Mediaboss Marketing

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 shouldnt 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 Kentuckys is pretty good.

In a brief for Gov. Steve Beshear, Kentucky attorneys argue the states ban on same-sex marriage isnt discriminatory, because its a ban on same-sex marriage not gay marriage:

Kentuckys 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 cant get married, the conservative pundit contradicted the assumption that they cant. Well they can, Coulter said. They have to marry a member of the opposite sex.

She was then loudly booed. Guess well just have to see what happens with Kentuckys argument.

Originally posted here:
Kentucky Gov.: Same-sex marriage ban isnt discriminatory since it also applies to straight people