So the same judge who ruled Kentucky must recognize same-sex marriages performed out-of-state has stuck down his own state's ban on such unions as unconstitutional: http://www.metroweekly.com/2014/07/federal-judge-strikes-down-kentucky-same-sex-marriage-ban/
From the linked article:
In his decision, Heyburn dismissed arguments made by the state that prohibiting same-sex marriage is necessary for promoting relationships that can produce children, which Heyburn described as the defendant’s “only asserted justification for Kentucky’s laws.”
“Perhaps recognizing that procreation-based arguments have not succeeded in this Court…nor any other court post-Windsor, Defendant adds a disingenuous twist to the argument: traditional marriages contribute to a stable birth rate which, in turn, ensures the state’s long-term economic stability,” Heyburn wrote. “These arguments are not those of serious people.”
I'd disagree there, your honor. They're serious, just desperate and unable to accept that society will no longer accommodate their bigotry and xenophobia. Those arguments served so well in the past; they can't understand why they aren't working now.
In the year since the Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision in U.S. v. Windsor, which found Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional, marriage equality hasn’t lost a single day in court. Federal courts have ruled in favor of marriage equality in Utah, Ohio, Oklahoma, Kentucky, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Oregon, Wisconsin and Indiana. The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals was the first federal appeals court to weigh in on same-sex marriage since the Windsor decision and reaffirmed a lower court’s ruling that Utah’s same-sex marriage ban is unconstitutional last month.
When judges in effing Utah
agree that discriminating against same-sex unions is unconstitutional, it's a pretty good sign the opposition is swimming against the tide