Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed

Arkansas officials appeal same-sex marriage case to state supreme court

LGBT Legal Cases Marriage equality Marriage Equality Trials

Arkansas state sealUPDATE: 2:13PM ET: The Arkansas Supreme Court has asked the plaintiffs to respond to the state’s request for an emergency stay by noon on Tuesday, May 13.

State officials in Arkansas have filed a notice of appeal of last week’s decision striking down the state’s same-sex marriage ban. The state filed the notice with the Arkansas Supreme Court, bypassing lower courts in the state.

Last week a state judge struck down the ban, and declined to issue a stay along with his decision. Same-sex couples got married over the weekend, and some are getting married today.

The state has asked the judge to stay his decision, and an emergency request for a stay has been filed in the state supreme court.

Thanks to Kathleen Perrin for these filings

For more information on Wright v. Arkansas from The Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse, click here.


  • 1. Michael Grabow  |  May 12, 2014 at 10:19 am

    From the petition for an emergency stay:

    This year, the United States Supreme Court has granted a stay in a case where the trial court declared a state’s marriage law unconstitutional.

    See 2 Herbert v. Kitchen, No. 13A687, 134 S. Ct. 893 (Jan. 6, 2014). The Supreme Court grants a stay if there is “a fair prospect that a majority of the Court will vote to reverse the judgment below.” Hollingsworth v. Perry, 558 U.S. 183, 189-90 (2010) (per curiam). Thus, as a matter of law, the Supreme Court has already indicated the likelihood that the Supreme Court will ultimately affirm state marriage laws such as Amendment 83 and Arkansas Act 144 of 1997.

    I would assume they just cherry picked one of the reasons that the SCOTUS would issue a stay…?

  • 2. Zack12  |  May 12, 2014 at 10:25 am

    Pretty much. SCOTUS issuing a stay can mean many things, how they will rule is at the bottom of it most of the time.

  • 3. USA, Arkansas: Carroll Co&hellip  |  May 12, 2014 at 10:41 am

    […] Equality on Trial reports: […]

  • 4. TKinSC  |  May 12, 2014 at 10:45 am

    Is this good or bad?

  • 5. Rose  |  May 12, 2014 at 10:52 am

    I agree, just because SCOTUS granted a Stay….doesn't mean how it will rule IF and when the case reaches them.

  • 6. grod  |  May 12, 2014 at 10:54 am

    Zack: Is this not with the State Supreme Court?… G

  • 7. Rose  |  May 12, 2014 at 10:58 am

    It is neither good or bad, just part of the process at this point.

  • 8. grod  |  May 12, 2014 at 11:03 am

    Noon tomorrow:

  • 9. Steven  |  May 12, 2014 at 11:07 am

    This is state's court not federal court. I believe they can't appeal to SCOTUS..

  • 10. Ragavendran  |  May 12, 2014 at 11:12 am

    Federal questions are raised, so any decision by the Arkansas Supreme Court (assuming that it chooses to decide those federal questions) can be appealed to SCOTUS, but I'm unsure if a simple stay order can be appealed to SCOTUS. Any legal wizards here who can elaborate?

  • 11. Ragavendran  |  May 12, 2014 at 11:15 am

    Nice, there is no temporary stay until then. The Arkansas Supreme Court is surprisingly liberal leaning (the 9th most liberal court!), see Judgepedia. A majority of the Court probably holds some initial skepticism that a stay is warranted.

    Here is the paper that details the methodology by which State Supreme Court ideologies were estimated.

    As a sidenote, for the US Supreme Court, Scalia has a Segal-Cover ideology score of 0 (most conservative).

  • 12. Steven  |  May 12, 2014 at 11:16 am

    True if they are deciding a federal issue they can appeal to SCOTUS

  • 13. Michael Grabow  |  May 12, 2014 at 11:17 am

    Saline County, a defendant, initially wouldn't accept same-sex couples, but later in the morning decided it would. None has applied yet.

    Carroll County, after opening to same-sex couples again this morning, changed course several hours later and stopped accepting such applications after about a dozen were issued. The local prosecutor issued this statement:

    This office was notified this morning by Mike Rainwater that there was a law left on the books prohibiting a county clerk from issuing a marriage license to persons of the same gender. This law was not addressed by Judge Piazza, and because of this, we advised the county clerk to stop selling marriage licenses to persons of the same gender.

  • 14. Steven  |  May 12, 2014 at 11:19 am

    What law?

  • 15. Zack12  |  May 12, 2014 at 11:22 am

    Indeed… and since Alito is the circuit justice for the 8th, he'll have no problems granting it.

  • 16. Big Rick  |  May 12, 2014 at 11:22 am

    Did he mention what remaining law prohibits it? Does anyone know?

  • 17. Retired_Lawyer  |  May 12, 2014 at 11:34 am

    I would not hazard a guess. Any case with a Federal issue can be taken up to the U.S. Supreme Court, and presumably a final order denying a stay would qualify; but the Justices at least say from time to time that the State Courts are to be regarded as separate parallel judicial systems. If that view prevails, then a stay or a denial of a stay would be regarded as a housekeeping matter for Arkansas' own judicial system to decide.

    It would pose a quandary for a Justice who doesn't like gays much, but who is always eager to defend State powers against encroachment by the Federal Courts. All this assumes that the State Attorney General would want to take this case out of Arkansas, instead of defending the State's prerogative to operate and abide by it own courts.

  • 18. Kevin  |  May 12, 2014 at 11:51 am

    I wrote a comment in another section that addresses this point. It is reproduced below.

    There are a number of factors that limit Supreme Court review of state court decisions. The doctrine of independent and adequate state grounds prevents the Supreme Court from reviewing the decision of a state's highest court if the ruling is adequately supported by state law and if the state law jurisprudence at issue is independent from federal law. In other words, imagine a case where plaintiffs go to a state court asking for a judgment that a municipal ordinance is unconstitutional as violative of both the First Amendment of the Federal Constitution and some similar provision of their State Constitution. If they prevail through the state appellate process and the state courts analyze the law under both the Federal and State Constitutions, the Supreme Court may not hear that case.

    Importantly, in order for this rule to apply, the state law rationale must be both independent of federal law and adequate to support the judgment of the court. For example, if state law incorporates or correlates closely with federal law, then the rational is not truly independent and the Supreme Court may review the case. Similarly, if the state law portion of the opinion cannot support the judgement of the court, then it is inadequate and the Supreme Court may review the case.

    The judge in this case clearly based much of his opinion on Windsor, Loving, and other federal law. But he also included a discussion of Arkansas Constitutional law on p. 13. The principal case he cited there, Jegley v. Picado, was decidedly exclusively on state law. For the Supreme Court to have jurisdiction over this case, it must first determine whether this constitutes an independent and adequate state ground. At the very least this question will require briefing and may slow the process. At most it may insulate the eventual Arkansas Supreme Court opinion from further review.

    One caveat: this applies to final judgments, not stays; although, I would have to think that if the court believed it has no authority to adjudicate a case, it would also think it has no authority to stay a state court proceeding.

  • 19. sfbob  |  May 12, 2014 at 11:56 am

    Probably a statutory version of the constitutional amendment.

    In several of the current federal level lawsuits, the plaintiffs have targeted both state constitutional amendments and similar statutes which do the same thing. But as far as I know, if either goes down, they both do. The same reasoning that would strike down a constitutional amendment would also apply to a statute.

    I suspect that Carroll county reacted out of fear, which is precisely what Rainwater intended.

  • 20. Ragavendran  |  May 12, 2014 at 11:57 am

    Thanks for the detailed explanation, Kevin!

  • 21. Ragavendran  |  May 12, 2014 at 12:08 pm

    From this article:
    "Pulaski County drew one protester.
    "Marriage is between a male and female… These are the words of the almighty God. Woe unto you, said the Lord," Larry O. Walker shouted outside the courthouse."

    Just when I was beginning to worry that all the protesters had given up!

  • 22. Bruno71  |  May 12, 2014 at 12:13 pm

    Most of them are too busy spouting their b.s. on internet comment sections while downing an entire pizza pie and listening to soft country rock.

  • 23. Guest  |  May 12, 2014 at 12:16 pm

    grod — the state is using the SCOTUS appeal in Kitchen to argue that the Arkansas Supreme Court should stay Judge Piazza's ruling

  • 24. Steve  |  May 12, 2014 at 12:42 pm

    Beyond stupid. An ambulance chasing Christian scumbag filing a frivilous lawsuit or sending off a badly written letter does not equal a stay.

  • 25. DrPatrick1  |  May 12, 2014 at 12:55 pm

    I don't think the states rights argument has anything to do with Federal courts vs State courts. If federalism is the philosophy that will decide whether to review a case decided by a state Supreme Court declaring a state law invalid based on the federal constitution, the justice will favor review. If the law is upheld in the state courts, appellate review is unlikely, based on the principles of states rights. Basically, the states rights arguments have come down to: the constitution limits the power of the federal government to control the citizens. The states, however, are not similarly constricted, so may control their citizens in ways the federal government cannot.

  • 26. davep  |  May 12, 2014 at 1:00 pm

    I have seen a few news reports on this (sorry, I don't have links) which stated that there are some other laws, which are not directly associated with any law that determines eligibility for access to civil marriage, which include references to "husband" and "wife" and the folks trying to stall the implementation of this ruling are referring to those as some kind of evidence of 'potential confusion'. They are trying to conflate some technicalities and the usual legislative housekeeping that follows after a ruling with an actual legitimate conflict. Grasping at straws.

  • 27. Frisky1  |  May 12, 2014 at 1:18 pm

    And pretending they're going to boycott football.

  • 28. Steve  |  May 12, 2014 at 1:26 pm

    It's all BS and they know. That's certainly true, but the same was the case in every state and country that introduced SSM. And it didn't stop them.

    Federal law also has any easy solution to that:

    "In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the context indicates otherwise words importing the masculine gender include the feminine as well"

    This is going to be a million times worse in states like Texas, Mississippi and Alabama.

  • 29. Guest  |  May 12, 2014 at 1:29 pm

    Christianity totally sucks. The only thing it exists for is to snatch away the rights of others. It needs to be crushed.

  • 30. Thomas  |  May 12, 2014 at 1:32 pm

    The statutory version was also struck down in judge Piazza's decision.

  • 31. Straight Ally #3008  |  May 12, 2014 at 1:36 pm

    And giving sharp legal arguments, as always.

  • 32. davep  |  May 12, 2014 at 1:51 pm

    Aw jeez, are they 'threatening' to do that because of Michael Sam? Ha! That's great. There will be plenty of other people happy to buy any tickets for the game that are made available because a few grumpy old bigots are throwing a tantrum.

  • 33. Margo Schulter  |  May 12, 2014 at 1:57 pm

    Kevin, as in the earlier thread, your summary nicely covers the main points. With a decision such as that of Judge Piazza striking down Arkansas Amendment 83 (the marriage ban) on both federal and state constitutional grounds, the most relevant question may be whether the striking of the amendment under the Arkansas Constitution is truly independent of any reading of federal law, where SCOTUS is, of course, the final arbiter.

    Michigan v. Long (1983) seems to me the most important precedent. Justice O’Connor, writing for the Court, explains that if a state court explicitly declares that its holding under a State’s Constitution is independent of federal law, then SCOTUS will respect that court’s declaration, which bars federal review. The idea here is that, given the “adequate and independent state grounds,” and the federalist doctrine that state courts are the ultimate arbiters of state law, federal review would not change the result. So if the Arkansas Supreme Court agreed with Judge Piazza and held Amendment 83 to violate Article 2, Section 2 and/or 3 of the state Constitution, and included in its decision a statement that this holding was independent of any consideration of federal law, then that would be the final word.

    However, if the Arkansas Supreme Court agreed with Judge Piazza but did not make such a clear statement, then the “intertwining” of state and federal law might allow room under Michigan v. Long for review by SCOTUS. If, hypothetically — not likely, in my view! — SCOTUS granted review and reversed the Arkansas Supreme Court, then on remand the Arkansas Court could still reinstate its original holding, but this time clearly and unambiguously based on the state Constitution alone.

  • 34. sfbob  |  May 12, 2014 at 2:08 pm

    In that case it amounts to "But the forms say husband and wife! whatever are we to do?????" Answer: Use White-out.

  • 35. Margo Schulter  |  May 12, 2014 at 2:27 pm

    DrPatrick1, this gets complicated, but there are a few factors.

    One is the Fourteenth Amendment (1868), which in the wake of the Civil War made the federal Constitution more of a constraint on the States than it had been previously. The Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause set limits of the state lawmaking power in order to protect the federal rights of all residents of a State. Over the last 60 years or so, both these clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment have become more and more relevant in practice as the Due Process Clause has been held to incorporate many provisions of the Bill of Rights, originally applicable only to the federal government, against the States also (e.g. searches and seizures, self-incrimination, right to counsel, jury trial, double jeopardy); and as the Equal Protection Clause has been extended from racial segregation and miscegenation laws to sex discrimination and discrimination by sexual orientation.

    So, given the robust force of the Fourteenth Amendment, the federal courts are interested in reviewing state court decisions that may wrongly uphold a state law violating federal rights.

    There’s also an interest in the correct and uniform interpretation of federal law, which may justify reviewing state court decisions which strike state laws on constitutional amendments based in whole or part on a misreading of federal law.

    Finally, states and state courts are free to enact or interpret state constitutional protections more broadly than corresponding federal protections, and since no federal right is here violated, the federal courts do not concern themselves with such cases.

    So if the Arkansas Supreme Court were to overrule Judge Piazza and find the state marriage ban constitutional under both the Arkansas and United States Constitutions, the federal courts would very much have an interest in reviewing the latter holding, and likely reversing it if lots of perceptions here about a five-justice majority for marriage equality are correct.

    If the Arkansas Supreme Court were to uphold Judge Piazza and rule that the ban violates both Constitutions, and to include language making it clear that their interpretation of the Arkansas Constitution is independent of federal law, then the case would be unreviewable in the federal courts.

    If the Arkansas Supreme Court were to uphold Judge Piazza only under the U.S. Constitution, or to agree with Judge Piazza on both Constitutions but not make it clear that their reading of Arkansas law was not “intertwined” with or partly dependent on federal law, then the federal courts would have room to review the federal part of the decision.

    My apology for the length of this, but I’m trying to put the Arkansas marriage decision in a larger framework.

  • 36. Bruno71  |  May 12, 2014 at 2:31 pm

    They'd have to be boycotting NBA too. Lucky for them NASCAR is still safe from teh gay (I think).

  • 37. davep  |  May 12, 2014 at 2:39 pm

    There are a lot of drivers in NASCAR. Statistically it's pretty certain that there are quite a few gay NASCAR drivers. I wouldn't be surprised if there are already some 'out' drivers that just aren't getting into the press spotlight.

  • 38. KarlS  |  May 12, 2014 at 2:47 pm

    Here's one First Person Account…before any stay is issued (would they DARE to claim marriages during the interim are somehow "invalid"???

  • 39. karen in kalifornia  |  May 12, 2014 at 3:33 pm

    Was it mentioned Rainwater is an INJURY lawyer

  • 40. Big Rick  |  May 12, 2014 at 3:35 pm

    So he's practicing his specialty by inflicting injury, it appears.

  • 41. palerobber  |  May 12, 2014 at 4:01 pm

    i don't know about Arkansas, but a similar technicality came up in the Utah case.

    at the district hearing considering a stay, it came up that a portion of the marriage code that hadn't been explicitly challenged (30-1-8) included the language, "A marriage license may be issued by the county clerk to a man and a woman only after an application has been filed in his office …"

    Judge Shelby seemed amused, and clarified that 30-1-8 obviously had no effect on his ruling.

  • 42. SippyCup  |  May 12, 2014 at 4:21 pm

    Very good 2 minute video. Love the stuff that's coming out these days. Thanks internet.

  • 43. davep  |  May 12, 2014 at 4:35 pm

    That was brilliant! Thanks!

  • 44. JustMe  |  May 12, 2014 at 4:43 pm

    A press release Sunday from Attorney David Hogue on behalf of the county lists three reasons:

    "1. Circuit Judge Christopher Piazza did not grant the Plaintiffs’ request for an injunction barring the Defendants from enforcement of Act 146 of 1997, Amendment 83 to the Arkansas Constitution, Arkansas Code § 9-11-208 or Arkansas Code § 9-11-107(b), as they requested.

    2. Even if he had, Defendant Melinda Reynolds was dismissed from the action before final arguments were made, denying her an opportunity to defend her position. As she was not a final party to the case, the judgment can not be enforced against her.

    3. Further, with all due respect to the Third Division Circuit Court of Pulaski County, a circuit court does not establish or strike down statewide law. That would be the role of the State Supreme Court. This case has simply not yet reached that level.

    Given the above, Ms.Reynolds will continue to uphold state law, as she is sworn to do. If and when that law changes, so will her practice in Faulkner County."

  • 45. palerobber  |  May 12, 2014 at 4:44 pm

    after looking at the Arkansas statutes, i believe the law they're hanging this on would be 9-11-208 ("License not issued to persons of the same sex"), which was not specifically mentioned in the decision.

    this is found in "Subchapter 2 — License and Ceremony", whereas the key provisions that were striken are from "Subchapter 1 — General Provisions".

  • 46. palerobber  |  May 12, 2014 at 4:54 pm

    actually, the required forms don't say "husband and wife". here are the forms for license and solemnization, spelled out in Arkansas law (9-11-202)….

    State of Arkansas,
    County of …………..
    To any person authorized by law to solemnize marriage:
    You are hereby commanded to solemnize the rites and publish the
    banns of matrimony between A. B., age ………….. years, and D. C., age ………….. years, according to law, and officially sign and return this license to the parties herein named.
    Witness my hand and official seal, this ………….. day of ……….,

    State of Arkansas,
    County of ………….. ss
    I, A. B., do hereby certify that on the ………….. day of ……….,
    20………., I did duly, and according to law as commanded in the
    foregoing license, solemnize the rites and publish the banns of matrimony between the parties herein named.
    Witness my hand this ………. day of ………., 20 ………..

  • 47. Fluffyskunk  |  May 12, 2014 at 6:26 pm

    Go troll a site whose readers actually are that dumb.

  • 48. sam  |  May 12, 2014 at 6:59 pm

    Lawsuit filed against Alaska ban.

    At this rate might get ruled on before the 9th hear Sevcik…

  • 49. Dr. Z  |  May 12, 2014 at 8:25 pm

    Hey karen in kalifornia! Welcome back! Haven't seen you posting for a while.

  • 50. Big Rick  |  May 12, 2014 at 8:30 pm

    Good news. Now which states with a gay marriage ban are left without a suit challenging it? Montana and North Dakota, is it?

  • 51. Tim  |  May 12, 2014 at 8:58 pm

    South Dakota hasn't been filed yet, but the intention is there.

  • 52. Dr. Z  |  May 12, 2014 at 9:29 pm

     In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, and decided it was good enough; and God smoked a bowl, and slept.

  • 53. davep  |  May 12, 2014 at 9:38 pm

    We're running out of dominoes!

  • 54. Randolph Finder  |  May 12, 2014 at 10:01 pm

    So order from Pizza hut!

  • 55. TKinSCGayMarriageBad  |  May 12, 2014 at 10:18 pm

    I've had a lot of success on this site in my own mind. I've decided to open up a shop on Cafe Press. This forum will get first dibs on the merchandise before I put the word out more broadly. Some of the items I hope you look forward to are:

    – TKinSCGayMarriageBad bumper sticker
    – TKinSCGayMarriageBad coffee mug
    – TKinSCGayMarriageBad potato peeler
    – TKinSCGayMarriageBad doggie sweater
    – TKinSCGayMarriageBad Fox News sticker (double-branded)
    -TKinSCGayMarriageBad ergonomic gel mouse pad
    – TKinSCGayMarriageBad night gown
    – TKinSCGayMarriageBad exercycle
    – TKinSCGayMarriageBad handkerchief
    – TKinSCGayMarriageBad umbrella
    – TKinSCGayMarriageBad flop flops
    – TKinSCGayMarriageBad muscle tee
    – TKinSCGayMarriageBad boxer shorts
    – TKinSCGayMarriageBad LOL t-shirt

    I will also sell some unbranded pottery I made from my previous hobby before I took up internet.

    I hope this takes off. Thanks guys. I would not be any where in my life without this forum and Towleroad. I will post a link when it officially opens. It's name will be "TKinSCGayMarriageBad Because Gay"

  • 56. Corey from Maryland  |  May 12, 2014 at 10:38 pm

    We all need help once in a while. I can say that from experience, not to be sarcastic. I hope that you do not live in a rural area since there are psychologist in most urban area. (This means counseling for years, not days…)

  • 57. StraightDave  |  May 12, 2014 at 11:03 pm

    I hope you don't waste a lot of money getting all that shit made, unless you were planning on buying it all yourself.

    But you might have a tiny bit more success (note, tiny) if you rebranded it as
    TKinSCBad Because GayMarriage.

  • 58. StraightDave  |  May 12, 2014 at 11:40 pm

    OK, that's it. I'm out. I just gave away all my remaining troll treats to my dog. No more for you, TKinSC. I'm dropping you cold-turkey, all 3 of you. That's the only way this is gonna work for me. Time for you to return to your home planet where you can be among your own kind. I'm sure you'll be much happier there. No more replies from me, or even indirect acknowledgements. There's lots of cool stuff going on this week and I cant afford to miss any of it. Its been fun, but so is a drunken one-night stand. Drive safely!

  • 59. lolker  |  May 13, 2014 at 12:36 am


  • 60. Pat  |  May 13, 2014 at 2:28 am

    Unless I missed something (which is very possible), Mississippi, Tennessee, Nebraska, North Dakota, Montana, Kansas don't have a lawsuit directly targeting the marriage ban. (And South Dakota is expected soon, as Tim is mentioning)

  • 61. Corey from Maryland  |  May 13, 2014 at 4:26 am

    Here, here. The worst thing for a troll is to be ignored. No further replies to egg on the pathetic life of the troll…

  • 62. grod  |  May 13, 2014 at 4:55 am

    Stop worrying R! In every state in which there has been Court action, there has been one incorrigible protester:

  • 63. grod  |  May 13, 2014 at 5:05 am

    By noon today, well over 300 couples will have obtained licenses and assumed wed.

  • 64. Zack12  |  May 13, 2014 at 5:18 am

    All due respect to the people that run this board, I suspect it's going to be hard for many people to donate to you in the future when you allow your board to become what it has.
    Allowing one or two people to monopolize the board with no accountablity on your part has made this site go from one of my favorite places to visit and learn about the law and pending lawsuits to one that simply isn't worth the time anymore.
    It's why Towleroad has gone downhill when it was once one of the better gay blogs. Because the trolls were allowed to take it over while the owners stood by and did nothing.
    A shame that is happening here as well when this site is truly one of the best out there.

  • 65. KarlS  |  May 13, 2014 at 5:22 am

    Of the roughly 2 billion people who claim to be Christians, around 3 hundred actually are.

  • 66. KarlS  |  May 13, 2014 at 5:24 am

    A while back, a law firm had a big billboard by the road near here, it said "Personal Injury is All We Do." I always wondered if they got the irony…

  • 67. TKinSC  |  May 13, 2014 at 5:45 am

    Dude you have too much time on your hands.

  • 68. TKinSC  |  May 13, 2014 at 5:52 am

    But it DOES mean that a stay should be issued by the lower court if the case is more or less identical.

  • 69. Thomas  |  May 13, 2014 at 7:39 am

    This is or course irrelevant if the case is decided based on the AR constitution, which it may or may not be.

  • 70. Thomas  |  May 13, 2014 at 9:15 am

    Does anyone know the basis upon which the 2010 decision by judge Piazza on adoption rights was decided? Somewhere someone mentioned that it was decided on the state constitution not on the federal one. Were the issues similar to the marriage case and can we get some hint as to how the AR SC will decide from it?

  • 71. TKinSC  |  May 13, 2014 at 9:24 am

    Like me.

  • 72. davep  |  May 13, 2014 at 10:12 am

    This comment from Zack12 should be copied and pasted at the top of every new article and re-submitted to the admin's IN box until somebody gets the message.


  • 73. grod  |  May 13, 2014 at 10:18 am

    Plaintiff's submission to State Supreme Court:… as well as state's request for emergency stay :

  • 74. Zack12  |  May 13, 2014 at 10:21 am

    Thank you. It'd be one thing if he was just making a post or two but he's not.
    He is liteally spamming the board and it is virtually impossible to ignore him.

  • 75. grod  |  May 13, 2014 at 10:41 am

    Palerobber: You're right, but an easily remedied deal – says the plaintiff in today's submission to the state's supreme court.….

  • 76. grod  |  May 13, 2014 at 11:12 am

    11:30 am May 13. Only two counties in the state were still issuing marriage licenses to same sex couples: Pulaski and Washington who had issued 50+ and 27+ respectively this morning. Two others, Saline and Marion stopped issuing the certificates but had done so earlier in the am. Total number issues – approaching 400. In reading the plaintiff's brief in response to the state and the counties – I'm reminded of Utah's submission to the 10th Circuit Appeals Court. Ignored the established analytic requirements for granting a stay and relies on decisions made elsewhere.

  • 77. Michael Grabow  |  May 13, 2014 at 11:31 am

    Both of the plantiff's motions are included.

  • 78. Margo Schulter  |  May 13, 2014 at 1:47 pm

    Thank you, grod, for a link to the Plaintiff’s Response. It’s interesting that this argument doesn’t focus much on the question of adequate and independent state grounds, but powerfully details the ongoing harms both to Arkansas couples denied the right to marry, and those who want their out-of-state marriages recognized. And from a human point of view, it’s an absolutely compelling statement of the real equities involved.

  • 79. grod  |  May 13, 2014 at 2:43 pm

    Here is the state's brief to give you a context to the plaintiff's reply briefs:

  • 80. Terence  |  May 13, 2014 at 11:04 pm

    And now – Idaho. There's no stay issued by Judge Candy Dale – but the ruling does not tale effect until Friday. Plenty of time for the state supreme court to intervene. Meanwhile, Wikipedia already shows Idaho in plain blue (gay marriage allowed, no qualification)

  • 81. Big Rick  |  May 13, 2014 at 11:17 pm

    I don't believe the state supreme court can intervene. If Judge Dale denies Otter's request for a stay, he'll have to make his request to the 9th circuit.

  • 82. Rose  |  May 13, 2014 at 11:37 pm

    Has the Arkansas Supreme Court issued anything regarding the request for a Stay? If NOT, and UNTIL one is…..why AREN'T the Clerks being forced to do their jobs by issuing Marriage License?

    Thanks for any update!

  • 83. grod  |  May 14, 2014 at 7:03 am

    8:05 May 14 Number of licenses issued now exceeds 400.

  • 84. Rose  |  May 14, 2014 at 7:10 am

    Exactly……why have guidelines if they AREN'T going to be followed!!!

  • 85. StraightDave  |  May 14, 2014 at 7:16 am

    And still going??
    I was anticipating a stay ruling by end of yesterday (noon briefing deadline was kind of suggestive). Obviously no signs of panic down there.
    If AR SC declines the stay, I assume next stop is SCOTUS. With they have the gall to interfere in a state case in a state court operating under state rules?

  • 86. Zack12  |  May 14, 2014 at 7:22 am

    I would just love to see how Alito and Scalia will spin that one.

  • 87. StraightDave  |  May 14, 2014 at 7:23 am

    There is a May 16 Commencement Date footnote on the right for ID. None for AR.

  • 88. palerobber  |  May 14, 2014 at 5:03 pm

    looks like the Ark Supreme Court has asked the judge to fix this:

  • 89. Google  |  June 28, 2014 at 4:31 pm

    Using Ancient Rome 3D in Google Earth, you can explore Rome
    as it appeared in 320 A. This will allow you to answer only those calls that
    come in on your forwarded toll free number and route other calls
    to different locations. Besides placing advertisers ads on your Blog, you can also make money Blogging by placing Google Adsense into your Blog.

Having technical problems? Visit our support page to report an issue!