Subscribe Register Login
Tuesday, May 22, 2018, 4:54 p.m.

ADVERTISEMENT

Top Picks - Capture Arkansas

Arkansas defends gay-marriage ban as hearing nears

By The Associated Press

This article was published March 20, 2014 at 11:15 a.m.

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.

ADVERTISEMENT

Comments on: Arkansas defends gay-marriage ban as hearing nears

To report abuse or misuse of this area please hit the "Suggest Removal" link in the comment to alert our online managers. Read our Terms of Use policy.

Subscribe Register Login

You must login to make comments.

Displaying 41 - 50 of 58 total comments

Jump to last page >>

djigoo says... March 23, 2014 at 9:14 a.m.

Stop the hypocrisy? He'd cease to exist!

( | suggest removal )

23cal says... March 23, 2014 at 9:35 a.m.

Superdud:
About "Don't you understand that American citizens deserve equality under the law?" Yes. Nothing I have said says "no".
*
Really?
*
What about "Yep, in your own words you want to provide equal protection under the law for pedophiles and other deviant behavior of choice. Bless your heart." Bless your heart, too, Dud. Either you also want equal protection under the law for pedophiles and other deviant behavior of choice or you are claiming that somehow pedophiles are not American citizens. You can't have it both ways, so which is it?
*
About "That's the coward's way out. Glad to see you eventually "manned up", so to speak.' Grow up. Give yourself a medal for bravery and get past your infantile name-calling. Yeeeesh.
*
About "You have yet to show that gay marriage increases health risks." Check the Centers for Disease Control. The facts about AIDS and rectal cancer involving gay men are indisputable. It's interesting you do not debate the issue of "compelling reason".
*
You have some severe reading comprehension problems. You have no evidence that same sex marriage increases AIDS rates. You want to argue that AIDS rates are higher among homosexuals, which no one is denying, but you cannot show that allowing same sex marriage will somehow increase those rates. Consequently, there is no "compelling reason" to deny same sex marriage. I think you try to obfuscate by purposely confusing the two.
*
Let me explain it again. Your claim is basically that unprotected sex between unmonogamous homosexual men increases risk of AIDS. You have not, and cannot, show that same sex marriage increases "unprotected sex between unmonogamous homosexual men", and therefor leads to increased risk of AIDS. On the contrary, anyone with the ability to think should be able to figure out that monogamous same sex marriages would DECREASE the incidence of AIDS infection among homosexual men. Far from being a compelling health reason to deny same sex marriage, it is a compelling reason to include same sex marriage.
*
About ""NO". You are such a hypocrite to support state sanctioned marriage ONLY for those consenting adults that fit with your personal agenda. Such the hypocrite."
*
More childish ad hominems from you. To quote what I said: "CIVIL marriage should be limited to those for whom the state cannot determine a compelling secular reason to deny." How is that a "personal agenda"? I apply that yardstick to heterosexual, homosexual, sibling, and polygamous marriages equally. The difference is that there MAY BE compelling reasons on the last two---I don't know. I'm all for the country having that debate, and IF there are none, more power to them. But, I'm quite certain right now there are no compelling reasons to deny the first two. I regret this is too complex for you to understand.

*
Your weeping, wailing, and gnashing of teeth sound like a symphony and your tears of rage are like a refreshing rain.

( | suggest removal )

Dontsufferfools says... March 23, 2014 at 11:02 a.m.

I gotta say, watching sdude try argue with smart people is liking watching an NFL lineman play without a helmet. Kinda ugly. Homosexuality has been around for as long as humans have been around. It's a topic that turns up whenever humans start writing. Asking people to thwart what seems natural to them, or worse, persecute them a la Noel Coward or Matthew Shepard, is criminal. I suspect the common denominator of homophobes is unhappiness. They're unhappy and thwarted and want others to feel that way, too.

( | suggest removal )

Packman says... March 23, 2014 at 3:06 p.m.

Whoa, I've got surfergoo, Populist, 23Cal, and Dontsufferfools all stirred up. Patting myself on the back....
.
@Populist - The issue isn't homosexuals destroying marriage. It's destruction of the institution as sanctioned by the state that is the issue for NO compelling reason other than to appease the lifestyle choice of 1% of the adult population in America.
.
@djigoo - Surfergoo, always good to see your classless snippets devoid of intellect. At least you're consistent, surfergoo.
.
@Dontsufferfools - Just couldn't help yourself by dropping the "homophobe" bomb, could you, Dontsufferfools. Is that all you got?

( | suggest removal )

Packman says... March 23, 2014 at 3:23 p.m.

@23Cal - "...so which is it?" I do not believe pedophiles, murders, rapists, and others should be allowed to act out and then be "protected" by the equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment. Do you really, seriously, believe otherwise?
.
"...infantile name-calling." I NEVER called you a name. A called your "ways" cowardly. You may now apologize.
.
"You have no evidence that same sex marriage increases AIDS rates." Connect the dots, 23. Gay men enjoy anal sex. State sanctioned marriage encourages gay men to engage in anal sex. Anal sex causes devastating public health issues. Ergo, compelling reason not to support state sanctioned homosexual unions. No obfuscation here, 23. Once again I just blew your "no compelling reason" argument to little bitty pieces.
*
"You have not, and cannot, show that same sex marriage increases "unprotected sex" Yes I can. Please see the previous paragraph. "....monogamous same sex marriages would DECREASE the incidence of AIDS infection among homosexual men." You forget anal cancer, 23? Another "compelling health reason" to deny same sex marriage.
*
"More childish ad hominems from you." How convenient a way to avoid the truth. Either you support marriage equality between consenting adults, or you don't, 23. Stop being a hypocrite.
.
"But, I'm quite certain right now there are no compelling reasons to deny the first two." Yes there are, and I've succinctly detailed them to you. Conversely, you have shown no compelling reason why America should make a mockery of the institution of marriage to satisfy the lifestyle choice of 1% of the nation's adult population.
.
'I regret this is too complex for you to understand." You do realize that with this statement you are doing the exact thing that you accuse me of doing, right (ad hominem attacks)?

( | suggest removal )

NoUserName says... March 23, 2014 at 5:45 p.m.

" Gay men enjoy anal sex."
.
How about lesbian women?
.
" you have shown no compelling reason why America should make a mockery of the institution of marriage to satisfy the lifestyle choice of 1% of the nation's adult population."
.
And it became a mockery the moment the government got involved. I'm curious, do you disapprove of non-religious marriages? How about divorce? Incidentally, I'd be willing to bet it has nothing to do with satisfying a lifestyle choice. Marriage, and only marriage, confers certain legal rights on a spouse.

( | suggest removal )

djigoo says... March 23, 2014 at 6:53 p.m.

pack, find the jelly. You're toast. Every successive post of yours merely refines the image the rest of us have of you.

By all means, continue if you must. But, given the results thus far...do you really want to do that?

( | suggest removal )

Packman says... March 23, 2014 at 9:13 p.m.

@NoUserName - "How about lesbian women?" Not that I can imagine (anal love), but you may be more enlightened.
.
"I'm curious, do you disapprove of non-religious marriages?' Couldn't give a rat's arse less.
.
"How about divorce?" Again, a rat's arse is of less consequence.
.
"Marriage, and only marriage, confers certain legal rights on a spouse." Ding, ding, ding, you have stumbled upon the compelling reason against homosexual marriage.

( | suggest removal )

Packman says... March 23, 2014 at 9:24 p.m.

@djigoo - "pack, find the jelly. You're toast. Every successive post of yours merely refines the image the rest of us have of you." Bless your heart, do you really not see that posts like this only reinforces the notion that GBLTQ's like you are devoid of substance and reduced to sophomoric retorts representative of an argument lost of reason and comprehension? Damn, my argument have exceeded my wildest expectations.
.
'But, given the results thus far...do you really want to do that?" Sure, I'm kicking your arse so why in the world would I want to stop. Giddyup, cowboy, giddyup.

( | suggest removal )

djigoo says... March 23, 2014 at 9:35 p.m.

Delusional. Truly.

You have my pity, pack.

( | suggest removal )

Click here to make a comment

To report abuse or misuse of this area please hit the "Suggest Removal" link in the comment to alert our online managers. Read our Terms of Use policy.

ADVERTISEMENT

SHOPPING

loading...

ADVERTISEMENT

Top Picks - Capture Arkansas
Arkansas Online