Today's Paper Latest stories Obits Rex Nelson Wally Hall Brummett online Traffic Newsletters Weather Puzzles
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
story.lead_photo.caption Julie Gerlinger fills out the information on a marriage license as newlyweds Lisa Weber (center) and Terri Langley-Weber look on. Gerlinger officiated at the couple’s wedding Tuesday at the Pulaski County Courthouse in Little Rock. - Photo by Staton Breidenthal

The Arkansas Supreme Court should not block a lower court's ruling that struck down the state's ban on same-sex marriages because it would cause immediate and irreparable harm to the 20 same-sex plaintiffs in the lawsuit, an attorney for the plaintiffs wrote in court documents Tuesday.

Document

Piazza strikes down Arkansas' same-sex marriage ban

View

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: Let marriage ruling stand, plaintiffs urge

Sponsor Content

Comments

You must be signed in to post comments
  • RBBrittain
    May 14, 2014 at 7:16 a.m.

    The reporter shoulda been clearer as to who "their officiant, Earvin Johnson" is. "Earvin Johnson" happens to be the real name of basketball legend Magic Johnson (in the news lately over alleged connections to the debacle over the LA Clippers' owner), but I seriously doubt Magic Johnson is authorized to perform ANY weddings in Arkansas. ;)

  • Dontcallmenames
    May 14, 2014 at 8:18 a.m.

    To the point...if a judge can make up a new definition to a word, like "marriage", then what prevents a judge from making up a new definition to any word so that it fits whatever the case is?

  • mhck52
    May 14, 2014 at 8:19 a.m.

    The judge is probably gay.

  • searkie
    May 14, 2014 at 8:39 a.m.

    The harm to same sex couples has already been done through the relationship. Adding a fictitious document does not change the problem. There is no such thing as marriage of a same sex couple. All the lawyers and courts in the world will never change this.

  • WillAlBee
    May 14, 2014 at 9 a.m.

    The folks that have me stumped are those saying that they are a Christian, but they support gay marriage & applaud Jude Piazza. I wonder just how they plan to explain to the God of the Bible that He was wrong on this issue. And, if He is wrong on this, how do they know just where He is right? I assume they think He is right if His position agrees with theirs. Gonna be some might surprised & disappointed souls come judgement day!

  • Popsmith
    May 14, 2014 at 9:08 a.m.

    A lawyer's paradise.

    I don't much care what you do in your bedroom. But I sure hate to have it thrown in my face.

  • carpenterretired
    May 14, 2014 at 9:25 a.m.

    If two conservative male republicans want to get married and happily watch Fox news together the rest of their lives what is the harm?

  • Packman
    May 14, 2014 at 9:55 a.m.

    Hey Popsmith - The issue isn't what consenting adults do in their bedroom. That has never been in dispute. The issue is state's rights and compelling arguments that justify limits to what state's define as "marriage". Those compelling arguments include public health issues characteristic of the GBLTQ lifestyle choice and the negative impact to traditional marriage wholly designed to foster natural procreation and child-rearing. We can debate what the Bible says about anal love until the cows come home but certain data and arguments are irrefutable. Regardless, if it's wrong to limit marriage to one man and one woman, it's just as wrong to limit marriage to one man/woman and one woman/man. If the equal protection clause protects GBLTQ unions it also protects unions between polygamists, bisexuals that seek to marry any combination of gender and number, and siblings. There are compelling reasons to allow the state's to define marriage that are totally consistent with the equal protection clause. That is the issue.
    .
    Hey carpenterretired - If two male Hollywood movie producers want to get married and watch MSNBC as they happily molest young boys the rest of their lives what is the harm?

  • JakeTidmore
    May 14, 2014 at 10:11 a.m.

    Dang, why do folks hate giving basic human rights that they have to other folks?

    BTW -- one can always take any argument to absurdist lengths. Why don't we let dogs have drivers licenses? Why don't we educate squirrels?

    BTW -- why do we get arguments that imply America is a theocracy and must be ruled by religionists?

    As to making up words, the military still stands head and shoulders above everyone else: worsened changed into escalated, eliminating armed resistance changed into pacification program, bombing changed into air support, dead renamed as inoperative personnel.

    Finally, one can see the harm of fictitious arguments against same sex marriage. Maybe it comes from folks throwing religion in your face.

  • DEE672
    May 14, 2014 at 10:42 a.m.

    I am so very proud of Arkansas becoming the first southern state to lift the illegal ban on same sex marriage. In June 2013 in the Defense of Marriage trail the Supreme Court ruled that banning same sex marriages is unconstitutional because it violates equal protection under the law and due process. Moments ago, a federal district court in Boise, Idaho issued a decision striking down Idaho’s marriage equality ban and ordered the state to allow same-sex couples to marry and to recognize the marriages of couples who married in other states. This is the 11th federal court to rule this way since the DOMA case last June. Congratulations to the people finally doing the right thing, not just the legal thing.

ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT