Federal ruling in Kentucky casts doubt on marriage amendment in Indiana

40

statehouse_logo_final-graybackground-003-1By John Sittler

TheStatehouseFile.com

INDIANAPOLIS – A federal judge in Kentucky ruled Wednesday that the commonwealth must recognize same-sex marriages performed in another state, striking down a constitutional amendment similar to one under consideration in Indiana.

The 2004 amendment to the Kentucky Constitution restricted recognized marriages to those between a man and a woman. U.S. District Judge John G. Heyburn said that violates the U.S. Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection under the law.

“It is clear that Kentucky’s laws treat gay and lesbian persons differently in a way that demeans them,” Heyburn said in his ruling. But the decision did not say Kentucky must allow same-sex marriages to be performed in the state.

The decision is the latest in a series of federal court rulings that raise questions about whether Indiana’s proposed amendment could withstand a challenge. Indiana’s proposal defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman, mirroring existing state law.

House Joint Resolution 3 has passed the Indiana House and is under consideration in the Senate. If it passes as currently written, it would need approval from the General Assembly again in 2015 or 2016 before it could go on the ballot for ratification in 2016.

But some of the amendment’s opponents say the proposal would buck national trends – and the recent court rulings.

Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a federal law defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman and left it up to states to make decisions about the definition of a legal marriage.

But then last month, a federal court ruled that an amendment to the Oklahoma Constitution banning same-sex marriage violates the U.S. Constitution. That ruling came one week after a similar ruling was made on a same-sex marriage ban in Utah.

Republican Gov. Mike Pence, who supports the Indiana amendment, declined through a spokeswoman to comment on the Kentucky decision.

Rep. Matt Pierce, D-Bloomington, said Wednesday that it’s “just one more piece of evidence that the attempts to pass this amendment here is just a futile attempt to hold back the tide of history.”

Pierce said he did not think Wednesday’s ruling would have any effect on Indiana’s marriage battle this year, but he hoped this would be the last time the issue was brought before the General Assembly.

“I think they’re kind of stuck following through with the monster they’ve created, but I would not be surprised if, in the next two years, they just have better things to do,” he said.

Amendments to HJR 3 will be considered in the Senate as early as Thursday.

John Sittler is a reporter for TheStatehouseFile.com, a news website powered by Franklin College journalism students.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

40 COMMENTS

  1. “ruling casts doubt on marriage amendment”

    Ya think?

    In other news, water is wet, your taxes are due on April 15th and McDonald’s serves hamburgers.

    • Bing-O!! “Casts doubt” is far too optimistic for the idiocy proposed in our legislature. A much better assessment is “is DOA.” Wake up, Indiana!

    • If you are so sure it will be struck down, then why fear it going to referendum?

      Seems to me the smart thing for your side to do would be let the amendment be enacted and the court stricke it down forever.

      • I-E….You’re acknowledging bans against same-sex marriage are unconstitutional, you know.

        I still can’t figure out why.

        Why the determination to be actually legally declared and ruled as a bigot?

        • (clarifying)

          …”can’t figure out why” you continue with arguing against same-sex marriage recognition

          …when you acknowledge it’s unconstitutional to fail to recognize it.

          I am nearly certain you respect law and order. So why the determination to be actually legally declared and ruled as a bigot?

          • “… bigot?” That’s why you can’t can’t understand me. You have only one view and your mind can not see other possibilities without reverting to your bigot mode.

            I never said it defining marriage as between one man and one woman was unconstitutional. I said that it is unconstitutional to single out a group for exclusion.

            What I wonder is why it is constitutional to rule them for inclusion while denying others with the same qualifications?

            My concern has always been and will always be the constitutional process.

          • I-E,

            Ok….you’re (not very) cleverly avoiding embracing the legal case, so clearly stated above in the Kentucky case here:

            “The 2004 amendment to the Kentucky Constitution restricted recognized marriages to those between a man and a woman. U.S. District Judge John G. Heyburn said that violates the U.S. Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection under the law.”

            You keep trying to change the subject which is same-sex marriage bans are unconstitutional because of the parties right to equal protection under the law.

            You keep talking about excluding others. And while I think it’s a different subject and an entirely different legal case…

            ….What others are being denied because of recognition of same-sex marriage?

            Specifically list the parties being singled out for exclusion by the court ruling that same-sex marriage is a right due to equal protection?

            (Cause I’m thinking they’re a different case to be considered.)

          • Weinz, I must have explained my position a hundred time to you, but you have been to busy calling me a bigot or poking your finger in my eye to listen to what I am actually saying. Why would the one hundred first time be any different?

            However, I think it was you who said that constitutional is what the supreme court says it is. That’s accurate. But I don’t have to embrace it.

            BTW, your quote was not stated in the decision, at least I didn’t find it. That was the writer’s interpretation.

          • I-E, It’s pretty clear you didn’t answer the question reinforcing that you can’t.

            You keep talking about excluding others. And while I think it’s a different subject and an entirely different legal case…

            ….What others are being denied because of recognition of same-sex marriage?

            Specifically list the parties being singled out for exclusion by the court ruling that same-sex marriage is a right due to equal protection?

            (Cause I’m thinking they’re a different case to be considered.)

      • There is no fear of a referendum. It is a waste of time and money. The ruling has already been made in other locations. To continue with this process is taking time that is needed for other important business. As LKB stated, this is DOA. It needs to be put aside. Period.

        • Martha, the majority of states have constitutional definitions of marriage and the ruling does not mean Kentucky must provide same sex marriage. Poorly written amendments will be struck down, and if HJR3 wold have passed with part B, it would not have stood.

          But even Judge Heyburn stated in his ruling that it creates unanswered questions.

  2. The drip, drip, drip has turned into a steady drumbeat. The proposed Indiana amendment, now doing the limbo rock, is hanging from Pence’s neck. We will see how low he can go. Must be awful.

    • How low can he go?

      Pence = Y = 1/X X—> ∞, Marianas trench?

      Whatever he may be suffering(if anything) it can’t be a 1/1000th the pain and suffering experinced by LGBT youth in this country.

      • Absolutely! In my line of work, I dealt with so many people, young and older, whose souls will always carry scars inflicted by the “righteous right.”

      • It’d be fitting if he got to run with his good buddy, The Amendment, in 2016. He’ll be doing a lot of phony backpedaling in the meantime, trying to distance himself from his friend.

        Today’s legislative failure to muster a properly depraved majority will also give the ongoing die-off a couple more years to do its work on behalf of the people. Wouldn’t surprise me if Pence got to run in ’16 unencumbered by that foul amendment.

  3. How long til the SCOTUS rules that the IRS code giving preferential treatment to married people violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

    • Then you’re getting into Congresses ability/right to tax and I doubt that even the most conservative or liberal justice want to touch that pandora’s box.

    • Why should congress be allowed to tax people cohabiting at a different rate than those married?

      • Because there is no “contract or marriage license” if two people cohabit. They are not legally joined. That was an easy one. Geez!

        • This is why they do it although it makes no sense that singles and marrieds pay differently.

          • I have performed 3 wedding ceremonies, my niece who died of cancer being one, in which no legal license was issued because being legally married created great legal liabilities.

            Same sex marriage only solves some issues for homosexuals, but excludes many others.

        • Nothing is ever that simple. So two people desireing to build a life together “must” seek the state’s permission or be open to a higher tax liability? So now where is fairness and liberty?

          • I-E…

            You keep talking about excluding others. And while I think it’s a different subject and an entirely different legal case…

            ….What others are being denied because of recognition of same-sex marriage?

            Specifically list the parties being singled out for exclusion by the court ruling that same-sex marriage is a right due to equal protection?

            (Cause I’m thinking they’re a different case to be considered.)

  5. Referendum will NOT be on the ballot in November 2014.

    The TPer’s will have to look for another unconstitutional hornet’s nest to poke, I’m sure they will find something, creationism, crosses on public property, guns in schools, ID’s for welfare/food stamps.

    • I am heartened by the “one finger salute” that the Senate handed the TP when they passed the debt-ceiling. Canadian Cruz looked like a child whose balloon had burst. The Congress did it too, so the Tealiban is crying for Boehner’s head on a platter. I don’t think they’re going to get it though. It looks like they may be losing the “absolute” grip they’ve had on things, but you’re right, BB. They will come up with some bizarre demand, which will likely get them another salute.

    • You’re either poorly informed, a fool, or a bigot.

      It’s the Court’s ruling…third branch of government, Judicial, that is clearly ruling, not only in the Supreme Court, but in not only Kentucky… OKLAHOMA, VIRGINIA and UTAH even….that same-sex marriage bans violate equal protection rights and are unconstitutional.

      Bigots lose.

    • …

      I-E, this is personal for you, and not a matter of law. That is apparent now, and looking back, apparent for some time.

      You’re only interested in pushing a personal, discriminatory, bias agenda, not Constitutionality nor the rights of the individual, nor a citizen’s right to equal protection under the law.

      I had respect for you as a student and adherent to the accuracy of the law. Not anymore.

      ………..

      (It was appropriate to call defenders of bans against interracial marriage bigots, and equally appropriate here. What makes it fulfilling is the Supreme Court and State Courts are validating the accuracy of that judicial-backed assessment of your bias. Everyone here knows this about you I-E. And even more, they all know it burns like a fire in your belly that you want to acknowledge it…but you won’t as a matter of a bigot’s pride.)

      • Speaking of interracial marriages brings Virginia and the Loving case to mind. Yesterday, Virginia became the second southern state to strike down their gay marriage ban. First KY, then VA. The dominoes are falling, even in the South.
        This country is moving forward, no matter how unhappy that makes the psm soon-to-be-minority.

        • It does seem the American Taliban is getting slapped around a bit by the people and the courts. Their martyrdom is duly noticed and appreciated. It will make them meaner but they’ve already maxed out on that for all practical purposes. All they can do now is double down again and stew.

  11. http://illinoisfamily.org/homosexuality/homosexual-activist-admits-true-purpose-of-battle-is-to-destroy-marriage/

    “It’s a no-brainer that (homosexual activists) should have the right to marry, but I also think equally that it’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist. …(F)ighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we are going to do with marriage when we get there — because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie.

    The institution of marriage is going to change, and it should change. And again, I don’t think it should exist. And I don’t like taking part in creating fictions about my life. That’s sort of not what I had in mind when I came out thirty years ago.

    I have three kids who have five parents, more or less, and I don’t see why they shouldn’t have five parents legally… I met my new partner, and she had just had a baby, and that baby’s biological father is my brother, and my daughter’s biological father is a man who lives in Russia, and my adopted son also considers him his father. So the five parents break down into two groups of three… And really, I would like to live in a legal system that is capable of reflecting that reality, and I don’t think that’s compatible with the institution of marriage.”

Comments are closed.