Arkansas | Gay Marriage | News

Arkansas Lawmakers Approve Resolution in Support of State’s Gay Marriage Ban

The Arkansas Legislative Council, the organizing committee for the state’s General Assembly, has approved a resolution urging the Arkansas Supreme Court to uphold the state's voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage that was struck down by Pulaski County Circuit Judge Chirs Piazza back in May.

Southwest Times Record reports:

Sen. Jason RapertThe non-binding resolution by Sen. Jason Rapert [pictured], R-Conway, had 59 of the 135 members of the Arkansas Legislature as co-sponsors. Legislators adopted it in a voice vote with only a few “no” votes heard. […]

The resolution states that “Judge Piazza’s resolution is in direct contradiction to his oath to uphold the Arkansas Constitution” and that the Legislative Council “shall explore legislative remedies to prevent the Arkansas Constitution and the will of the people of this state from being negated by judicial activism which violates the separation of powers ensured in our form of government.”

Rapert told reporters he expected Friday’s action to be followed by an effort to create a system of judicial recall in Arkansas. Work has already begun on developing a citizens’ initiative to allow judges to be recalled, he said.

Watch THV11's report, AFTER THE JUMP...

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. Does he seriously not have anything better to do with his time?

    Posted by: Sam | Jun 22, 2014 6:29:13 PM


  2. jeezus..ANOTHER self-hating gay-face?

    Posted by: Daniel Berry, NYC | Jun 22, 2014 7:03:07 PM


  3. And the idea of judicial recall--meaning that judges have to worry about a threat to their tenure if someone doesn't like they way they rule on an issue?

    Why don't they occupy their time trying to get people back to work? Oh, yeah--republicans.

    Posted by: kdknyc | Jun 22, 2014 7:12:11 PM


  4. Well, I used to think Arkansas was a step above my home state of Mississippi, but I was wrong.

    Posted by: Ed P. | Jun 22, 2014 7:13:34 PM


  5. So they're basically saying that they'll get the results they want through threats and intimidation of their Supreme Court? Stay classy republicans.

    Posted by: Garygdw | Jun 22, 2014 7:27:04 PM


  6. Yet another self-defeating resolution? In the longer run, it's another tea-bagger attempt to eliminate "activist judges" because they can't believe that something, like the Constitution, actually limits majority rule. And, of course, being a "populist" in America, today, means pandering to the ignorant and fearful.

    Posted by: Chuck Mielke | Jun 22, 2014 7:44:21 PM


  7. I can't believe my husband almost....ALMOST convinced me that it was a good idea to move back home South. I left Louisiana back in 1987....a few good folks there....but most people would sooner throw you in jail or a mental health facility for being Gay. The South will have to be dragged kicking and screaming to get them at least past the civil war.

    Posted by: wct | Jun 22, 2014 7:50:52 PM


  8. Someone should tell ole Jason the facial hair is very gay face. Me thinks he doth protest to deflect.

    Posted by: I wont grow up | Jun 22, 2014 7:53:32 PM


  9. This cub wantabe should take a course in civics, as should most of the GOP. A judge is not obligated to support an unconstitutional laws. There is also the concept of protecting the minority from the tyranny of the majority.

    Posted by: Terry | Jun 22, 2014 8:15:43 PM


  10. Soooo....let me get this straight. According to the concept of "Separation of Powers", the Legislature has the power to create, interpret, and execute the law; the executive is a figure-head who bows to the will of the Legislature; and the Judiciary are yes-men who are dependent on the Legislature's interpretation of the law?

    I realize that it's been awhile since I've taken Poli Sci, but I don't seem to recall that particular interpretation of the "Separation of Powers".

    Posted by: AggieCowboy | Jun 22, 2014 8:55:42 PM


  11. Death penalty for homophobic extremists who are trying to subvert the justice system. Death by fire ant should be appropriate.

    Posted by: ToThePoint | Jun 22, 2014 8:55:54 PM


  12. Miss Jaysonette has a tattoo of a butterfly right above her hairless coin slot.

    Posted by: Tamika | Jun 22, 2014 9:02:15 PM


  13. This pudgy little man (what is it about republicans and pudginess?) doesn't seem to understand that the judicial branch is apart from the legislative and the voters...voters are wrong and so can be the legislature. If the constitution is wrong that's for the judicial branch and not the legislative branch to figure out. he's a poor representative, a poor legislator and a poor human being.

    Posted by: woodroad34 | Jun 22, 2014 9:52:35 PM


  14. Been quite awhile since I was in civics class, but doesn't the US Constitution trump the individual states constitutions? Do I not remember this correctly?

    Posted by: JSB | Jun 22, 2014 11:16:43 PM


  15. So what will they do if their surpreme court upholds the ruling? Fire them all?

    Posted by: Randy | Jun 23, 2014 12:55:22 AM


  16. Bible belt relig at its best

    Posted by: codyj | Jun 23, 2014 6:17:33 AM


  17. It's only judicial activism when they don't like the ruling. No one from their side cried "judicial activism" in Bush v. Gore or Citizens United.

    Posted by: Chadd | Jun 23, 2014 7:09:30 AM


  18. TAMIKA, LOL, you're bad, funniest post of the day. Do you think he waxes or shaves that coin slot?

    Posted by: I wont grow up | Jun 23, 2014 1:16:40 PM


Post a comment







Trending


« «Stop-Motion Animated LGBTQ History Series in the Works: VIDEO« «