THE FAMILY FOUNDATION

Attorneys on both sides of the marriage amendment issue locked horns before Franklin County Circuit Judge Roger Crittenden on Monday, Feb. 28 to argue their positions as to whether the lawsuit filed against The Kentucky Marriage Protection Amendment should be dismissed.

Attorney William Rambicure, arguing for The Fairness Alliance, maintained that the ultimate issue was that the amendment, as passed, denied the right to establish private contracts between unmarried people. "If they had stopped at the first sentence we would not be here in court today," he said. Rambicure expressed concern that domestic partnership benefits might not be able to be established at the University of Kentucky.

The amendment, which created a significant stir during the 2004 General Assembly and then the general election on Nov. 2, was made up of only two sentences. The first sentence defined marriage and the second established the fact that marriage is regarded as a unique and protected relationship by the state constitution.

Bryan Beauman, attorney for Kentucky Secretary of State Trey Grayson, spoke on behalf of the Defendants and in support of the Amendment. Beauman argued that separate and unrelated issues were not included in the Amendment. Rather, Beauman said that "both phrases in the Amendment serve the purpose of protecting the traditional civil definition of marriage – between one man and one woman."

Beauman also argued that the proposal submitted to the voters on Nov. 2 clearly identified the terms of the Marriage Amendment, and that it is the exclusive right of the people of the Commonwealth to decide whether any proposed Constitutional Amendment should pass or fail. Beauman said, "The wisdom of adding this language to the Kentucky Constitution was decided by the voters on Nov. 2. Whether the voters made the right decision should not be subject to an ‘after-the-fact’ challenge in a Court proceeding."

Glen Lavy, with the Alliance Defense Fund, and Rep. Stan Lee were the attorneys for codefendants Sen. Vernie McGaha, the amendment’s original sponsor, and Kent Ostrander, executive director of The Family Foundation. "The oral argument went pretty well for us," said Lavy. "It seemed obvious that the plaintiffs’ attorney had very little substance to his argument, and that he was relying primarily upon emotional appeal."

A decision on the dismissal of the case is anticipated from Crittenden some time in April.
Key Family Foundation Contacts: Kent Ostrander , Executive Director Martin Cothran , Senior Associate Policy Analyst

Attorneys on both sides of the marriage amendment issue locked horns before Franklin County Circuit Judge Roger Crittenden on Monday, Feb. 28 to argue their positions as to whether the lawsuit filed against The Kentucky Marriage Protection Amendment should be dismissed.

Attorney William Rambicure, arguing for The Fairness Alliance, maintained that the ultimate issue was that the amendment, as passed, denied the right to establish private contracts between unmarried people. "If they had stopped at the first sentence we would not be here in court today," he said. Rambicure expressed concern that domestic partnership benefits might not be able to be established at the University of Kentucky.

The amendment, which created a significant stir during the 2004 General Assembly and then the general election on Nov. 2, was made up of only two sentences. The first sentence defined marriage and the second established the fact that marriage is regarded as a unique and protected relationship by the state constitution.

Bryan Beauman, attorney for Kentucky Secretary of State Trey Grayson, spoke on behalf of the Defendants and in support of the Amendment. Beauman argued that separate and unrelated issues were not included in the Amendment. Rather, Beauman said that "both phrases in the Amendment serve the purpose of protecting the traditional civil definition of marriage – between one man and one woman."

Beauman also argued that the proposal submitted to the voters on Nov. 2 clearly identified the terms of the Marriage Amendment, and that it is the exclusive right of the people of the Commonwealth to decide whether any proposed Constitutional Amendment should pass or fail. Beauman said, "The wisdom of adding this language to the Kentucky Constitution was decided by the voters on Nov. 2. Whether the voters made the right decision should not be subject to an ‘after-the-fact’ challenge in a Court proceeding."

Glen Lavy, with the Alliance Defense Fund, and Rep. Stan Lee were the attorneys for codefendants Sen. Vernie McGaha, the amendment’s original sponsor, and Kent Ostrander, executive director of The Family Foundation. "The oral argument went pretty well for us," said Lavy. "It seemed obvious that the plaintiffs’ attorney had very little substance to his argument, and that he was relying primarily upon emotional appeal."

A decision on the dismissal of the case is anticipated from Crittenden some time in April.