A Bush-appointed judge just ruled that Kentucky’s ban on same sex marriage cannot extend to refusing to recognize legal same-sex marriages performed in other states.   This is GREAT news in itself, and is being widely reported and discussed all over the blogosphere.

One particularly vile wingnut, Tony Perkins, had the audacity to call this a “betrayal”.   I’m going to quote the entire statement that he released:

“This ruling is another example of the deep betrayal of a judicial system infected with activist judges who are legislating from the bench.  If these judges want to change duly enacted laws passed by the people and their representatives, they should resign their life-time appointments to the bench and run for the state legislature or Congress.  Judge Heyburn is elevating his own ideology over that of three-quarters  of Kentucky voters who voted to preserve marriage in their constitution as it has always been defined

“This ruling comes at a time when the consequences of marriage redefinition are mounting.  Increasingly, Americans are being forced to finance and celebrate unions that not only step on free speech and religious liberty but also deny children a mom and a dad.   Rather than live-and-let-live, this court by redefining marriage will create a level of inequality that has never been seen in our country as people are forced to suppress or violate the basic teachings of their faith,” concluded Perkins.

So now let’s dissect it:

“This ruling is another example of the deep betrayal of a judicial system infected with activist judges who are legislating from the bench.

It’s only “activist” when an appointed judge follows the Constitution and rules in a manner that you don’t like.  Further, judges do not rule on anything until a case is brought before him and it gets argued by BOTH sides.  If your side fails to present a compelling argument, don’t blame the judge for giving the only ruling that makes sense based on the evidence and arguments before him.  Judge after judge after judge has been ruling in favor of marriage equality, and you guys fail and fail and fail to bring compelling arguments for anything different.   Bans on same-sex marriage ARE NOT CONSTITUTIONAL, and if the states don’t wake up, SCOTUS will do it for them.

If these judges want to change duly enacted laws passed by the people and their representatives, they should resign their life-time appointments to the bench and run for the state legislature or Congress.  

Those “duly enacted laws” are being deemed unconstitutional for a reason: you can’t vote on basic civil rights.  Following the constitution is what they were appointed to do.

Judge Heyburn is elevating his own ideology over that of three-quarters  of Kentucky voters who voted to preserve marriage in their constitution as it has always been defined

It doesn’t matter how many people voted, it is still unconstitutional.  And marriage has NOT always been “defined” in a particular way.  By custom and tradition it was assumed that marriage meant “one-man/one-woman” but throughout history it has not always been that way.  And until DOMA was enacted in 1996, there was no legal restrictive definition.  So if you want to quibble about “changing definitions”, you have to answer for DOMA.  If definitions can be changed or implemented in 1996, they can be changed in 2014.

But even further, nobody is changing the definition of marriage.  All that is changing is recognizing that same-sex couples are entering the EXACT SAME TYPE of relationships as opposite sex couples.   Marriage is the legally contracted form of relationship, NOT the sex or genders of the parties being married.  There is no rational justification for restricting marriage to only one-man/one-woman.  None.  It is the exact same relationship and deserves the exact same recognition under the law.

“This ruling comes at a time when the consequences of marriage redefinition are mounting.

Really?  And just what are those “consequences”?  How about we look at all the countries (17 now) where same-sex marriage has been enacted.  What consequences have come about there?

Increasingly, Americans are being forced to finance and celebrate unions . . .

Really? Who is being forced to finance OR celebrate unions other than those that personally involve them?   Nobody has to “celebrate” unions they don’t approve of, but when it comes to the public square, every union must be acknowledged and treated the same.   Religiously-driven business owners don’t have to like same-sex couples, or gays at all, but they still have to treat all customers the same, without discrimination.

that not only step on free speech and religious liberty . . .  

How on earth has anybody’s “free speech” been threatened?  Free speech just means you are entitled to hold and express your views, and that has never been challenged.  Free speech does not mean you can spout off ignorance, fear, and lies, without repercussions.  You can say what you wish, but you will have to expect that more and more people don’t want to hear it; you will find your free access to the air waves increasingly limited as radio hosts don’t want to broadcast hateful rhetoric more suited to the 1950s.

Similarly, nobody is being forced to change their religion.  But religiously-motivated bigots are losing the ability to speak without repercussion and criticism, and they are losing the ability to discriminate in the name of religion out in the public square.

. . . but also deny children a mom and a dad.  

Whut?  We are talking about marriage, which may or may not involve children.  When it does, many of those children are from prior relationships and they have a mother and a father.  In these cases, providing an additional parent figure is nearly always a good thing.  When a couple choose to adopt, they are adopting a child who ALREADY DOES NOT HAVE A FATHER OR A MOTHER.  Gay couples that adopt a child aren’t taking away something that a child already has; they are adopting a child who already has neither a father OR a mother.

If your concern is genuinely about children having two opposite sex parents full-time in the home, why are you not fighting to make divorce illegal?  There are far more children of opposite sex parents who are living in single parent households, either through divorce, or death, or incarceration.  And depending on the circumstance, the child may or may not have access to the absent parent.

And even if a couple uses a donor egg or sperm, so what?  Straight couples use technology to create a family, so why shouldn’t gay couples?  Makes no sense to make a distinction.  None.

Rather than live-and-let-live, this court by redefining marriage will create a level of inequality that has never been seen in our country as people are forced to suppress or violate the basic teachings of their faith,” concluded Perkins.

“Live and let live”???  Are you fucking kidding me?   Tony, you know NOTHING about what that phrase means. YOU are the one unwilling to allow other people to live their own lives without your meddling. Nobody is being forced to suppress their faith, when it is reasonably practiced in its own time and place.   Nobody needs to use their religion to abuse others, which is actually what you seem to be asking.  You are inventing problems that don’t exist, mostly out of fear that you will be treated the way you have treated others.  And that’s just too fucking bad, isn’t it?   I’ve not seen one factual report of someone being forced to act against their religion because of same-sex marriage.   None of the few cases repeatedly dribbled out have anything to do with actual religious practice, and everything to do with religiously-motivated discrimination.