A federal judge in Kentucky is the latest to say
it's unconstitutional for a state not to recognize and treat equally a same-sex couple legally married in another state. This article says it's the ninth state in which such a ruling has been delivered. The ruling does not strike down a same-sex marriage ban within the state.
Suits pend in state and federal court on the same restriction in Arkansas agaisnt couples married legally elsewhere. They cite the same court precedents used elsewhere in finding such unequal treatment unconstitutional. The Arkansas cases also more broadly challenge the state constitutional prohibition of same-sex marriage and granting of privileges equal to those given married couples.
In a 23-page ruling, Heyburn said Kentucky’s sole justification for the amendment was that it was “rationally related to the legitimate government interest of preserving the state’s institution of traditional marriage.”
But Heyburn noted that over the past 40 years, the U.S. Supreme Court has refused to allow mere tradition to justify marriage statutes that violate individual liberties, such as the ban on interracial marriages that was once the law in Virginia, Kentucky and other states.
Heyburn also rejected the arguments of the Family Foundation of Kentucky — that recognizing same-sex marriages would undermine the fundamental role of marriage in ensuring procreation.
The Family Foundation needs some instruction in biology, sounds like. Quite a few people have figured out how to procreate without marriage. And quote a few married people, for many reasons, don't.