A fun thing happens when states go to the Supreme Court to defend their bans on same-sex marriage: We get to see the mostly convoluted explanations for why two people who love each other shouldn't be allowed to wed, and it usually involves some impressive logical gymnastics. Last week, Michigan, Ohio, Tennessee and Kentucky filed briefs responding to the same-sex couples, widowers and families who are challenging their marriage equality bans, offering arguments in favor of same-sex marriage restrictions -- and Kentucky's is pretty good.
In a brief for Gov. Steve Beshear, Kentucky attorneys argue the state's ban on same-sex marriage isn't discriminatory, because it's a ban on same-sex marriage -- not gay marriage:
Kentucky’s marriage laws treat homosexuals and heterosexuals the same and are facially neutral. Men and women, whether heterosexual or homosexual, are free to marry persons of the opposite sex under Kentucky law, and men and women, whether heterosexual or homosexual, cannot marry persons of the same sex under Kentucky law.
Hmmm. You know what this reminds me of? That one time Ann Coulter basically made the same argument, only flipped the other way around. When Fox Business host John Stossel asked Coulter why "gays" can't get married, the conservative pundit contradicted the assumption that they can't. "Well they can," Coulter said. "They have to marry a member of the opposite sex."
She was then loudly booed. Guess we'll just have to see what happens with Kentucky's argument.
Shares