Correction: U.S. District Judge Kristine Baker has scheduled a hearing for next month to entertain motions from both sides in a federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Arkansas’ same-sex marriage ban. An article in Friday’s paper gave the wrong first name and title for the judge.
The Arkansas Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the challenge to the state's gay-marriage ban on Nov. 20.
By picking a date next month, it makes it likely that the current court will issue a ruling before the end of the year, attorneys opposing the law said.
Opponents of the state's statutes and constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage -- who are seeking to affirm a circuit judge's invalidation of the ban -- had asked for an expedited hearing, one set by the high court Thursday.
Hours after the Supreme Court hears arguments on both sides of the issue, a federal judge in Little Rock will hear arguments from both sides battling over the ban in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas.
On Monday, Justice Karen Baker scheduled a hearing for 1:30 p.m. Nov. 20 to entertain motions from both sides asking for a quick end to the legal challenge.
Attorneys representing same-sex couples who challenged the state's law last year will argue in favor of a summary judgment, contending that the state's ban violates their clients' constitutional rights to privacy, association and due process.
Opponents of the law say the U.S. Supreme Court has declined to overrule numerous federal rulings striking down same-sex marriage bans, clearing the way for gay people to marry in states across the nation. The U.S. Supreme Court's inaction is an indication that it thinks the lower courts ruled correctly, the couples' attorneys say.
Attorneys with the Arkansas attorney general's office will ask Baker to dismiss the case, arguing that the couples have no standing to challenge the law in federal court.
According to filings from state attorneys, same-sex marriage is not a fundamental right and that federal equal protection provisions do not include sexual orientation.
The state attorneys also point out that a parallel challenge is being made at the state level.
In the case before the Arkansas Supreme Court, attorneys challenging the law are repeating their argument that the marriage ban violates gay people's fundamental constitutional rights and are saying that the state has no compelling interest in singling out an "unpopular group" for discrimination.
The state rejects claims that the constitutional amendment violates the state's constitution, noting that its wording was added to the document by the voters of Arkansas. Pulaski County Circuit Judge Chris Piazza's May ruling was an overreach and should be overturned, they say.
A spokesman with the attorney general's office released a statement Thursday saying it did not oppose the expedited hearing and will be ready for arguments in November.
Attorneys fighting the law said they're unsure why the state Supreme Court scheduled the hearing on the same day that the matter is being argued in federal court.
"I have no idea how it came about. It could just be a coincidence," said Jack Wagoner, an attorney who represents same-sex couples in both cases. "I'm sure the Supreme Court was aware we had a hearing [in federal court] that afternoon. It was in the newspaper ... but maybe they weren't aware of it."
Wagoner's fellow attorney, Cheryl Maples, was also a bit perplexed by the scheduling.
She had requested the court expedite a hearing in the case. The attorney general's office did not oppose a quicker hearing.
Attorney General Dustin McDaniel, a Democrat, has said he is not opposed to gay marriage but said he believes it is his duty to defend the same-sex marriage ban that was approved by the people of Arkansas.
Maples said that by taking the case on and setting a date, the state Supreme Court committed itself to making a ruling, one way or the other, before next year when Justice Donald Corbin retires and appointed Justice Cliff Hoofman steps down from the bench.
Hoofman has recused himself from the case and his spot will be filled by retired Judge Robert McCorkindale, a special justice appointed by Gov. Mike Beebe.
While it was unclear how fast either court would rule after the Nov. 20 arguments, Maples said the fate of the state's bans, at least as far as the state Supreme Court is concerned, likely will be decided before Christmas.
Of course, Maples said, it may not even come to that.
"If [Baker] grants in our favor on the motion for summary judgment, then that [state case] is over," she said.
Metro on 10/24/2014