U of L medical professor taken out in ideological purge files suit

Yesterday's press release from The Family Foundation:

LEXINGTON, KY—”Once again, in the name of tolerance and diversity, the University of Louisville is practicing the exact opposite. And, yes, once again people who pretend to champion science are instead imposing an ideological party line,” said a spokesman for The Family Foundation.

The comments came in response to a lawsuit filed by Dr. Allan Josephson, former head of U of L’s Division of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Psychology. The lawsuit charges that Dr. Josephson was demoted and then effectively terminated for comments he made at a meeting of the conservative Heritage Foundation in which he offered his personal professional views about the best treatments for children experiencing gender dysphoria.

“Holding conservative beliefs has always been unpopular among the leadership at U of L, but now the disapproval of the Tolerance Police has turned into an ideological purge,” said Martin Cothran, senior policy analyst for The Family Foundation.

“Our universities should be places in which opposing ideas can be discussed in an environment of civility and reason. Instead, the Ideological Enforcement Division at U of L is trying to ruin the careers of people who hold to traditional scientific positions rather than acquiesce to the latest political fashions.”

The suit was filed on March 28 of this year by the Alliance Defending Freedom.

###

As it turns out, the debate over SB 48 had nothing to do with #childbrides at all

WDRB's story about the passage of SB 48 today, a hearing in which I testified in favor of the bill which the Family Foundation had an important part in strengthening:

FRANKFORT, Ky. (WDRB) -- A bill designed to prevent Kentucky’s children from getting married at a young age passed a key hurdle Tuesday in Frankfort. The Senate Judiciary Committee approved the bill 10-0.
Currently, Kentucky has no minimum age limit for marriage, but anyone under 16 must have permission from a judge.
Senate Bill 48 -- known as the Child Bride Bill -- raises the legal age of marriage in Kentucky without parental consent to 18, and officials won't be able to issue marriage licenses to anyone under the age of 16 regardless of parental approval.

Read the rest here.

National Opposition to Senate Bill 17 Too Late and Too Far Left

Today's press release from the Family Foundation:

LEXINGTON, KY—A new Kentucky law outlining free speech and religious freedom protections for students is being attacked by several national and state groups who claim that it would allow discrimination. The group that pushed for the law for the last two years is defending it.

"We wonder where they were when this bill was being debated in the legislature," said Martin Cothran, a spokesman for The Family Foundation, which lobbied for the bill's passage. "If they had legitimate reasons for opposing the bill, they could have come and told us why they thought religious freedom and free speech threatened their political agenda, but they didn't."

"If these groups are opposed to free speech and religious freedom, they're argument isn't with this bill, they're argument is with the Constitution."

Cothran said the bill, Senate Bill 17, simply underscored existing free speech and religious freedoms by outlining the ways in which students could engage in political and religious discourse in schools. "We live in a state in which a school censored a performance of A Charlie Brown Christmas and at least one person has been jailed for asserting her Constitutional right of free religious exercise."

"The groups now opposing the bill have an ugly history of promoting anti-religious discrimination that responsible policymakers need to distance themselves from."

###

What difference will a conservative majority in Frankfort make?

My opinion piece on the prospects for conservative issues in this years Kentucky General Assembly ran in the Louisville Courier-Journal today:

On election day this year, Kentuckians voted to clean out the Augean stables and sent a hundred years of cronyism, backroom deals, and abuse of legislative procedure down the river of history.The change of power in the Kentucky House, complete a trifecta of Republican victories that began with the takeover of the Senate in 2000.
What difference will it make?

Read the rest here.

My response to the Lexington Herald-Leader's editorial against the Rights of Religious Conscience Act, SB 180

The following is my response to the Lexington Herald-Leader in its original. The published version, printed in the paper last Friday, is here.

It is easier to tell the truth than to lie because when you lie you have to make stuff up, and making stuff up is hard. So perhaps the most positive thing to say about many of the criticisms of SB 180 The Freedom of Religious Conscience Act, is to congratulate the critics on the effort and imagination it must take to misrepresent it so badly.

The Lexington Herald-Leader, acting in its usual role of mouthpiece for liberal groups, said the bill would "let businesses refuse to serve gay customers for reasons of faith" and, in its editorial several days later, would "overturn local ordinances" that ostensibly protects gays from "discrimination."

You would really have had to work up a sweat to think up a mischaracterization that bad. 

Read more here: http://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/article62548582.html#storylink=cpy

SB 180 was written specifically to stop anti-religious bullying. It focuses on the protection of rights of cosncience of business owners very carefully and limits these protections solely to those services that involve the service provider personally in the event for which the service is being provided. This would cover only a very small number of cases.

Not only would the bill protect the Christian photographer who is asked to provide his creative services for a gay wedding, but it would protect the Black T-Shirt company who might be asked to print a T-shirt with White Supremacist messages.

SB 180 has nothing to do with a waiter serving a meal at a restaurant or a cashier at Wal-Mart, as the Herald-Leader coverage implied. All it does is to stop the increasingly aggressive bullying of people of faith who would be forced to provide a service that would directly involve them in an activity that violates their religious convictions.

The critics of SB 180 in and outside the media don't seem to want to actually read the bill--either that or they diliberately misrepresent it. 

While the Herald-Leader and the groups apparently feeding it its lines claim to be opposed to discrimination, they adre instead promoting anti-religious hatred and encouraging the bullying of people who are minding their own business and simply trying to do the right thing according to their religious beliefs.

SB 180 would provide a very small safe space for religious people whose livelihoods are increasingly being threatened by those who preach tolerance, but who seem to have very little idea about how to practice it themselves.

The critics ought to issue a retraction. That would be the honest thing to do. And the nice thing about honesty is that it requires very little effort and no imagination at all. 

Family Foundation press release on today's passage of the Freedom of Religious Conscience Act

LEXINGTON, KY--The Family Foundation said that today's passage of a bill protecting certain businesses from anti-religious discrimination by a chamber of the state's General Assembly was a victory for religious tolerance. "SB 180 will hopefully prevent at least some of the extreme forms of anti-religious bigotry we are starting to see directed toward people of faith who own businesses that offer creative services," said Martin Cothran, spokesman for the group.

SB 180 passed the Kentucky State Senate 22 to 16. The bill now goes to the State House.

"The increasing climate of intolerance toward people whose religious beliefs don't accord with the narrow dogmas of Politically Correctness makes the passage of this legislation imperative. It applies only to very specific kinds of businesses whose services require involvement in the events for which the services are being sought."

Cothran said that because of the limited scope of the bill, lawmakers should recognize that its protections do not violate the spirit of anti-discrimination laws that seek to protect certain groups.

Gay rights groups hurt their cause by supporting anti-religious bullying

Today's press release from the Family Foundation:

LEXINGTON, KY--A spokesman for The Family Foundation said today that he thought that it would hurt the gay rights movement to continue to support anti-religious bullying. "If groups like the Fairness Alliance continue support the aggressive bullying of religious people who are just trying to mind their own business and live out their religious beliefs, they're going to lose some of the sympathy they've been able to gain in recent years," said Martin Cothran, senior policy analyst for the group.

"To use the LGBT label to mask a malicious vendetta against religious people is not going to help you win friends and influence people. These groups need to start practicing the tolerance and diversity they are always preaching."

"The live and let live philosophy they espouse does not go well with their search and destroy tactics when it comes to dealing with religious people who disagree with them," said Cothran. "To threaten people's livelihood and even send them to jail when they can't force them to deny their religious beliefs is just not a good PR strategy for their movement."

The comments came after an aggressive campaign by The Fairness Alliance and the ACLU to oppose Senate Bill 180, which would ensure that businesses owned by religious individuals are not forced to provide a service that would directly involve them in an activity that violates their religious convictions.

Cothran said the Fairness Alliance had blatantly misrepresented the bill in its public statements, say the bill. "The leaders of these groups need to look at themselves in the mirror and ask whether it's really worth distorting the truth to prevent the passage of a bill that protects just a small handful of businesses that just trying to do the right thing."

"We need to stop anti-religious bullying," he said. "SB 180 will do that."

###

Family Foundation calls proposed law, "Religious Discrimination Act of 2016"

Below is today's press release from The Family Foundation on HB 155:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

FEBRUARY 14, 20165

LEXINGTON, KY—The Family Foundation today announced its opposition to House Bill 155, a gay rights bill which the group says will worsen the problem of discrimination against people of faith in the Commonwealth. The group called HB 155 the "Religious Discrimination Act of 2016."

"This bill will be used as a club to punish Christian business owners whose religious beliefs prevent them from towing the liberal party line on gender issues," said Martin Cothran, spokesman for the group. "This bill will sacrifice Christian-owned businesses on the altar of Political Correctness."

Under the guise of civil rights, the bill would force Christian-owned businesses to violate their religious principles when in hiring employees and could force some Christian-owned businesses out of business altogether, said Cothran.

He said that similar local laws in Kentucky have already been used to force Christian business owners to participate in events that violate their religious beliefs. He pointed to a Lexington T-shirt company that a local human rights commission prosecuted when the Christian business owner refused to take part in the promotion of a gay rights event. "The Religious Discrimination Act of 2016 will further worsen the targeting of Christians who just want to mind their own mind their own business and go about their lives without being persecuted for their religious beliefs."

HB 155 has been posted for passage in the House Judiciary Committee.

###

Family Foundation calls on Democratic candidates to disavow support of #PlannedParenthood

Today's press release from The Family Foundation:

LEXINGTON, KY—The Family Foundation called on the campaigns of Jack Conway and Andy Beshear today to disavow support they are receiving from Planned Parenthood. The group said it had received reports that Planned Parenthood Action Kentucky was conducting get-out-the-vote calls to Kentucky voters discouraging them from voting for Matt Bevin and Whitney Westerfield, the Republican candidates for governor and attorney general, respectively.

"Planned Parenthood is making calls urging voters not to vote for Republican candidates for governor and attorney general, which is an implicit endorsement of their Democrat opponents," said Martin Cothran, spokesman for the group. "We are calling on the Democratic candidates to disavow this effort, and we would hope that these candidates would want to distance themselves from groups engaged in the selling of baby parts for profit.”

###

"After Democracy": My Ep-Ed in Today's Louisville Courier-Journal

My new op-ed in today's Louisville Courier-Journal:

Okay, boys and girls, today we're going to talk about the time before Obergefell v. Hodges, the decision by the United States Supreme Court in the early 21st century that prohibited states from defining marriage as between a man and a woman. 

Until the time of this decision (and several others at about the same time), America was what was called a "democratic republic" and the people themselves, through their elected representatives, decided issues of public consequence. You may have read about this in your history books ...

Read the rest on the Courier-Journal's site here.

Supreme Court "gone rogue" from the Constitution says group that passed Marriage Amendment

LEXINGTON, KY—"This is the Supreme Court gone rogue from the Constitution," said a spokesman for The Family Foundation, the advocacy group that pushed the passage of Kentucky's Marriage Protection Amendment in 2004, in response to the High Court's action overturning the law today.

"Not only does the 14th amendment say nothing about same-sex marriage, but no one seriously believes the 14th Amendment prohibits states from defining marriage as between a man and a woman," said Martin Cothran, senior policy analyst for the group, "not the people who wrote it, nor the people who ratified it, nor the judges who today have rewritten it to make it mean what they want it to mean."

The group also charged that the decision was an abuse of power on the part of the Court. "This has nothing to do with interpreting the Constitution; this has everything to do with an elite caste of judges who think they have the power to rewrite it."

"Judges are supposed to be impartial legal referees. But if all of a sudden you see the refs shooting three point shots for the other team, you know things have gone wrong."

The decision helps create an uneven playing field on cultural issues, said Cothran. "When conservatives want to change the Constitution, they have to follow the democratic process; but when liberals want to change the Constitution, all they have to do is find sympathetic judges to do it by abusing their power. In the name of 'fairness', liberals have politicized the judiciary and created an uneven playing field."

"Social conservatives can see this as their Waterloo or as a 'Remember the Alamo' moment," said Cothran in regard to the decision. “When the abortion laws of all 50 states were invalidated by the Supreme Court in the 1972 Roe v. Wade decision, it was the beginning, not the end, of the pro-life movement. Ever since then, it has been a rallying cry for the unborn. This decision could very well become the same thing for traditional marriage."

###

PRESSER: Family Foundation releases Supreme Court brief in defense of traditional marriage

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

March 31, 2015

LEXINGTON, KY—Stan Cave, attorney for The Family Foundation, which successfully pressed for the passage of Kentucky Marriage Protection Amendment in 2004, filed an amicus curiae ("friend of the court") brief in support of the traditional marriage amendment with the Supreme Court of the United States. The law was overturned by a lower federal court last year, only to be reinstated in the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in November, along with several other state laws which had also been struck down. Kentucky's law is now before the U.S. Supreme Court.

In his brief, Cave argues that not only have courts always recognized the right of states to define marriage, but that it is perfectly rational for a state to have policies that give incentives for as many children as possible to grow up in families with a biological mother and father, since studies confirm that this environment is the best place for children to be raised.

"Gay marriage not only redefines marriage, it also redefines parenting," said Cave in the brief.  "Same-sex marriage purports to normalize a family structure that necessarily deprives children of something precious and foundational—either a father or a mother. Gay marriage deprives children of something they long for while at the same time telling children they do not need what they naturally crave."

He also points out that the Court would not only have to ignore the plain wording and history of the 14th Amendment, but would have to break with precedent in order to find the Constitution somehow requires states to license and acknowledge same-sex marriage, and points to the Baker v. Nelson decision in 1972 as an example of controlling precedent. Previous case law dictates that in order to find that same-sex marriage is a Constitutional right, it would have to be shown to be "deeply rooted in this nation's history, and tradition." But it is not, says Cave.

Cave argues against "genderless marriage" as "a Constitutional right" and points out that if federal courts take over marriage policy from the states and the legal standard for marriage is now going to be "a love and commitment standard," then states "will also be required to recognize polygamous and polyamorous marriages among adults who claim to be in loving and committed relationships."

Cave says the gay petitioners' arguments that traditional marriage laws are born of voters' and legislators' "irrational prejudice" and "animosity" are "nonsensical". He points out that such arguments would also mean that Supreme Court Justices and the Sixth Circuit Judges who disagree could likewise have no rational basis for disagreement other than the petitioners' accusations of irrational prejudice and animosity toward gay couples—which simply isn't the case.

The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments on the issue on April 28.

###

PRESSER: Student speech stifled by Democratic Kentucky House

Family Foundation's press release today:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
March 25, 2015

LEXINGTON, KY – The Democratic House killed a bill supported by a group of Kentucky students last night because they opposed an amendment attached by the Senate earlier in the day that would have protected students’ political and religious free speech. After saying their chamber was killing the bill, House leaders then blamed the demise of the bill on the Senate.

House Bill 236 would have given students an advisory role on superintendent screening committees. After being passed by the House, the State Senate attached the contents of Senate Bill 71, which prohibited schools from censoring students’ political and religious speech.

"It takes a lot of nerve for House Democratic leaders to blame the Senate for killing this bill after just admitting that their own chamber killed it," said Martin Cothran, spokesman for The Family Foundation, which supported the free speech amendment.

"What we don't understand is why Democratic leaders supported the part of the bill that gave students a greater voice in school affairs but opposed the other part of the bill that protected students in voicing their opinions on religion and politics."

The students were part of a Prichard Committee-led initiative.

###

My debate tomorrow with Federal Justice John G. Heyburn in Louisville

Today's Family Foundation press release:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

LEXINGTON, KY--Family Foundation senior policy analyst Martin Cothran will participate in a discussion with the federal judge whose two decisions striking down Kentucky's Marriage Protection Amendment were reversed last week by the 6th Circuit Appeals Court.

The program featuring Cothran and Federal Justice John G. Heyburn will be a part of the Woman Lawyer's Association of Louisville Annual Luncheon from 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. at the Ice House at 226 East Washington Street in Louisville.

###

State denied their day in court on same-sex marriage

The following is a press release from The Family Foundation of Kentucky released today:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

LEXINGTON, KY—"States who believe they have the right to define marriage in their states have been denied their day in court," said a spokesman for The Family Foundation in response to yesterday's decision by the U.S. Supreme Court not to hear the appeals of five states on the same-sex marriage issue. "This decision is so blatantly political it seems to have surprised even supporters of same-sex marriage."

"This also gets Justice Anthony Kennedy, the swing vote on this issue, off the hook on having to contradict the position he set out in the Windsor decision," said Martin Cothran, senior policy analyst for the group. When the Court struck down the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) last year, Kennedy, who wrote the majority decision, had argued that the federal government could not have such a law because it violated the right of states to define marriage.

"The Supreme Court struck down the federal marriage law on the grounds that states have a right to define marriage. But they will have to strike down state marriage laws on the grounds that they don't have that right. By punting yesterday, they were able to force same-sex marriage on states without having to face the contradiction in their reasoning."

Cothran said that if the federal government is going to dictate marriage policy to the states, "it ought to at least allow both sides their day in court. History will not judge the Court well if it acts politically like this and doesn't even allow states to argue their case."

###

Jack Conway: The Pope made him do it

Where is the outrage!!! Where are the finger-wagging lectures on the separation between church and state?!!! Where are the indignant looks and upturned noses?!!!

We all know what would have happened if a conservative attorney general had gone before the camera's yesterday in Frankfort and announced that he was going to appeal the ruling striking down part of the state's marriage law and then told a national magazine that he did it partly for religious reasons.

Liberals would have choked on their vegetarian lunches. Volvos on the state's highways would have gone careening out of control. Sensitivity training would have been called for to cleanse him of his ideological sickness.

But for a liberal attorney general to announce that he was not going to appeal and to then say that he did it partly for religious reasons ... well now, that's another thing entirely.

Here's Jack Conway told Time Magazine yesterday:

A Catholic and a Democrat considering running for governor in 2015, Conway said he knew the decision could put him at odds with voters and with church leaders in his hometown. His thinking was shaped partly by statements from Pope Francis that encouraged openness toward gays. “Our new pope recently said on an airplane ‘Who am I to judge.’ The new pope has said a lot of things that Catholics like me really like. I have, as someone who grew up as a Catholic listened to some of the words of the new pope and found them inspirational.”

The liberal reaction? Crickets chirping.

NEWS: Conway refuses to appeal marriage case, bails on voters

Today's Family Foundation's press release:

LEXINGTON, KY--"Jack Conway announced today that he is not going to defend the state's Constitution and the rights of Kentucky voters despite the fact that he took an oath of office to do exactly that," said a spokesman for The Family Foundation, the group which pushed for the Marriage Amendment in 2004.

"The voters have been disenfranchised and the Attorney General said today that he is not going to do anything about it," said Martin Cothran. "Jack Conway has raised the white flag after the first shot was fired. He isn't going to win any medals for bravery in the fight to protect Kentucky voters."

Cothran had criticized the Attorney General for "spiking the case" by offering weak arguments, not showing up for meetings with the judge, and, until last Friday, not signing a single motion in the case himself. In response to the Governor's ensuing decision to appoint another attorney to argue the case, Cothran said, "If I were the Governor, I'd get another attorney too."

Conway said he didn't think he would be successful if he appealed. "A good attorney fights harder when the odds are against him. He doesn't just quit."

###

NEWS: AG spokeswoman says Conway should defend voters’ rights on marriage issue

Today's press release from The Family Foundation:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
March 3, 2014

LEXINGTON, KY—Attorney General Jack Conway's own spokesperson told a prominent national news outlet that Kentucky's chief law enforcement official is obligated to defend Kentucky's marriage law, says a spokesman for the group that helped pass Kentucky’s Marriage Protection Amendment. "So far, the Attorney General has been a no-show in the defense of Kentucky voters on the marriage issue," said Martin Cothran of The Family Foundation.

Allison Martin, spokeswoman for Conway told the Daily Beast on Jan. 24, "The Kentucky Attorney General, by statute and oath, is required to defend the Kentucky Constitution. It would be inappropriate to discuss personal views on issues that are pending before the court.”

"We appreciate Ms. Martin's candor," said Cothran. "We hope Jack Conway appreciates it too." Cothran said Conway has an obligation to defend the voters against liberal judges who want to create rights out of thin air rather than interpret the laws their elected lawmakers pass and to do it no matter what his personal views are.

Conway is currently considering whether to appeal the ruling in Bourke v. Beshear, which struck down part of Kentucky's Marriage Amendment, passed by 75 percent of Kentucky voters in 2004.

"That's his job—the one he was elected to do. The Kentucky Constitution defines marriage as between a man and a woman. He was elected knowing that and he knew it when he swore an oath to support it. If he can't defend it, then he needs to step down from the attorney general position and let someone else do it."

"Conway should appeal the case, and when he does, he needs to show up." Cothran has been critical of the handling of the case by Conway's office so far, charging last week that Conway was "spiking the case" by offering weak arguments, not signing motions in the case, and not showing up for meetings with the judge.

###

Group calls Governor's Common Core comments “warmed over KERA rhetoric”

From yesterday's press release:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
January 8, 2014

LEXINGTON, KY—"We've already done KERA. Why are we doing it again?" asked a spokesman for The Family Foundation after last night's comments by Gov. Beshear on the Common Core initiative. Martin Cothran called Kentucky's Common Core initiative a "warmed over version of the Kentucky Education Reform Act of 1990 (KERA)," which the group pointed to as a colossal failure.

"It's ironic that the very year we were all supposed to get out our party hats and celebrate the success of the 1990 reforms in Kentucky is the year we are talking about all the problems we have to solve in our schools."

Cothran, spokesman for the group and a professional educator himself, cited KERA's goal of all schools being "proficient" by 2014. "This year was the year our schools were supposed to have been cured of their education ills under the 1990 reforms. Instead, we have to listen to the same failed rhetoric we had to endure 25 years ago."

"Kentucky's version of the Common Core initiative is a rehash of old education ideas that were trotted out in the 1990s and have been completely discredited. Listening to the Governor's comments last night on Kentucky's supposedly 'new' education efforts made it sound like the Governor was reading the KERA playbook of 1990."

Cothran pointed specifically to the segment in the Governor's speech when he pitted basic content knowledge against thinking skills: "Core Content [sic] plays down rote memorization," said Beshear, "and instead gives students the skills that today's workplace demands: creating and critical thinking, problem solving, collaboration, creativity, and communication."

"This is almost word for word what people like former State Education Commissioners Thomas Boysen and Bill Cody, State Sen. Ed Ford and other KERA advocates were telling us we were doing in 1990. It didn't work then and it won't work now.”

Cothran pointed to the false dichotomy education reformers are always invoking between memorization and content knowledge on the one hand and thinking skills on the other. "To say we're not going to memorize anymore and teach thinking skills instead is like Coach Calapari saying, 'My team is going to play down the fundamentals and instead give players what today's NBA needs: three point shots, crossover and spin dribbles, behind the back passes, and change of pace fakes'."

"It’s simply ludicrous to say that there is something wrong with memorization and that it detracts from thinking skills and creativity. The Governor's comments are a bad sign for education prospects in this state."

###

PRESS RELEASE: High Court strikes down DOMA, leaves Ky Marriage Amendment intact

LEXINGTON, KY —"The two decisions by the U. S. Supreme Court today had to be a disappointment for those who are seeking to redefine marriage in Kentucky," said Martin Cothran, a spokesman for The Family Foundation. In two decisions rendered today, one on California's Proposition 8 and another on the U. S. Congress' Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the Court declined to rule that same-sex marriage is a "right" under the Constitution.

“In the Proposition 8 case, what we have is a situation where California public officials simply didn’t show up to defend the law,” said Cothran. “Proposition 8 was struck down, but only on procedural grounds.”

“In the DOMA case, Justice Anthony Kennedy invalidated the federal law and left marriage amendments like Kentucky’s intact. He basically invalidated DOMA because of state’s rights. We need to further analyze his reason for doing so. Legal decisions by the Supreme Court on issues like this seem to depend a lot on how Justice Kennedy is feeling that day. We will have more to say on this after we analyze his logic.”

"In the past, the Supreme Court has 'discovered' rights in the Constitution that nobody had noticed before," said Cothran. "We're just thankful the justices decided not to create rights out of whole cloth on this issue like they have for some other issues."

"The idea that the founding fathers secretly placed same-sex marriage rights in the Constitution for liberal judges to find two centuries later does not exactly constitute a convincing case," said Cothran, who was the lead lobbyist on the 2004 Kentucky Marriage Amendment.

“This is not the Roe v. Wade of marriage. The bottom line for Kentuckians is that Kentucky's Marriage Amendment is left intact, which was passed with more votes in favor than votes on both sides of any previous Kentucky constitutional amendment."

Cothran said his group will continue to oppose attempts to thwart the Kentucky Constitution's clear language in regard to marriage.

###