Today's Paper Search Latest App In the news Traffic #Gazette200 Listen Digital FAQ Weather Newsletters Obits Puzzles/Games Archive
story.lead_photo.caption Attorney Cheryl Maples, left, and her colleague attorney Jack Wagoner leave federal court in Little Rock, Ark., Thursday, Nov. 20, 2014. The two lawyers for same-sex couples argued against Arkansas' gay marriage ban in front of a federal judge Thursday. (AP Photo/Danny Johnston)

The legal challenge to the voter-enacted ban on same- sex marriages in Arkansas, currently before the state Supreme Court, wasn't born in the hive of some left-leaning think tank or crafted in the glossy suite of a high-rise Little Rock law firm.

This story is only available from the Arkansas Online archives. Stories can be purchased individually for $2.95. Click here to search for this story in the archives.

Print Headline: Gay-marriage suit legacy, lawyer says


Sponsor Content

Archived Comments

  • TheAntiBrummett
    December 28, 2014 at 4:51 p.m.

    Governmental recognition of the institution of "marriage" is a clear violation of the separation of church and state. "Marriage" is a religious institution, therefore NO government entity should recognize ANY marriage. If any two people want to be recognized by the state as a single financial/legal entity, which is how governments view a "marriage", that's fine. But that government needs to come up with a different name for it. Not "marriage". "Marriage" belongs to my religion, among others. I am married within the Christian faith, which does not allow same-sex marriages. I will be more than happy to recognize any two people as a single financial/legal entity, but not as a "married" couple. Heck, why stop at two people, why not three, or four or seventy-seven, or two people and a dog, or one and a sheep? There is no moral limit to what the government should recognize as a financial/legal entity. Governmental recognition of "marriage" should end. Governmental recognition of secular unions should end. The state has no viable interest in recognizing any marriage or a secular union. (By the way, a marriage license is simply and only a document that gives the state the authority to allocate the assets acquired by the single financial/legal entity when that entity decides to no longer exist, nothing more. I encourage Christians to stand up in front of God and your witnesses and commit yourself to each other in marriage, but avoid involving the state.) This attorney should not have let her unfortunate emotional experience cloud her logic. And by the way, we should love all because none of us is perfect. Hate not the trespasser, but the trespass.

  • 23cal
    December 28, 2014 at 5:22 p.m.

    Cooteradam, your squeals of impotent rage are a symphony to my ears. I so enjoy how people like you are being dragged kicking and screaming into the twenty first century. I metaphorically bath in your tears. All of your feeble justifications for bigotry have been shot down by the courts. And the irony of your talk about faux love while denying equality under the law to American citizens is just delicious. I hope someone loves you enough to deny you marriage to someone you love so that you can experience exactly how wonderful that kind of "love" truly is. Your defense of your narrow-minded and narrow definition of "marriage" at the expense of real people is about as unempathetic and uncompassionate as anything I can imagine.

  • gregbryant
    December 28, 2014 at 5:42 p.m.

    will she be paid for her efforts? The state is obliged to pay legal fees to the attorney for a party that successfully attacks an unconstitutional law. I wish her the best. The people who benefit from her efforts should contribute.

    December 28, 2014 at 6:20 p.m.

    She's a true hero.

  • FreeSpiritMan
    December 28, 2014 at 8:03 p.m.

    Cooteradam11231318 is just a complete idiot as are most of the Christian far right I have come in contact with.

  • JakeTidmore
    December 28, 2014 at 8:20 p.m.

    Sorry Cooter, but by your own words you convict yourself of hatred and injustice towards others. It is your trespass upon American liberty and freedom. We don't hate you, of course, but we do hate such trespasses against the citizens of this nation who look to the courts for protection against such bigotry, prejudice, and hatred.
    Marriage is supposed to be about love and that is exactly what you're not about Mr Cooter. You have not only trespassed against this love, you have trashed it and trounced upon it. Shame on you.
    BTW - don't take it personal. Remember that I don't hate you.

  • Packman
    December 28, 2014 at 8:57 p.m.

    Hey Cooter - ".....denying equality under the law to American citizens is just delicious..." Good ole 23 just ain't telling the truth when he/she speaks of marriage "equality". Need proof? Watch this.
    Hey 23 - Do you support marriage between any variation and quantity of consenting adults including siblings, bisexual polygamists, and same-sex heterosexuals?
    Hey Cooter - Also note how the GBLTQ crowd attempts to intimidate you with name-calling (complete idiot) and accusations of "bigotry, prejudice, and hatred" simply because you believe different from they (Or is it them?).
    GBLTQ's just will not tolerate intolerance! SMH.

    December 28, 2014 at 9:20 p.m.

    "GBLTQ's just will not tolerate intolerance!"

    No, we won't. Why should we?

    And do you ever tire of making a fool of yourself repeatedly?

  • TheAntiBrummett
    December 28, 2014 at 9:59 p.m.

    I have no hatred for anyone. I don't care what people do as long as it does not harm me or others. I am quite a Libertarian, actually. I have nothing against members of the GLBT community. Sounds like several of you are actually the bigots here. I haven't lumped any of you into groups; you are doing that. I am not the one being intolerant to the opinions of others, you are. You didn't even listen to what I said. I said . . .In order for all of us to be treated equally in the eyes of the law, the state must stop recognizing ANY marriages. If the state defines marriage, they can redefine it in any way they like at any time they like. It's called relativism. In a hundred years people may come to accept marrying donkeys. Doesn't make it right, but there is no legal justification for preventing the state from recognizing that "marriage", and, as we now see, the state uses no moral standard to define a marriage. IT SHOULD NOT DEFINE A MARRIAGE TO BEGIN WITH. What purpose does marriage serve to our state? None. In addition, I'm not saying two men should not be able to do what they want together, that's a civil liberty. I'm saying just don't use the government to force me to call it a "marriage". Heck, you don't even have to call my marriage a marriage. I'm saying get rid of marriage as a legal entity. We would all be better off. And for you 23Cal, you'd be better off realizing you don't need a piece of paper from the state of Arkansas to love someone, nor should it be required. This is some pretty common ground I think we could probably agree on. And as for my being "narrow minded", I think one comment on a news story is less-than-sufficient experience with my mind to make that assessment. And for that "freespiritman" commenter, this "idiot" is actually on your side, but you were the one who couldn't figure that out. HMMM.

    December 28, 2014 at 10:14 p.m.

    I'm with cooter.