Lawsuit seeks to overturn Arkansas gay marriage ban

Jul 15, 2013 | Posted by: Rick in Kansas | Full story: thecabin.net

Three gay couples filed a federal lawsuit Monday that seeks to overturn a 2004 Arkansas ban on same-sex marriage.

Comments

Showing posts 1 - 9 of9

DNF

“A seat at the family table”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Jul 15, 2013
 
Well since the people who passed the ban now oppose a new vote, courts are the next step.

I still hope the good people of Arkansas get the chance to repeal the ban instead of having to foot the bill for more lawsuits.

In 2004 when this passed everyone was shouting "Let the people decide". Since SCOTUS ruled against the Prop 8 people and struck down DOMA, the anti gay groups now are opposing letting the people decide.
guest

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
Jul 16, 2013
 
No surprise that gays don't want the people to decide. They oppose the democratic process because people reject their immoral, deviant behavior. In Arkansas, 75% of voters approved defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

California Prop 8 was struck down only because the elected state officials refused to appeal a lower court ruling, so the people themselves did. The high court ruled those people didn't have legal standing to file such an appeal. IOW, the appeal was dismissed on technical grounds. The issue of the constitutionality of Prop 8 was not ruled on.

“Engaged to the love of my life”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
Jul 16, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

guest wrote:
No surprise that gays don't want the people to decide. They oppose the democratic process because people reject their immoral, deviant behavior. In Arkansas, 75% of voters approved defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

California Prop 8 was struck down only because the elected state officials refused to appeal a lower court ruling, so the people themselves did. The high court ruled those people didn't have legal standing to file such an appeal. IOW, the appeal was dismissed on technical grounds. The issue of the constitutionality of Prop 8 was not ruled on.
Just like blacks didn't want "the people" to decide either.
We know you can't be trusted with human rights, you can barely keep yourself clean.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
Jul 16, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

guest wrote:
No surprise that gays don't want the people to decide.
Aren't you the same "guest" that whined on the thread about the group that submitted a new ballot question to repeal the amendment, that the people already decided this?
guest wrote:
They oppose the democratic process because people reject their immoral, deviant behavior. In Arkansas, 75% of voters approved defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
Just to remind you again, a ballot question is in the works to repeal the amendment. A Court case achieving the same inevitable works faster though. Opinions change, even in Arkansas. I'll bet that there hasn't been an angry White parent protesting integration at the local high school in years and you folk down there made yourselves all too well known for that particular opinion.
guest wrote:
California Prop 8 was struck down only because the elected state officials refused to appeal a lower court ruling, so the people themselves did. The high court ruled those people didn't have legal standing to file such an appeal. IOW, the appeal was dismissed on technical grounds. The issue of the constitutionality of Prop 8 was not ruled on.
Just one really big correction. It wasn't "the people" who appealed, it was the group of folk responsible for the question creating the amendment who tried. The couples opposed to the amendment were not suing the folk who wrote it, but those whose elected duty was to enforce it and the state itself. The constitutionality of the amendment was decided, at trial. Given the turn of events in the case, Judge Walker's ruling against it became the last word on it, as technically, his ruling was never appealed. In the election of a Governor, an Attorney General and a county clerk, "the people" are empowering them with the authority to make certain decisions on "the people's" behalf, including whether or not to appeal a court ruling yet another amendment voted into the state constitution was unconstitutional. In federal courts, if the state itself is being sued, only the state's elected officials have the authority of "the people" to defend it, random groups claiming to represent "the people" do not. The Appeals Court went through contortions worthy of a circus act in order to give those claiming to represent "the people" the opportunity to be heard on this, but the case law that decided who can and cannot represent "the people" is so clear, that not even what was tried here could make the proponents an acceptable stand in for them. When "the people", through their elected representatives in the matter, the Governor and AG conceded to the trial determination that the law was unconstitutional, "the people" had had their legal say on the matter. Not a "technicality", it's the law. It's constitutionality has been determined at trial to be a figment of a twisted imagination, that determination was never legally appealed.
heartandmind

Moline, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
Jul 16, 2013
 
i suspect that the states that have prohibitions against SSM have state attornies that WILL step up and defend the state laws, all the way to SCOTUS, if necessary. AR, TX and AL being at least 3 of them. it'll be interesting to see court cases come from these states, have them defended by the state attornies (so the standing ability isn't even an issue), and then ultimately struck down. even if it one by one, this was and is a death knell for all of those states' laws that ban SSM. it may take a few more years but so what. if it's not worth working for, it's not worth having. and i'd say that being able to protect our assets and being considered equal under the law is pretty much worth it.

DNF

“A seat at the family table”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
Jul 17, 2013
 
guest wrote:
No surprise that gays don't want the people to decide. They oppose the democratic process because people reject their immoral, deviant behavior. In Arkansas, 75% of voters approved defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
California Prop 8 was struck down only because the elected state officials refused to appeal a lower court ruling, so the people themselves did. The high court ruled those people didn't have legal standing to file such an appeal. IOW, the appeal was dismissed on technical grounds. The issue of the constitutionality of Prop 8 was not ruled on.
It's the gays and lesbians that are bringing the ballot initiatives now. And the anti gays who don't want the people to decide.

Ahh how times have changed.

In states where ballot initiative have begun, the anti-gays are trying to block them.

In states that have passed equal protections, the anti-gays are shopping for activist judges who will challenge the Windsor decision.

The Prop8 people in CA have been told for the final time they have no standing to oppose equal protections.

Yet you keep rolling out the excuses, lies and the tantrums.

You lost the war. Now you're just causing skirmishes to cover your ass as you retreat.

DNF

“A seat at the family table”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
Jul 17, 2013
 
heartandmind wrote:
i suspect that the states that have prohibitions against SSM have state attornies that WILL step up and defend the state laws, all the way to SCOTUS, if necessary. AR, TX and AL being at least 3 of them. it'll be interesting to see court cases come from these states, have them defended by the state attornies (so the standing ability isn't even an issue), and then ultimately struck down. even if it one by one, this was and is a death knell for all of those states' laws that ban SSM. it may take a few more years but so what. if it's not worth working for, it's not worth having. and i'd say that being able to protect our assets and being considered equal under the law is pretty much worth it.
You and Rick make excellent points. SSM is alive and well and the anti SSM industry has been fatally wounded and is bleeding to death.

I believe in spite of the back lash, many see how ridiculous it is to keep these laws on the books and risk having to foot the bill for defending them.

But of course Boehner and Cantor both insist they had a duty to spend the taxpayers money to defend Prop 8 and Windsor before SCOTUS.
heartandmind

Moline, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
Jul 17, 2013
 
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>You and Rick make excellent points. SSM is alive and well and the anti SSM industry has been fatally wounded and is bleeding to death.
I believe in spite of the back lash, many see how ridiculous it is to keep these laws on the books and risk having to foot the bill for defending them.
But of course Boehner and Cantor both insist they had a duty to spend the taxpayers money to defend Prop 8 and Windsor before SCOTUS.
even exodus saw the writing on the wall when they witnessed the pain they inflicted on individuals and families.

it'll be a couple centuries before we see all traces of racism, sexism and anti-gay sentiment erased from the face of the earth. the only way to continue down that path is to make sure laws are in force and are acted upon to ensure equality for everyone.

i think i need to sit down and read the text of King's "I have a dream" speech again for a little more inspiration.

DNF

“A seat at the family table”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9
Jul 18, 2013
 
heartandmind wrote:
<quoted text>
even exodus saw the writing on the wall when they witnessed the pain they inflicted on individuals and families.
it'll be a couple centuries before we see all traces of racism, sexism and anti-gay sentiment erased from the face of the earth. the only way to continue down that path is to make sure laws are in force and are acted upon to ensure equality for everyone.
i think i need to sit down and read the text of King's "I have a dream" speech again for a little more inspiration.
He wrote this after talking with me.

Harvey Milk Speech - Hope

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 1 - 9 of9
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••
•••
•••