Thursday, February 27, 2014

NEWS: Group charges AG with legal malpractice in marriage case

For Immediate Release

LEXINGTON, KY—"This is a betrayal of Kentucky voters," said a spokesman for the group that spearheaded the fight for the Marriage Protection Amendment in 2004 of Attorney General Jack Conway's conduct in the defense of the Kentucky law. "The only thing missing is the thirty pieces of silver."

Martin Cothran, senior policy analyst for the group, charged Attorney General Jack Conway with spiking the state's defense of the Marriage Protection Amendment by failing to use arguments that could have made a difference in the judge’s ruling and by not taking actions he could have taken. "Not only was his brief in the Bourne vs. Beshear case badly argued, but yesterday attorneys for the AG and Gov. Steve Beshear didn't even ask for a stay in the judge's ruling despite being asked by the judge point blank if they wanted one."

"If this were a private case, it would be legal malpractice."

Cothran said Conway should either put real effort into defending Kentucky voters or admit that he is complicit in letting the court disenfranchise them on this issue. "The longer the Attorney General drags his feet on this case, the worse it is for Kentucky voters."



KyCobb said...


Look around the country, even AG's passionately devoted to the same-sex marriage ban are losing. Besides, your side filed a brief to get all of the issues you wanted before Judge Heyburn, and you lost anyway. There wasn't anything Conway could do to save the ban.

Anonymous said...

There's no good defense for a logically flawed bigoted position.

Martin Cothran said...


Is that an assertion or an argument. If it's an argument, could you fill it out for me so I can see the actual logic of it?

I'm sure your argument, if it exists, must be logical, since you are accusing me of having an illogical position.

Just let me know when you've formulated it.

Martin Cothran said...


There wasn't anything Conway could do to save the ban.

Well now that's an interesting system of justice in which one side cannot possibly win.

Thanks for clarifying that for us.

Anonymous said...

What's the process for impeaching Beshear and Conway if they fail to do what they are legally required to do and defend Kentucky's law and constitution? Their personal feelings should have nothing to do with it. Their duty is to uphold and defend state law.

Anonymous said...

Next time Conway has to defend our freedom to discriminate against a group of people whom your religion has deemed inferior please email him the arguments you would like him to use prior to the case.

Martin Cothran said...

Anonymous #2:

Does that apply to polygamists too?

Singring said...

'I'm sure your argument, if it exists, must be logical, since you are accusing me of having an illogical position.

Just let me know when you've formulated it.'

Fascinatingly, in the one post where KyCobb has asked Martin for his rational argument that there is a legitimate government interest in denying gays the right to marriage, Martin has gone silent.

Apparently its us who have to pony up the evidence, the people who are actually trying to argue this law is constitutional don't have to. The usual here at VR.

But who knows, maybe Martin will link to that highly entertaining piece by Anthony Esolen again, where he makes excellent arguments like: Gay marriage is bad for everyone because...because...pornography!
or (my personal favourite), we can't let gays marry because if we do, people will think I'm gay if I hug a man!

And you wonder why these laws get thrown out of court?

Anonymous said...

Singring makes some excellent points. Yes, I think polygamists, if they are two consenting adults, or three consenting adults, or twelve consenting adults should be able to marry whom ever they want. Now if you are talking about the sicko's that enslave young girls into their cult and marry them off at 12 years old, than no, I'm not ok with that because that is infringing upon those women's/girl's freedom to make their own decisions regarding whom they would like to marry and how they want to live their lives. Your comparisons are so off base that I'm beginning to wonder if I should even waste my time arguing with you because it would probably be more fun to let you go in and embarrass yourself fighting Conway in court without any suspicion of how bad your arguments are. Best of luck, guy.

Martin Cothran said...


I answered KyCobb's question by pointing out that when someone challenges a law that no one ever thought was constitutionally problematic until judges started inventing ad hoc reasoning to find them so, the burden of proof is on them. I even gave him the quote from Heyburn's decision.

So what's the problem?

Martin Cothran said...


Okay, now that polygamy is okay (you might want to consult with KyCobb who is still claiming that polygamy doesn't qualify) how about, say a brother and a sister?

And what are you talking about when you refer to "fighting Jack Conway in court"? Have you even been paying attention to what's going on in on this case right now?

Conway is supposed to be defending the law. That's his constitutional obligation. The Constitution. Remember? The one you claim is so important we're supposed to overturn the law on the basis of it?

He's supposed to be on our side. How would we be "fighting him in court"?

Anonymous said...

Legal malpractice? Don't you have to fight him in court on that? Or do you just get to declare that some legal malpractice took place and then magically he's guilty? Let's get back to the big picture of you arguing that your beliefs should infringe upon a group of people's ability to live as equal human beings and not some inferior group of people who can't get married, can't enjoy the same benefits as every other married couple.