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."

###

The Family Foundation calls on State Senate to stop anti-religious bullying

Yesterday's press release from The Family Foundation:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
February 27, 2016

LEXINGTON, KY—The Family Foundation today called on State Senators to pass SB 180, a bill that 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.

"SB 180 would put a stop to the anti-religious bullying we are starting to see that forces people to violate their religious beliefs by directly enrolling them in certain activities they have religious objections to," said Martin Cothran, spokesman for the group.

"The increasing aggressiveness and intolerance we are seeing from certain groups in our society is going to produce more Kim Davises unless we act now to draw clear boundaries that protect people from being bullied for exercising their First Amendment rights."

Cothran said SB 180 would not affect the vast majority of common services offered by businesses because most services do not have this character. "This bill does not affect the obligation of a waiter at a restaurant to serve a plate of food or a cashier at Wal-Mart to sell bananas. It only addresses those special and limited cases in which the service being requested involves the business owner in the activity."

"A Jewish restaurant owner should be required to serve everybody," he said. "But he shouldn't be required to serve pork."

Cothran cited cases such as the Christian couple who owned a Christian bakery in Oregon who was sued, fined $144,000 and lost their business because they could not in good conscience participate in a same-sex wedding and a Christian photographer in New Mexico who was sued because she chose not to photograph a same-sex wedding. "We are going to have more and more of these kinds of cases in Kentucky without the protections outlined in SB 180."

###

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.”

###

Family Foundation Press Release on release of Kim Davis: Strengthen KY religious freedom laws

LEXINGTON, KY--"While we hope Judge Bunning enjoyed a leisurely holiday weekend," said Family Foundation spokesman Martin Cothran, "we are sorry Kim Davis had to languish in jail, away from her family. Judge Bunning has ordered her release, but we wonder why it came for Davis after spending six days in jail. Nothing has materially changed over the weekend. If she didn't deserve to be in jail today, she didn't deserve to be put there in the first place."

The Family Foundation, the group leading the effort in Kentucky to support Kim Davis, said that the release does not change the problem of threats to religious freedom. "There is no indication that the next person who exercises his or her First Amendment right to free religious exercise will not be thrown in jail too."

Cothran called for strengthening Kentucky's religious freedom protections. "We need to make sure this doesn't happen again," he said.

Cothran also openly wondered if Bunning had second thoughts over the weekend about what he had done. "Judge Bunning and others who have a low view of religious freedom protections must have realized over the holiday weekend that they had created a marytr and hurt their own cause. It's too bad it took the mobilization of tens of thousands of citizens to force her release."

###

Family Foundation responds to Beshear order to county clerks on marriage

LEXINGTON, KY--The Family Foundation responded to Gov. Steve Beshear's order to all county clerks to issue marriage licenses on same-sex partners. The Governor told them in a letter: "Neither your oath nor the Supreme Court dictates what you must believe. But as elected officials, they do prescribe how we must act."

"Why is it," said Martin Cothran, spokesman for the group, "that county clerks are expected to 'do their duty' as elected officials on this issue, but Attorney General Jack Conway was not when he refused to defend Kentucky's marriage law? Conway was lauded for defying his oath of office, but now county clerks are being held to it. That's a blatant double standard."

"County clerks took an oath to the Kentucky Constitution," said Cothran, "not to a rogue Court that thinks it can repeal the votes of Kentuckians and that it can rewrite the U. S. Constitution."

###

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.

###

House Democratic leaders holding Student Privacy Act

Yesterday's Family Foundation press release:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
MARCH 9, 2015

LEXINGTON, KY – The Family Foundation said today that Democratic leaders in the State House who are now holding the bill should stop blocking SB 76, the Student Privacy Act. “There seems to be widespread support for this bill.” said Martin Cothran. “For House Democratic leaders to block it will be a disservice to students—and it won’t do much for their own political fortunes either to oppose such a popular measure.”

“Two of our Facebook posts on this bill have reached over 55,000 people, indicating there is huge interest in this bill,” said Cothran, a spokesman for The Family Foundation. “There is more interest in this one piece of legislation than anything we have supported since the Marriage Protection Amendment in 2004.”

Cothran pointed to news reports quoting House Speaker Greg Stumbo (D-Prestonsburg) as saying the House would not deal with the bill. “The Speaker has indicated he doesn’t think student privacy is an important issue. We think many Kentuckians would beg to differ.”

SB 76 would ensure the privacy of students by preventing students of one biological gender from using the bathroom, locker room, and shower facilities of the other while still allowing local school administrators to accommodate transgender students.  It would also provide a safer environment for transgender students.

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."

###

Ky Gov. Beshear hires campaign donors to defend KY marriage law

The latest press release from The Family Foundation:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
March 14, 2014

LEXINGTON, KY—"The fox is in full control of the henhouse," said The Family Foundation’s spokesman today after it was revealed that Gov. Steve Beshear had hired a law firm whose partners are big donors to Democratic campaigns to defend Kentucky's Marriage Amendment.

"The opponents of the Kentucky Marriage Amendment like to talk about being fair, but there has been nothing fair about the defense of the right of Kentucky voters to define marriage so far," said Martin Cothran. "First, we have an Attorney General who was charged with defending the rights of Kentucky's voters on this issue and waited until after a judge ruled against him to reveal that he agreed with the other side. Now, we have the Governor appointing a law firm whose partners donated to his campaign."

"The venue for deciding the fate of Kentucky's Marriage Amendment is now officially a kangaroo court," said Cothran.

Cothran said he hoped the firm taking the case would not follow the path of Attorney General Jack Conway, who filed a weakly-argued brief in the case, failed to show up for meetings with the judge and refused to sign motions in the case.

###

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.

###

"We shouldn't have to babysit the Attorney General" on the marriage case

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

LEXINGTON, KY—"We shouldn't have to babysit the state's Attorney General in order to make sure he does his job," said Martin Cothran, senior policy analyst with The Family Foundation. Cothran had criticized Attorney General Jack Conway for spiking the case defending Kentucky's marriage law after it declined yesterday to file a stay after being asked by a judge.

The stay was filed this morning at the eleventh hour and an hour and seven minutes after Cothran's organization issued the criticism.

"The Attorney General was clearly not intending to do his job. It only did what it was supposed to do after someone shed light on the fact that he was about to take one more action that favored those who are trying to disenfranchise Kentucky voters on the issue of marriage."

"We need an attorney general who is going to fight for the rights of Kentucky voters against judges who are trying to take important issues out of the democratic process, not someone who is helping the other side by dragging his feet.”

Cothran had criticized the Attorney General earlier in the morning for intentionally not putting forward the best case for the law.

###

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."

###

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."

###

Gambling measure “dead on arrival” in General Assembly says advocacy group after Beshear speech

Last night's press release:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

January 7, 2014

LEXINGTON—The Family Foundation said that Gov. Steve Beshear's proposal in tonight's State of the Commonwealth address to seek another Constitutional amendment to expand gambling was unrealistic and at odds with many of his other proposals. "The General Assembly has told the casino industry 'No' about fifteen times now,” said Martin Cothran, spokesman for The Family Foundation. “We need to move on to other, more important issues."

"The proposal to expand gambling is effectively dead on arrival in this session. There is a politically volatile situation in the House that is also going to make it very difficult to deal with any controversial issues this session. With Republicans within striking distance of a majority in the House, it would be political suicide for many members to vote on a measure that is going to make a lot of their constituents angry."

Cothran pointed to House Speaker Greg Stumbo's non-committal remarks on expanded gambling after the speech as further evidence of the poor chances the proposal has. "Speaker Stumbo wasn't exactly cheerleading for the proposal. If the Speaker isn't excited about the proposal, it's hard to imagine the measure has much of a chance at all."

If the Governor was really serious about issues like tax reform, Cothran said, he would leave the gambling issue alone this session. "If we get into another fight over gambling, it will suck up all the political oxygen needed to address tax reform or any other major initiative."

The Governor also spent much of his speech on health care issues, which Cothran portrayed as a strange irony: "We're wondering about the health benefits of thousands of Kentuckians sitting at slot machines at casinos with a cigarette in one hand and drink in the other. The governor bemoaned the state's low standing in smoking and cancer. Why would he want to add gambling addiction to the litany of social problems in this state?"

###

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."

###