Check out the redesigned ADG Explore

Today's Paper Latest stories Obits Email newsletters Weather Traffic New ADG site Bridge collapse Puzzles + games
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT

LITTLE ROCK — Opponents and supporters of Arkansas' ban on gay marriage are sparring in court filings over whether the state's constitutional amendment barring same-sex marriage serves a legitimate purpose and can be challenged at the state level.

Attorneys for the state and a group of same-sex couples filed competing arguments in Pulaski County court Wednesday seeking summary judgment over the challenge to a constitutional amendment voters approved in 2004 defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

A hearing is scheduled April 17 over the motions.

Attorneys for the state and the Faulkner County clerk argued in part that opponents can't challenge the ban in state court since it's enshrined in the Arkansas constitution. Opponents argue the ban violates the equal protection guaranteed under the constitution.

Comments

You must be signed in to post comments
  • djigoo
    March 20, 2014 at 3:59 p.m.

    CommonSenseHelps, I assume you never eat shrimp or wear cotton/poly blends.

    Those are clearly sinful, according to scripture.

    And anyone who believes sexual identity is somehow "chosen" is too moronic to engage in civilized debate.

  • Packman
    March 20, 2014 at 5:19 p.m.

    @23Cal - Civil rights and 14th Amendment protections for pedophiles? If you say so, 23.
    .
    And I'm glad you brought up that compelling reason thought. Threats to public and social welfare have been used as "compelling reasons" to prohibit unrestricted choice and state sanctioning of lots of behavior, from smoking cigarettes in certain places to women going topless in public. State sanctioned gay marriage has the government sanctioning a behavior that has proven public health risks. It's a FACT that gay men are some 100 times more likely to acquire the AS virus than straight men and about 150 times more likely to be diagnosed with anal cancer. You might want to re-think your "crux of the matter" statement. You may now stop being amazed....
    .
    But I do give you too much credit, 23. I figured you smart enough to understand the example of pedophilia used to illustrate the slippery slope of "marriage equality". You lumped pedophilia with anal love out of context, not me. You and surfergoo are as filled with "phobia" as those you call homophobes so long as you oppose marriage equality for siblings and polygamists (forget pedophiles and focus only on consenting adults). Does this make you and surfergoo ignorant and hate-filled, 23?

  • 000
    March 20, 2014 at 5:37 p.m.

    djigoo, you need to learn the difference between fear and disgust.
    PopSmith may very well fear homosexual contact, but most folks you label as 'phobes are actually just disgusted.
    ~
    Disgust is a root feeling like rage or hunger. It serves the evolutionary purpose of preventing us from doing things that will make us sick. The thought of eating a rotting corpse invokes disgust in humans because we are not made to eat carrion. It's the same for licking vomit. For some of us, the thought of homosexual intercourse also provokes disgust. This is an honest, natural and acceptable reaction. If you can't accept the fact that folks can be honestly and naturally disgusted at the thought of homosexual love-making, then you might just be bigoted against straights. And we all know sexual preference is a protected class...
    ~
    Did I just compare licking vomit to homosexual intercourse? Yes, because to a straight, it is the same thing - just plain disgusting. GROK it?
    ~
    23Cal - You also do not recognize honest and natural emotion. Hate is not a perversion. Hate is one functional order higher than root emotions like fear and rage. We all know that fear provokes flight and rage provokes fight and both of those are natural evolutionary process which help insure the survival of the species. Hate is simply the placeholder that keeps the subject of our rage on the table. I hate you because I have raged at you. I have raged at you because you have threatened me and forced me to decide between flight or fight. My hate allows me to remember and react without the delay of deciding.
    ~
    Goo, straights can no more decide not to be disgusted by homosexual activity than gays can choose to be straight. What do you think about that, kimosabe?
    ~
    If you force someone into a state of disgust, they may react with hate. That's how folks are built. You can no more legislate against that than you could legislate that 2 inches of concrete is as strong as 8. (but they do try, don't they?)

  • Populist
    March 20, 2014 at 5:58 p.m.

    If gay people are together as a couple, there is no reason that they should not be allowed to get marry. The arguments against polygamy do not apply. Consenting adults should be able to marry. Fortunately, most of the country has come around on this. Let's all try to be a little nicer to one another.

  • Dontcallmenames
    March 20, 2014 at 6:08 p.m.

    What kind of phobia is it if you say I can't marry a 14-year old? Or can't marry a dog? Or can't marry a dead person? You must be a hater if you say I can't do any of these too.

  • nwar
    March 20, 2014 at 6:28 p.m.

    Donn'tcallmenames - you're arguments are ridiculous. Homosexuality is about CONSENTING ADULTS. Kids can't consent. Animals can't consent. And anyone who marries a "dead person" is only trying to get benefits. Please, enough with the juvenile nonsense.

  • Populist
    March 20, 2014 at 6:35 p.m.

    CommonSense--not,

    Christ never said a word about homosexuality. Paul was a man--not God. The next time you open up the Bible, read Christ's words and open up your heart to the message of love.

  • T6
    March 20, 2014 at 7:01 p.m.

    A British woman divorced her husband and married her Jack Russell. True story.

  • Garycmillerlawgmailcom
    March 20, 2014 at 7:18 p.m.

    Nice Heinlein reference, Po.

  • aimee
    March 20, 2014 at 7:44 p.m.

    Laws that seek to prosecute "victimless crimes" usually die out of their own accord...

ADVERTISEMENT