Arkansas | Gay Marriage | News

Judge to Rule on Arkansas Gay Marriage Ban Within Two Weeks

Piazza

Following hearings yesterday, Circuit Judge Chris Piazza said he would rule within two weeks on a challenge to Arkansas' ban on gay marriage, the Arkansas News Bureau reports:

Twenty-one same-sex Arkansas couples — and one woman seeking a divorce from a woman she married in New York — allege in a lawsuit that Amendment 83 to the Arkansas Constitution, which was approved by voters in 2004 and defines marriage as between one man and one woman, violates rights guaranteed under both the state and federal constitutions.

The state attorney general’s office maintains that banning same-sex marriage preserves state interests and does not violate any fundamental rights.

ArkansasJack Wagoner, one of the plaintiffs’ attorneys, said during Thursday’s hearing that since the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a federal definition of marriage as between one man and one woman in the U.S. v. Windsor case last year, 18 federal and state court decisions have been issued addressing the issue of equality based on sexual orientation, and all have been decided in favor of equality.

“I love coming to court when the facts are all on my side,” Wagoner said.

Assistant Attorney Colin Jorgensen argued that in the Windsor ruling, the Supreme Court addressed federal law only and did not block states from defining marriage as they wish.

More on the hearing here.

Said Piazza following the three-hour arguments: "I’ve already got an idea where I’m going, but I’m still drifting."

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. It's Arkansas, I can only imagine where he's going and "drifting". I'll be pleasantly surprised for a ruling in favor of equality, but not shocked at the other outcome. Of course, an anti-equality ruling is exactly what NOM, Bryan Brown and their ilk are waiting to jump on.

    Posted by: NotSafeForWork | Apr 18, 2014 1:39:59 PM


  2. @NotSafeForWork I disagree. The last thing they want is negative ruling that will get bumped to the Supremes and become a national referendum. The want to drag this out another decade and let it happen state by state. We technically have already won. Its all about process.

    Also if any of these cases goes to the Supremes and becomes national settled law, how on earth would the groups you mention continue to solicit donations. Its much better for their bottom line if they can use the "It could happen here!!" approach. If there are no states to "protect" it puts their racket out of business.

    Its just better for everyone on the right to let this go state by state.

    Posted by: Homo Genius | Apr 18, 2014 1:51:17 PM


  3. If he rules in our favor he'll just be doing what ever other Federal Judge has done since Windsor.

    If he rules against us, it will be interesting to see what kind of legal knots he twists himself into to reach that decision.

    Posted by: Howard B | Apr 18, 2014 2:59:27 PM


  4. He's a democrat and upheld the 2010 gay adoption law.

    Posted by: Mimi Cotassa | Apr 18, 2014 6:03:51 PM


  5. I don't believe that he is a federal judge. He is listed on Google as a justice for the state of Arkansas.

    Posted by: *****overTX | Apr 18, 2014 6:38:03 PM


  6. Correct. This is a state court and judge.

    Posted by: KELL | Apr 18, 2014 8:30:25 PM


Post a comment







Trending


« «Friday Speed Read: Oklahoma Marriage, Naya Taylor, Charles Cooper, Gordon Fox« «