Breaking: Another Black Robe Tyrant Imposes ‘Gay’ Marriage in KY


(Associated Press) A federal judge has ruled that Kentucky must recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states, pointing not only to recent decisions that have struck down bans in other states but also to older rulings on a person’s right to marry.

The state’s ban treated “gay and lesbian persons differently in a way that demeans them,” U.S. District Judge John G. Heyburn wrote Wednesday. While the case dealt with out-of-state marriages, it does not require the state to perform same-sex marriages.

Heyburn cited a long line of cases going back to the legalization of mixed-race marriages and mentioned recent same-sex marriage decisions in nine other states, including Hawaii and Utah. But he mainly relied on the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2013 ruling striking down a section of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, on which Kentucky’s same-sex marriage amendment had been based.

BarbWire Books is pleased to announce

Be Spent

Winning the Fight for Freedom's Survival

America stands at the edge of suicide. There is a struggle within our soul that is more dangerous than any external threat we face. We are walking down a path that puts us in direct conflict with the very God we relied on to establish this great nation. Is there a more frightening thought? This book is an invitation to discover your role within God's plan for America; to be part of a movement of renewal; to Be Spent in service to God and your neighbor. Only that type of serious, somber, deliberate, sacrificial commitment to God has the power to rekindle the love of truth necessary for freedom's survival in our land.


Posting Policy

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse. Read More

  • Maggie 4NoH8

    Seriously, are *ALL* of our federal judges activist tyrants? How can, what seems like “all”, be wrong in interpreting the US Constitution?

    • thisoldspouse

      They are all in collusion. And I’m sure in the future we will uncover improper communications with the DOJ and the White House regarding these decisions, as there was with Prop 8.

      • frellthat

        What happened with Prop 8 is that when the judge asked the attorney representing the state how anyone was harmed by same-sex marriage, the attorney said, “My answer is, I don’t know.”

        • thisoldspouse

          I am referring to covert communications between the DOJ and the federal district court during the Prop 8 trial. FOI requests were denied. This was a blatant violation of separation of powers.

          • frellthat

            Federal district courts are overseen by the Department of Justice. Isn’t it rather expected that there would be communication between them? And what difference does it make when the final outcome was determined by the Supreme Court in any case?

          • thisoldspouse

            What final outcome in what case are you referring to? The Prop 8 case is still in limbo. The Supreme Court did NOT decide that case, only found that there was no standing to defend it by ProtectMarriage. The California State Constitution STILL defines marriage as only between a man and a woman. Only, lawless elite politicians are refusing to enforce it.

            Interestingly, if the current attacks on Section 2 of DOMA (which was NOT struck down in Windsor) is decided favorably toward DOMA by the eventual Supreme Court case, the Prop 8 federal decision gets struck down as well, making the CA Marriage Amendment active.

          • MarkOH

            No. The law was struck down. Keep up.

          • thisoldspouse

            No, Prop 8 was NOT struck down by the Supreme Court. It wasn’t ruled on at all.

            Try to keep up.

          • MarkOH

            “The California State Constitution STILL defines marriage as only between a man and a woman. ”
            No, it doesn’t. And I didn’t say the SCOTUS struck down the law. It was struck down by the Ninth District Court. The SCOTUS essentially settled the matter by telling the gay-haters they had no standing. It reverted back to the court decision and the law was made void.
            So see? You are wrong, again.

          • observer1020

            Despite your best arguments, a slavish media, a complicit President, pandering politicians, a corrupt entertainment media, the Supreme Court did not find a “right” to same sex marriage in the Constitution in their decisions last year, nor did it find that homosexuality is entitled to the same status in our law as immutable characteristics such as race or ethnicity deserve.
            You are wrong, again.

          • MarkOH

            Oh, but you are wrong. There is no reason to deny same sex couples the right to marry (other than hatred for gays). Within the next 5 years, maybe sooner, the SCOTUS will decide and marriage for same sex couples will be legal in all 50 states. And, ENDA will also be passed. Whether you want to believe sexual orientation is innate (which it is) or chosen (like Religion, which IS a protected class), sexual orientation will be a covered class.
            Keep pandering the hate, you will be left in the dust of history along such bigots as George Wallace.

          • frellthat

            I’m just referring to the fact that the case was going to end up before the Supreme Court anyway, and everyone knew the SCOTUS would likely intervene before the verdict was even announced. What point would there have been in a conspiracy to influence the verdict at the district level, when it was going straight to the SCOTUS regardless how the district court ruled?

          • Rob Tisinai

            The case is not in limbo. It was decided by the District 9 of the Federal Circuit, whose decision remains in effect. The wording remains in the Constitution but is not valid law.

      • MarkOH

        You’re RIGHT. I mean, how can they ALL be deciding against these discriminating laws unless they are in collusion. UNLESS, the laws DO violate the Constitution.
        Never mind.

  • BillTheCat45

    The only “black robed tyrants” we see are in the church. ZZZZING!

  • Emma Bishop

    This is what happens when a Judge follows the US Constitution (the law of our land) and NOT the bible.

    You want to live in a theocracy, move to Iran or Iraq.

    • websearcher

      Better yet, they should join the Taliban. I hear that they too hate gays.

  • thisoldspouse

    So, states are not allowed to define marriage in law anymore? This is exactly what these judges are saying.

    • Emma Bishop

      No State of Federal laws should include marriage.

    • frellthat

      They’re allowed to define it. What they’re not allowed to do is define it in a way that violates the US Constitution.

      • thisoldspouse

        There is no “right to marry” in the Constitution. Otherwise, we would have uniform marriage qualifications imposed on every state. That we do not means that selective “victim groups” get unequal (more equal) treatment than 1st cousins in many states.

        • MarkOH

          There is no prohibition either.

        • frellthat

          There’s no right to marry; what there is is a right of all persons to be treated equally under the law. Courts, including the SCOTUS, have ruled many times for many years that sex-based discrimination violates that right, so there’s just no way that a law banning same-sex applicants from obtaining marriage licenses is ever going to be considered Constitutional. At least nothing short of a SCOTUS ruling could do that, and that would mean overturning decades of precedent.

  • Richard Rush

    Black Robe Tyrant: A judge who upsets the natural order of things by forcing a large traditionally powerful group to suffer the indignity of having to live in a society where a despised minority is granted the same access to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” that has heretofore been reserved exclusively for themselves in recognition of their superiority.