Friday, July 26, 2013

PRESS RELEASE: Family Foundation responds to lawsuit against KY Marriage Amendment

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
July 26, 2013

LEXINGTON, KY--The group that led the support for the state Marriage Amendment said that a case filed today against the provision may be evidence that opponents of traditional marriage don't have the public support they claim they have. "If opponents had the kind of support they say they have, they could get a bill passed in the State Legislature and put it on the ballot. That's what we did," said Martin Cothran, senior policy analyst with The Family Foundation.

"We think it's unfortunate that there are people out there who want to ban this state from defining marriage as it has been defined by virtually everyone since the beginning of recorded history," said Cothran, who was the lead lobbyist on the Marriage Amendment.

Cothran said groups opposed to the measure should use the process for amending the state Constitution. "But instead of going through the regular process to change the law, they want to go out and find judges who will invent rights that support their political agenda. They now want the courts to find a right to same-sex marriage that's been somehow hidden in the Constitution for almost 250 years and that nobody noticed before. We can imagine what the founders would have said about this, and it isn't pretty."


###

8 comments:

KyCobb said...

Martin,

Its not a right to same-sex marriage, its a right to equal protection of the law, which has existed since the passage of the 14th Amendment, long after the founders were dead. So your comment was largely irrelevant.

Martin Cothran said...

Then you're back to legalizing polygamy again, which your logic leads to, but which you don't want to admit.

KyCobb said...

Well, I'm not Martin, as any attorney who practices constitutional law as I have would know. In fact, its pretty basic math that three or more is not equal to two.

Martin Cothran said...

So it's a mathematical question? You still haven't explained why it is any more reasonable to believe that two people of a different gender can get married but not one person of one gender to two or more people of another gender.

This is typical of secularist ethics: We are just supposed to "see" that whatever the secular ethical position of the moment is is the correct one.

What non-arbitrary reason do you have for privileging gender over number?

KyCobb said...

Martin,

I'm pretty sure I have provided rational bases for banning polygamy here, though its possible I'm thinking of another blog. Banning polygamy protects the right of an original spouse and his/her children to the financial and emotional support of the other original spouse. Polygamy can also result in rich men building large harems, creating a gender imbalance making it difficult for young men to find wives, which can cause social disruption. And in fact we see in fundamentalist Mormon communities older men driving young men out to reduce competition for young women. Either of those reasons by themselves provides a sufficient rational basis for banning polygamy. OTOH, there is no comparable harm caused by allowing homosexuals to marry you can point to justifying a ban on ssm.

KyCobb said...

Actually Martin, if you want to get down to it, it is the Right's position that the government must show extreme deference to religious beliefs that would be more likely to result in the legalization of polygamy on the grounds that it discriminates against Mormons and Muslims in violation of the 1st Amendment than a 14th Amendment equal protection analysis.

Martin Cothran said...

KyCobb,

Polygamy can also result in rich men building large harems, creating a gender imbalance making it difficult for young men to find wives, which can cause social disruption.

So social disruption is sufficient reason to ban something? Are you in favor of banning divorce?

KyCobb said...

Martin,

Something you need to know about rational basis analysis is that you can't defeat a law by arguing the legislature should've addressed some other problem as well. The courts can't dictate what problems the legislature decides to address, so long as the legislature doesn't violate the Constitution. I think it would be bad for society to force people who hate each other to remain married, but that issue is irrelevant to whether or not polygamy should be legal. Though I imagine it might drive a man insane if he had to stay married to two or three women who hate him.