Friday, February 28, 2014

Judge finalizes stay in marriage case, Conway "sleepwalking" through case

"Attorney General Jack Conway appears to be sleepwalking through the most important case that has faced him during his term of office," said a spokesman for The Family Foundation after the judge in the Bourke vs. Beshear case finalized a temporary stay order.

In his order, the judge remarked the Conway "has not made a strong argument" for the stay, but the judge issued the order anyway after another meeting which Conway failed to attend.

"The Attorney General has a constitutional obligation to defend the rights of voters in this case," said Martin Cothran spokesman for the group. "Instead he's apparently decided to take a long siesta." Cothran had charged Conway yesterday with "spiking the marriage case." He pointed to another meeting held today at which Conway failed to show up, sending instead underlings who were confused and indecisive.

"Doesn't someone in Conway's office have access to smelling salts? Kentucky citizens deserve more than this."

11 comments:

Anonymous said...

When you quote yourself in every blog post it entertains me. Keep up the good fight for us! Gay people should not have any rights! They are sick depraved human beings who do butt stuff completely contradictory to how baby jesus would want us to live our lives. Jesus would put the gay folks in prison for life, like in Uganda, a glorious example of a country that one day we may mirror in regards to their progressive thinking and very evolved progress on social issues. Praise jesus, down with the gay rights!!!! They are not equal human beings and should not be treated as such!

Anonymous said...

Wow. Just wow. You people are sick. This is the most unchristian thing ever. Evaluate your hate, evaluate your lives, please learn to let people live their lives. This is disgusting and reminds me of mississippi back in the civil rights era. People trying to vote the racism, vote the bigotry into the system so that they can claim the legal democratic high ground. Disgusting. Evolve Kentucky.

Martin Cothran said...

Anonymous #2

Yes, it's terrible that there are people out there who disagree with you. Here's what I suggest:

Call them names, tell them their ill, call them "bigots," accuse them of being hateful for no better reason than that they disagree with you, and compare them to racists.

Now if you were a conservative and you compared your opponent to Nazi's people would call you on the carpet for it, but you're obviously not, so you can basically say anything you want and no one will hold you accountable for it.

Then (this is the coup de grace), after you have done all of these intolerant things, tell people you are practicing tolerance.

Oh, wait. You've already done this.

Nevermind.

Martin Cothran said...


Anonymous #1:

I am reprinting a press release from an organization in which I am quoted. Get over it.

And please don't say all those intolerant things on my blog. I don't say them, and I expect my commenters not to do so either.

Anonymous said...

I didn't call you any other name than bigot. Bigot - a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group. Which is what you are when you argue against another group of people having equal rights as yourself based on some superficial difference, skin color, sexual preference etc. Which sounds a lot like the south denying black folks equal rights back in the day, and you denying gay folks their rights now. How does that compare to comparing a liberal to a nazi? It doesn't at all. The only people that could possibly accept your comparison as anything other than ridiculous are those people whom are finding it difficult to come to terms with their own bigotry.

Martin Cothran said...

Anonymous,

So, according to your own criteria, would you call yourself an anti-religious bigot?

Anonymous said...

Nope, believe whatever you want, just don't try and push your beliefs off onto the laws of the land so that other people who don't subscribe to your views have to live their lives according to your beliefs. Separation of church and state is a grand idea.

Anonymous said...

The onion agrees with you Martin.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/closeminded-man-not-even-willing-to-hear-out-argum,35379/?utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=SocialMarketing&utm_campaign=Default:Week1:Default

Martin Cothran said...

Anonymous,

Lol. As opposed to laws that reflect your beliefs which people who don't agree with them don't have to follow? Why don't you tell us how that works.

Funny how laws that you agree with and impose your beliefs on others aren't considered an imposition but laws you disagree with are.

Anonymous said...

Ahhh, your first good point, possibly ever. Laws that protect the general functioning of society and personal property so that our capitalist institutions are able to function in the interest of the overall good of everyone are completely understandable. Thiefs probably hate the law, thou shall not steal, but them being allowed to steal whatever they want would lead to a state of anarchy reminiscent of Somalia the past decade where you have guys in trucks with big guns taking everything they want, making working for anything pointless, rendering society useless, starving large portions of the population. Therefore a good law. Laws that discriminate against a certain group of people because you were raised racist, or you were raised in the church, that have no function in allowing society to continue functioning for the good of the population, are not good laws. If you want to live in a society where they run everything according to a 6,000 year old fairy tale, wait till the taliban takes back over afghanistan, and move there. You can stone all the adulterers you want(Deuteronomy 22:23-24), like your bible prescribes, stone all the non virgins on their wedding nights etc etc etc.(Deuteronomy 22:13-21) Where do you draw the line on following the bible, and not following the bible? Treat others as you want to be treated Martin. You want to have the right to get married? You want the benefits of a legally recognized marriage? So do gay folks. How does them getting married hurt society? Prove to me it does without some bigoted bs about, "the morals of society will be corrupted" "kids will catch their disease," and I'll let you impose your beliefs on everyone without further debate.

Anonymous said...

Even though the move would be doomed to failure because of which party controls the House, some Republican should draft Articles of Impeachment against Conway for failure to perform his statutory duties.