The Family Foundation of Kentucky is considering filing an injunction against the University of Kentucky to stop domestic partner benefits from going into effect on Monday when their new fiscal year begins.
Let them file their injunction, because doing so could open a Pandora's box they will never be able to close again.
Domestic Partnership? The real issue here with the Family Foundation of Kentucky is if homosexuals have the rights to any of the benefits associated with marriage. Why would they not?
Kentucky Constitution - Section 233A: Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Kentucky. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized.
Marriage is something created by the state (both Kentucky and the United States) for the benefit of its citizens.
Most people cannot disassociate a chapel, white dress, and a best man from their definition of marriage. The only religious thing about marriage however is in the minds of the people. When a marriage is dissolved it is done by the state, not God. When a minister pronounces someone married he or she does so by saying "by the power invested in me by the Commonwealth of Kentucky."
Marriage is an interpersonal relationship with governmental, social, or religious recognition, usually intimate and sexual, and often created as a contract.
The reasons people marry vary widely, but usually include one or more of the following: legal, social and economic stability; the formation of a family unit; procreation and the education and nurturing of children; legitimizing sexual relations; public declaration of love.
- What gives heterosexual couples the right to be the only ones to enjoy this? The state.
- Is Section 233A (passed by a 2004 Constitutional Amendment) of the Kentucky Constitution unconstitutional? Yes. It violates Section I, Section II, Section III, and Section IV of the Kentucky Constitution.
- Does Section 233A of the Kentucky Constitution violate United State law? Traditionally, the federal government did not attempt to establish its own definition of marriage; any marriage recognized by a state was recognized by the federal government, even if that marriage was not recognized by one or more other states (as was the case with interracial marriage before 1967). With the passage of the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, however, a marriage was explicitly defined as a union of one man and one woman for the purposes of federal law. (See 1 U.S.C. § 7.) Thus, no act or agency of the U.S. federal government currently recognizes same-sex marriage.
Some opponents of same-sex marriage, wanting to ensure that the constitutionality of such laws cannot be challenged in the courts under the Full Faith and Credit clause, Equal Protection Clause or Due process clause of the United States Constitution, have proposed a Federal Marriage Amendment to the constitution that would prevent the federal government or any state from providing a marriage or the legal incidents thereof to a same-sex couple, whether through the legislature or the courts.
Let the Family Foundation of Kentucky file their injunction so the legal battle may finally begin.A UCLA report released in January 2007 about the attitudes of college freshmen nationwide says acceptance of same-sex marriage grew between 2005 and 2006. The study found that 61% of incoming freshmen last year agreed that same-sex couples should have the right to marriage, up 3.3 percentage points from 2005.