If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Lexington Herald Leader)   KY can restrict marriages that don't produce children, says Governor   (kentucky.com) divider line 134
    More: Stupid, Steve Beshear, opponents of same-sex marriage, Kentucky, rational basis, friend of the courts, marriage certificate, governors, same-sex couples  
•       •       •

3176 clicks; posted to Politics » on 09 May 2014 at 1:42 PM (10 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



134 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-05-09 12:32:00 PM
Interesting. And here I was thinking that KY generally improves a marriage...
 
2014-05-09 12:35:13 PM
"Kentucky has a legitimate interest in restricting marriage to heterosexual couples because only they can produce children, and the state needs population growth to thrive economically, attorneys for Gov. Steve Beshear argued this week."

That statement makes no sense. One does not necessarily follow the other - marriage has absolutely nothing to do with the ability to produce children, and population growth can be driven by immigration as well as child birth. It also does have the fun effect of telling the infertile and the elderly that they can't get married, either.
 
2014-05-09 12:35:33 PM
This approach been tried before - it looks like they really want to lose the senior citizen vote - or the argument...
 
2014-05-09 12:39:27 PM

naughtyrev: "Kentucky has a legitimate interest in restricting marriage to heterosexual couples because only they can produce children, and the state needs population growth to thrive economically, attorneys for Gov. Steve Beshear argued this week."

That statement makes no sense. One does not necessarily follow the other - marriage has absolutely nothing to do with the ability to produce children, and population growth can be driven by immigration as well as child birth. It also does have the fun effect of telling the infertile and the elderly that they can't get married, either.


Wonder what my infertile friends that adopted will think of that.
 
2014-05-09 12:42:38 PM
So long as the standard is childless marriages. That means old people, sterile people. DINKs and so on.

But, since the whole argument comes from the fundy assholes, how long should a marriage be valid before the government requires the couple to produce some kind of crotchfruit? Certainly you can't agree that they should have a child first as out of wedlock sexytime makes god cry and brings about terrible rains and hurricanes and stuff.

SO, I propose that all marriages that don't produce a child in 5 years are declared anulled. No marriage shall be performed until both the male and female prove that they are physically capable of producing offspring by getting a full checkup at their expense at the local fertility clinic.

Adoptions don't count. I'm on the fence regarding old people. If they had kids in the past, maybe you could allow them to stay married. That may send the wrong message, though. How about this: once a woman hits menopause, her marriage is anulled and she is banned from any future marriage. Women must be evaluated annually by a state-certified menopause technician to verify their fertility state beginning at age 38.
 
2014-05-09 12:43:52 PM

naughtyrev: "Kentucky has a legitimate interest in restricting marriage to heterosexual couples because only they can produce children, and the state needs population growth to thrive economically, attorneys for Gov. Steve Beshear argued this week."

That statement makes no sense. One does not necessarily follow the other - marriage has absolutely nothing to do with the ability to produce children, and population growth can be driven by immigration as well as child birth. It also does have the fun effect of telling the infertile and the elderly that they can't get married, either.


If he believes that the state's marriage laws need to promote population growth - which, of course, we all know that he doesn't, even a little bit, but let's play along with the bigoted dildo - then he should disfavor monogamous heterosexual marriage and encourage men to spread their seed around recklessly.
 
2014-05-09 12:44:43 PM

enry: naughtyrev: "Kentucky has a legitimate interest in restricting marriage to heterosexual couples because only they can produce children, and the state needs population growth to thrive economically, attorneys for Gov. Steve Beshear argued this week."

That statement makes no sense. One does not necessarily follow the other - marriage has absolutely nothing to do with the ability to produce children, and population growth can be driven by immigration as well as child birth. It also does have the fun effect of telling the infertile and the elderly that they can't get married, either.

Wonder what my infertile friends that adopted will think of that.


Do they vote Republican?
 
2014-05-09 12:46:47 PM
Nods approvingly.

static.bbc.co.uk
 
2014-05-09 12:53:52 PM

dr_blasto: enry: naughtyrev: "Kentucky has a legitimate interest in restricting marriage to heterosexual couples because only they can produce children, and the state needs population growth to thrive economically, attorneys for Gov. Steve Beshear argued this week."

That statement makes no sense. One does not necessarily follow the other - marriage has absolutely nothing to do with the ability to produce children, and population growth can be driven by immigration as well as child birth. It also does have the fun effect of telling the infertile and the elderly that they can't get married, either.

Wonder what my infertile friends that adopted will think of that.

Do they vote Republican?


Actually yes. Fundies too.
 
2014-05-09 01:09:07 PM
According to this argument, the point of marriage is to produce children as resources for the state.
 
2014-05-09 01:39:29 PM
Playing devils advocate, this could make sense if Kentucky was being overrun by gay couples to the point it was driving population growth into a death spiral.

Having never been there, I will just have to assume that this is the case: Kentucky is officially the gayest place on earth.
 
2014-05-09 01:45:12 PM

gilgigamesh: Having never been there, I will just have to assume that this is the case: Kentucky is officially the gayest place on earth.


Welcome to KY

// there's always time for lube!
// just watched that again last night after the thread we had yesterday
 
2014-05-09 01:45:12 PM
We should also implement a time table by which a marriage has to produce children or be annulled. Adoption doesn't count.
 
2014-05-09 01:46:43 PM
They're just so deep on the wrong side of history.....
 
2014-05-09 01:47:05 PM

naughtyrev: population growth can be driven by immigration


Ha ha ha oh wow.
 
2014-05-09 01:47:34 PM
The speculation I've heard is that Beshear doesn't actually think anything of the sort, but he wants to make specious arguments so that they'll get shot down legally.
 
2014-05-09 01:47:48 PM
I guess the assumption is that since gay marriage wouldn't be allowed "the gays" would marry a member of the opposite sex and have children because that's what gay people do when gay marriage is outlawed?  How was that working out before Kentucky outlawed gay marriage?
 
2014-05-09 01:48:28 PM

naughtyrev: "Kentucky has a legitimate interest in restricting marriage to heterosexual couples because only they can produce children, and the state needs population growth to thrive economically, attorneys for Gov. Steve Beshear argued this week."

That statement makes no sense. One does not necessarily follow the other - marriage has absolutely nothing to do with the ability to produce children, and population growth can be driven by immigration as well as child birth. It also does have the fun effect of telling the infertile and the elderly that they can't get married, either.


I think we can safely assume no one wants to immigrate to Kentucky.  This might be a necessary evil unless we Sacrifice Zone all of Kentucky.
 
2014-05-09 01:48:33 PM
Wait... has KY made adoption and fostering illegal now?

Because if they haven't then gay couples can, in fact, produce children.

// If KY actually has a replacement+ birth rate, that's really, really sad.  One the hallmarks of actual civilized industrialized nations is that they have birth-rates below replacement and make it up through inflation.  If KY isn't it's quite literally third-world in all but the historical sense.
 
2014-05-09 01:48:43 PM

Aarontology: According to this argument, the point of marriage is to produce children as resources for the state.


The Matrix tried to warn us...

3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2014-05-09 01:48:50 PM
From now on, couples who are infertile shall simply be taken out back and have a bolt shot through their heads.
 
2014-05-09 01:48:50 PM
I've never once heard a gay person say my heterosexual marriage is not a "Real marriage". I have heard many right wing conservatives however attack it saying it's not real.

Who are the real ones attacking "traditional" marriage?
 
2014-05-09 01:48:55 PM

Aarontology: According to this argument, the point of marriage is to produce children as resources for the state.


It's logically consistent.  They're the party of small government and feudalism.

/you don't get much smaller than one king and a handful of lords
 
2014-05-09 01:49:41 PM
Fits well with my own Defense of Marriage ACT that outlaws all marriages that are not strictly for the purpose of raising children and automatically dissolves any marriage where they are not actively trying to conceive (2 year limit), or 2 years after the last child has left the home.

Which also includes a No Divorce or Separation clause and requires each parent to spend at least 183 days per year living in the household with the children present.

If you want to go for that, great.  If not, STFU about gay marriage and reproduction.
 
2014-05-09 01:49:43 PM

jasonvatch: This approach been tried before - it looks like they really want to lose the senior citizen vote - or the argument...


[WHY_NOT_BOTH.JPG]
 
2014-05-09 01:49:53 PM
www.addictinginfo.org
 
2014-05-09 01:50:12 PM
er, make it up through immigration, i need more coffee I guess
 
2014-05-09 01:50:53 PM

dr_blasto: SO, I propose that all marriages that don't produce a child in 5 years are declared anulled. No marriage shall be performed until both the male and female prove that they are physically capable of producing offspring by getting a full checkup at their expense at the local fertility clinic.


Those sound like really reasonable, moderate suggestions. The problem is that sometimes a cheap whore might get married for the tax benefits, and then use birth control which aborts babies after the egg has been fertilized by preventing it from attaching to the wall of the uterus. They then get 5 years of marriage until you annul it. A better solution is that married women should have to undergo random drug screenings for oral contraception.
 
2014-05-09 01:51:18 PM
If they believe this then why base the law on gender? And make it non-discriminatory? Why not make it gender neutral?

Why because it would not pass and it's not what the law is about. The law is not about having marriages having children it's about discriminating.

I know a married lesbian couple that has children. Many do.
 
2014-05-09 01:51:22 PM
Beshear awarded a $100,000 contract to the Ashland law firm of VanAntwerp, Monge, Jones, Edwards & McCann to represent him in the appeal after Attorney General Jack Conway quit the case in March, saying the same-sex marriage ban is discriminatory and Kentucky is doomed to lose after wasting its money in court.

Wow, they should have asked for way more than that with the credibility hit they're taking.
 
2014-05-09 01:51:39 PM

naughtyrev: That statement makes no sense. One does not necessarily follow the other - marriage has absolutely nothing to do with the ability to produce children, and population growth can be driven by immigration as well as child birth. It also does have the fun effect of telling the infertile and the elderly that they can't get married, either.


The infetrile, elderly widows who re-marry, the childfree by choice, sterilized people.... the repercussions are amazing.

Anyone who knows my love life knows I am not marrying any time soon (it's a LONG way off before the marriage i'd have would be legalized) but... how dare someone tell me I coldn't marry one of them just because I am not ever having kids.
 
2014-05-09 01:52:13 PM
Their jelly sucks.
 
2014-05-09 01:52:36 PM

Corvus: I've never once heard a gay person say my heterosexual marriage is not a "Real marriage". I have heard many right wing conservatives however attack it saying it's not real.

Who are the real ones attacking "traditional" marriage?


What's the rationale for saying your marriage isn't real?
 
2014-05-09 01:53:04 PM
Been married for 12 years and no kids. I'm trying to get divorced and my state tells me I need to wait a year and 1 day.
 
2014-05-09 01:53:27 PM
"Damn, no gay marriage in Kentucky.  Guess I'll just be a heterosexual now and procreate" said no one ever.
 
2014-05-09 01:53:47 PM
I'll tell my married lesbian friends with 2 children that their marriage is a shame because they can't have children.
 
2014-05-09 01:53:51 PM
I don't understand. I know they want more power for themselves and are leveraging the Christian voters of the country to obtain and maintain that power, but how can they do this and still be in relationships that don't produce children themselves? Once they reach post child bearing age, they have to know they'd be breaking their own law.

This would be like Serena Joy helping make reading illegal for women and yet still being able to read.
 
2014-05-09 01:54:04 PM

naughtyrev: "Kentucky has a legitimate interest in restricting marriage to heterosexual couples because only they can produce children, and the state needs population growth to thrive economically, attorneys for Gov. Steve Beshear argued this week."

That statement makes no sense. One does not necessarily follow the other - marriage has absolutely nothing to do with the ability to produce children, and population growth can be driven by immigration as well as child birth. It also does have the fun effect of telling the infertile and the elderly that they can't get married, either.


And then, the other way, marriage is not a requirement for procreation. People might make a fuss about having a child out of wedlock, but it isn't a crime.
 
2014-05-09 01:54:37 PM

palelizard: Corvus: I've never once heard a gay person say my heterosexual marriage is not a "Real marriage". I have heard many right wing conservatives however attack it saying it's not real.

Who are the real ones attacking "traditional" marriage?

What's the rationale for saying your marriage isn't real?


I don't have children. I won't have children in my marriage. So conservatives are attacking my marriage as not a real marriage.
 
2014-05-09 01:55:38 PM
I expect that fertile married couples will be handing lists of infertile married couples to police for arrest and prosecution for marriage under fraudulent conditions.

If I lived in Kentucky I would, then call the papers about how the prosecutors are or are not following the governor's guidance on this matter. Really push the matter, try to break up as many married infertile couples as possible on the governor's say so. Report clerks who hand out marriage licenses without requiring fertility tests, as well as clergy and judges who ignore it.

Maybe ill move to Kentucky.
 
2014-05-09 01:55:51 PM
"Kentucky has a legitimate interest in restricting marriage to heterosexual couples because only they can produce children, and the state needs population growth to thrive economically, attorneys for Gov. Steve Beshear argued this week."

www.quickmeme.com
 
2014-05-09 01:56:09 PM

dr_blasto: Certainly you can't agree that they should have a child first as out of wedlock sexytime makes god cry and brings about terrible rains and hurricanes and stuff.


Aren't shotgun weddings something of a tradition out in KY?
 
2014-05-09 01:56:18 PM

PirateKing: The speculation I've heard is that Beshear doesn't actually think anything of the sort, but he wants to make specious arguments so that they'll get shot down legally.


I think there's a decent chance he's in favor of gay marriage, but he thinks it would hurt Democrats in Kentucky too much, so he's trying to get this case up to the Supreme Court ASAP and hoping they can be the ones that take the political hit of legalizing gay marriage.
 
2014-05-09 01:57:30 PM

media.kentucky.com




"IN KENTUCKY WE FIND THE DUMBEST F*CKING SH*T



WE CAN EVER THINK OF SAYING.  THEN, WE DAMN WELL SAY IT.



IT IS FAIRLY EASY TO DEDUCE WHY WE HAVE



AN INSULTING HORSE RACE, ECOLOGICAL NIGHTMARE,



 ALCOHOL POISONING BASED ECONOMY."

 
2014-05-09 01:57:40 PM

Corvus: I'll tell my married lesbian friends with 2 children that their marriage is a shame because they can't have children.


Well, I guess they could just go be gay somewhere else.   Which lowers the population of the state, seeming to directlycontradict his stated goal.  As does limiting immigration.

But that's OK, they'd vote Democratic anyway.


Only Republicans count as people.
 
2014-05-09 01:57:50 PM
"Kentucky has a legitimate interest in restricting marriage to heterosexual couples because only they can produce children, and the state needs population growth to thrive economically, attorneys for Gov. Steve Beshear argued this week."

When you spend a generation trying to expand the interpretation of "compelling state interest", this is the sort of thing you end up with.
 
2014-05-09 01:58:01 PM

Nadie_AZ: I don't understand. I know they want more power for themselves and are leveraging the Christian voters of the country to obtain and maintain that power, but how can they do this and still be in relationships that don't produce children themselves? Once they reach post child bearing age, they have to know they'd be breaking their own law.


Separate thought: Men are capable of producing children throughout their lives, while women stop being able to in their 50s. So, basically, restricting marriage to procreation is yet another salvo in the War on Women.
 
2014-05-09 01:58:33 PM

Aarontology: According to this argument, the point of marriage is to produce children as resources for the state.


Actually, it goes further.  If the state is responsible for increasing population by all means necessary, it follows that the state has the duty to send out men of known fertility to rape all non-bearing women to insure maximal births.  Anything else is a dereliction of their duty.
 
2014-05-09 01:58:39 PM

GoldSpider: "Kentucky has a legitimate interest in restricting marriage to heterosexual couples because only they can produce children, and the state needs population growth to thrive economically, attorneys for Gov. Steve Beshear argued this week."

When you spend a generation trying to expand the interpretation of "compelling state interest", this is the sort of thing you end up with.


Eh?
 
2014-05-09 01:59:48 PM

Walker: "Kentucky has a legitimate interest in restricting marriage to heterosexual couples because only they can produce children, and the state needs population growth to thrive economically, attorneys for Gov. Steve Beshear argued this week."

[www.quickmeme.com image 625x396]


It makes as much sense as a legal construct that has always been regulated and controlled by the state is now a fundamental right.
 
Displayed 50 of 134 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report