheaper and more efficient, and it would treat everyone fairly. It failed. Kentucky Senate approves bill creating separate marriage license forms | Fox News

******

This would make the two unions distinct. It will be helpful when later certain couples try to use "marriage" to adopt children which would strip them of either a mother or father for life as a matter of binding contract.

they're wasting our tax money. thet will be unconstitutional, too.

idiots.

If there's no legal distinction, it may be irrelevant. And there's no legal distinction.

that whole separate but equal thing hasn't held up since 1950

They could go back to the Bride and groom form. Let the gay men decide who will be the female in the faux-marriage.

 

[mdk]

********
FRANKFORT, Ky. – Kentucky's state Senate approved a bill Thursday that creates different marriage license forms for gay and straight couples, with one Republican senator saying any form that does not include the words "bride" and "groom" is disrespectful to traditional families.

The primary purpose of the legislation was to remove the names of county clerks from marriage licenses, a response to the controversy surrounding Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis and her refusal to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

But the Republican-controlled Senate amended the bill as a way to show their support for traditional marriage. Former Democratic Gov. Steve Beshear changed the marriage license form last summer once same-sex marriages became legal, removing "bride" and "groom" and replacing it with "first party" and "second party."

"Quite frankly, it's almost disrespectful to the traditional family," said Republican state Sen. John Schickel of Union. "That's' why, wisely, we decided to have two forms. That has nothing to do with bigotry, nothing to do with discrimination. It has to do with the vast majority of Kentuckians that respect traditional marriage."

Democratic Sen. Morgan McGarvey of Louisville tried to amend the bill to create one form, where a person would have the option to check "bride," ''groom" or "spouse" beside their name. He said having one form would be cheaper and more efficient, and it would treat everyone fairly. It failed. Kentucky Senate approves bill creating separate marriage license forms | Fox News

******

This would make the two unions distinct. It will be helpful when later certain couples try to use "marriage" to adopt children which would strip them of either a mother or father for life as a matter of binding contract.

Nope. They're both still marriage under Kentucky law.

Remember, you don't actually have the slightest clue what you're talking about.

The homo marriage is actually a faux-marriage. It's not the same as real marriage between a man and woman.

Good thing what you consider to be a real marriage doesn't have the slightest effect on the law.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

And where, pray tell, does Kentucky make a legal distinction between same sex and opposite sex marriage?

See, there's this thing called "reading the OP before you start babbling ignorantly". You should look into it.

Well, see....the piece in the OP says there is a distinction between the two types of marriage certificates.

That's not what I asked. I asked for the legal distinction. Not the font on a certificate.

There is no 'gay marriage' in Kentucky law. There is merely marriage.

Gay marriage will be the qualifier. Marriage is reserved for normal couples.