Rainbows over the Natural State! Federal judge strikes down Arkansas' gay marriage ban
89 replies, posted
[URL="http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/05/09/gay-marriage-arkansas-ban/8914837/"]Arkansas judge strikes down state's ban on gay marriage[/URL]
[QUOTE]An Arkansas judge Friday invalidated the state's voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage, saying it violates the equal-protection clause of the U.S. Constitution.
"Although marriage is not expressly identified as a fundamental right in the Constitution, the United States Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized it as such," Pulaski County Circuit Judge Chris Piazza ruled in striking down the 2004 amendment to the state's constitution as well as a statute passed in 1997.
[B]"This is an unconstitutional attempt to narrow the definition of equality," he wrote. "The exclusion of a minority for no rational reason is a dangerous precedent."[/B]
Voters overwhelmingly supported changing the constitution to define marriage as being only between a man and a woman.
Last week, state Attorney General Dustin McDaniel, a Democrat, said he personally supported same-sex marriage but would defend the ban in court.
"We respect the Court's decision, but, in keeping with the Attorney General's obligation to defend the state constitution, we will appeal," McDaniel's spokesman, Aaron Sadler, said Friday after the ruling. "We will request that Judge Piazza issue a stay of his ruling so as not to create confusion or uncertainty about the law while the Supreme Court considers the matter."
In several other cases nationwide, judges or courts have stayed rulings striking down marriage bans while appeals are working their way through the courts.
Piazza released his decision after county clerks offices had closed for the week. Without a stay, marriage license bureaus are expected to be jammed Monday.
Piazza's 13-page [URL="http://posting.arktimes.com/media/pdf/marriage.pdf"]ruling[/URL] in [I][URL="http://marriage.wikia.com/wiki/Wright_v._Arkansas"]Wright vs. Arkansas[/URL][/I] rests heavily on the landmark 1967 case [URL="http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/388/1"][I]Loving vs. Virginia[/I][/URL], in which the U.S. Supreme Court overturned that state's ban on interracial marriage.[/QUOTE]
[URL="http://gaymarriage.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=004857"]The 2014 count[/URL] is now Oklahoma, Virginia, Texas, Michigan, and now Arkansas. Kentucky invalidated the ban on recognizing marriages performed in other venues, but hasn't legalized same-sex marriages in the state itself. Illinois' same-sex marriage law goes into effect on June 1st, too. And, unlike most of the other rulings this year, Judge Piazza did [I]not[/I] preemptively issue a stay on his ruling. It's going to be interesting to see how intense the demand is for marriage licenses on Monday.
As an Arkansan, I'm happy that this is happening. But the social media backlash is insane and outright disgusting
[quote]Although marriage is not expressly identified as a fundamental right in the Constitution, the United States Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized it as such[/quote]
Someone didn't read the 14th amendment.
[QUOTE=Water-Marine;44778942]As an Arkansan, I'm happy that this is happening. But the social media backlash is insane and outright disgusting[/QUOTE]
News media in general is disgusting every revolves around negativities barely highlighting the good.
[QUOTE=Water-Marine;44778942]As an Arkansan, I'm happy that this is happening. But the social media backlash is insane and outright disgusting[/QUOTE]
Damn gays taking away all muh freedums.
would illinois' same-sex mairrage law be banning it or allowing it? details, people.
[QUOTE=JXZ;44782018]would illinois' same-sex mairrage law be banning it or allowing it? details, people.[/QUOTE]
The context should make it clear that Illinois is legalizing same-sex marriage on 1 June. The law was passed last year, going into effect on the first.
This has happened before. There are something like 4 or 5 of these cases sitting, waiting to be heard at the federal level right now. The main thing is that you can have conflicting federal decisions that will only really be enforceable in their districts, what needs to happen, and will, is the SCOTUS will have to hear one.
[QUOTE=GiGaBiTe;44778948]Someone didn't read the 14th amendment.[/QUOTE]
'expressly identified'
[QUOTE=Xieneus;44782078]One step closer in the agenda.[/QUOTE]
soon the plan will be complete and we will have ALL the god-fearing white christian americans enslaved!!! muahahaha
I wish I had old Southern Baptist relatives in Arkansas just so I could hear their cries.
[QUOTE=Bazsil;44784132]soon the plan will be complete and we will have ALL the god-fearing white christian americans enslaved!!! muahahaha[/QUOTE]
Fantastic-2-Delta has been broadcast from High Fagcommand. Proceed accordingly!
As a Republican, I'm glad to see more and more states lifting/ruling bans on gay marriage unconstitutional.
Though I personally disagree with gay marriage, the government has no right to say who you can/can't marry. Religion should not have anything to do with the law, either, since we do have freedom of Religion.
[QUOTE=wakeboarderCWB;44785669]As a Republican, I'm glad to see more and more states lifting/ruling bans on gay marriage unconstitutional.
Though I personally disagree with gay marriage, the government has no right to say who you can/can't marry. Religion should not have anything to do with the law, either, since we do have freedom of Religion.[/QUOTE]
Why disagree?
[QUOTE=wakeboarderCWB;44785669]As a Republican, I'm glad to see more and more states lifting/ruling bans on gay marriage unconstitutional.
Though I personally disagree with gay marriage, the government has no right to say who you can/can't marry. Religion should not have anything to do with the law, either, since we do have freedom of Religion.[/QUOTE]
Damn, you're more mature than half the adults I know. (Which is a good way to spend my 2000th post I guess)
ok so
If one state has already declared it unconstitutional long ago, does the entirety of the USA not have just one Constitution? I don't understand the irritatingly slow progress on this
the whole purpose of that document is to be prevalent over bogus little state laws like this
oh well the general concept of marriage is pretty redundant. I respect the tradition but yeah. and you have to get a [I]license[/I] to marry? what a fucking joke
[QUOTE=wakeboarderCWB;44785669]As a Republican, I'm glad to see more and more states lifting/ruling bans on gay marriage unconstitutional.
Though I personally disagree with gay marriage, the government has no right to say who you can/can't marry. Religion should not have anything to do with the law, either, since we do have freedom of Religion.[/QUOTE]
Like Super_Nova said, why disagree? It would be nice to hear the reasoning behind disagreeing with it from someone who is actually reasonable about it.
[editline]12th May 2014[/editline]
Don't post it in the thread though, people tend to get very polarized about it around here.
[QUOTE=LNKFAN;44787388]ok so
If one state has already declared it unconstitutional long ago, does the entirety of the USA not have just one Constitution? I don't understand the irritatingly slow progress on this
the whole purpose of that document is to be prevalent over bogus little state laws like this
oh well the general concept of marriage is pretty redundant. I respect the tradition but yeah. and you have to get a [I]license[/I] to marry? what a fucking joke[/QUOTE]
Every state has its own constitution, the Supreme Court has not ruled on this so it's only against state and not the federal constitution
[QUOTE=wakeboarderCWB;44785669]As a Republican, I'm glad to see more and more states lifting/ruling bans on gay marriage unconstitutional.
Though I personally disagree with gay marriage, the government has no right to say who you can/can't marry. Religion should not have anything to do with the law, either, since we do have freedom of Religion.[/QUOTE]
I don't really think you have a right to disagree with someone's orientation. That would be like disagreeing with someone's skin color. Race or sexual orientation isn't something you happen to choose; so to say you disagree with it is silly.
[QUOTE=Bredirish123;44788575]I don't really think you have a right to disagree with someone's orientation. That would be like disagreeing with someone's skin color. Race or sexual orientation isn't something you happen to choose; so to say you disagree with it is silly.[/QUOTE]
he didnt say he disagrees with their orientation. he said he disagrees with gay marriage, but supports their right to get married
he was respectful and reasonable, and he has a right to disagree with what he wants to disagree with
I disagree with gay marriage mainly because I think marriage is a bond between a man and woman. I'm Christian, and my religion has nothing to do with it. I don't care if two men or women get married, though. It doesn't affect me. I don't try and dictate other's lives on my opinion. I live my life by it, and that's it.
As I said, though, the government doesn't have the right to say who you can/can't marry.
[QUOTE=Bredirish123;44788575]I don't really think you have a right to disagree with someone's orientation. That would be like disagreeing with someone's skin color. Race or sexual orientation isn't something you happen to choose; so to say you disagree with it is silly.[/QUOTE]
That's the beauty of this country; I [i]do[/i] have the right to disagree with something if I want to.
[QUOTE=wakeboarderCWB;44790952]I disagree with gay marriage mainly because I think marriage is a bond between a man and woman. I'm Christian, and my religion has nothing to do with it. I don't care if two men or women get married, though. It doesn't affect me. I don't try and dictate other's lives on my opinion. I live my life by it, and that's it.
As I said, though, the government doesn't have the right to say who you can/can't marry.
That's the beauty of this country; I [i]do[/i] have the right to disagree with something if I want to.[/QUOTE]
I wish all Republicans acted like you (if they must disagree, as is their right to).
Canada's more or less settled at this point, because the law is in place and even Stephen Harper recognizes that Canadians are not interested in reopening the debate. We have not been swallowed up by the infernal crevasse Below yet. :v:
[QUOTE=wakeboarderCWB;44790952]That's the beauty of this country; I [i]do[/i] have the right to disagree with something if I want to.[/QUOTE]No you don't, and no you don't.
You don't get to disagree with mine or anyone else's orientation or race, end of discussion, you just don't get to. And if you try, you absolutely deserve, and in this age will receive, the full wrath laid upon you by the better side of society.
[editline]12th May 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=wakeboarderCWB;44790952]I disagree with gay marriage mainly because I think marriage is a bond between a man and woman. I'm Christian, and my religion has nothing to do with it. I don't care if two men or women get married, though. It doesn't affect me. I don't try and dictate other's lives on my opinion. I live my life by it, and that's it.[/QUOTE]There is no logical or reasonable excuse for saying marriage is just between a man and a woman. And you saying "I disagree with who you are allowed to love and marry." is you trying to dictate other people's lives, you just don't carry any legal weight fortunately.
[QUOTE]As I said, though, the government doesn't have the right to say who you can/can't marry.[/QUOTE]Yes they do, that is well within their purview given that it exists as a legal joining of two people. The ceremonies and shit are just that, ceremonial. At its core it is a legal contract saying two people are a couple.
[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;44791620]I wish all Republicans acted like you (if they must disagree, as is their right to).
Canada's more or less settled at this point, because the law is in place and even Stephen Harper recognizes that Canadians are not interested in reopening the debate. We have not been swallowed up by the infernal crevasse Below yet. :v:[/QUOTE]
To be fair, gay marriage is still technically illegal under Alberta law. It's just that in terms of marriage in Canada, federal law overrules provincial law.
[editline]12th May 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=wakeboarderCWB;44790952]I disagree with gay marriage mainly because I think marriage is a bond between a man and woman. I'm Christian, and my religion has nothing to do with it.[/QUOTE]
I can't help but appreciate the consistency here, to be honest.
Marriages in Biblical times hold barely any resemblance to modern marriages. They were basically an exchange of property. When a person says they're opposed to gay marriage [i]because[/i] they're a Christian I can't help but laugh and wonder if they're okay with polygamy and forcibly marrying two of your slaves.
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;44791792]No you don't, and no you don't.
You don't get to disagree with mine or anyone else's orientation or race, end of discussion, you just don't get to. And if you try, you absolutely deserve, and in this age will receive, the full wrath laid upon you by the better side of society.
[editline]12th May 2014[/editline]
There is no logical or reasonable excuse for saying marriage is just between a man and a woman. And you saying "I disagree with who you are allowed to love and marry." is you trying to dictate other people's lives, you just don't carry any legal weight fortunately.
Yes they do, that is well within their purview given that it exists as a legal joining of two people. The ceremonies and shit are just that, ceremonial. At its core it is a legal contract saying two people are a couple.[/QUOTE]
You hear what you're saying? You're saying nobody's allowed to have opinions.
He disagrees with gay marriage. But he [b]won't stop them from getting married.[/b] That's the key point there. Everyone's allowed to have an opinion, it's only bad when it gets in the way directly of others'. It's in the same vein as people saying "I don't like abortion, but I'll defend a woman's right to recieve one."
[QUOTE=wakeboarderCWB;44790952]I disagree with gay marriage mainly because I think marriage is a bond between a man and woman. I'm Christian, and my religion has nothing to do with it. I don't care if two men or women get married, though. It doesn't affect me. I don't try and dictate other's lives on my opinion. I live my life by it, and that's it.
As I said, though, the government doesn't have the right to say who you can/can't marry.
That's the beauty of this country; I [i]do[/i] have the right to disagree with something if I want to.[/QUOTE]
What my point primarily is, I don't feel it logically makes sense to limit marriage to just a man and a woman. Just like we should not limit marriage to just within your own race. The whole "Sacramental" point of marriage is to love someone enough to dedicate the remainder of your existence to that person--regardless of the trials and tribulations ahead. So, why should such a beautiful thing be limited to just a man and a woman?
[QUOTE=Bredirish123;44793809]What my point primarily is, I don't feel it logically makes sense to limit marriage to just a man and a woman. Just like we should not limit marriage to just within your own race. The whole "Sacramental" point of marriage is to love someone enough to dedicate the remainder of your existence to that person--regardless of the trials and tribulations ahead. So, why should such a beautiful thing be limited to just a man and a woman?[/QUOTE]
I guess you could say it relates back to how I was raised. I come from a traditional, old style family.
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;44791792]No you don't, and no you don't.
You don't get to disagree with mine or anyone else's orientation or race, end of discussion, you just don't get to. And if you try, you absolutely deserve, and in this age will receive, the full wrath laid upon you by the better side of society.
[/quote]
I can't help but disagree with this right here. Though I feel you greatly misunderstood what I said, everyone can have opinions of whatever they want. No one is stopping them from having them. Also, what you mean by the "better side of society"? Do you mean the politically correct side? If so, I'm not someone who tends to worry about being politically correct.
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;44791792]No you don't, and no you don't.
Yes they do, that is well within their purview given that it exists as a legal joining of two people. The ceremonies and shit are just that, ceremonial. At its core it is a legal contract saying two people are a couple.[/QUOTE]
I think you misunderstood what I said here, too. I'm saying the government [i]shouldn't[/i] have the ability to tell two people that they can't get married. I know there is a legal side to marriage, but the government shouldn't be able to say that two people can't marry just because they're the same sex.
[QUOTE=wakeboarderCWB;44794189]I guess you could say it relates back to how I was raised. I come from a traditional, old style family.[/QUOTE]
That's a fine explanation for "how" someone could end up thinking a certain way but that's not a justification for "why" they should continue to think that way.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
