Good for them...

Quote:This morning, after yesterday's landmark ruling in Wright v. Arkansas, where a circuit judge struck down an Arkansas law that prohibits same-sex couples from marrying in the state, same-sex couples began marrying in Eureka Springs, AR.

The first couple to receive a marriage license was Kristin Seaton and Jennifer Rambo (right, photo by Kendall Wright), who have been together for more than four years. The couple's witness was Cheryl Maples (center), who filed the Wright v. Arkansas challenge last summer and has worked tirelessly to win marriage in the state.

http://www.freedomtomarry.org/blog/entry...-the-south

Muslims in Arkansas aren't going to like this.

(05-10-2014 12:24 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  Muslims in Arkansas aren't going to like this.

The law doesn't require anyone to "like it ", so no issues there...

If Republicans were smart, they wouldn't be on the wrong side of this.

But there's that caveat, again.

(05-10-2014 12:16 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  Good for them...

Quote:This morning, after yesterday's landmark ruling in Wright v. Arkansas, where a circuit judge struck down an Arkansas law that prohibits same-sex couples from marrying in the state, same-sex couples began marrying in Eureka Springs, AR.

The first couple to receive a marriage license was Kristin Seaton and Jennifer Rambo (right, photo by Kendall Wright), who have been together for more than four years. The couple's witness was Cheryl Maples (center), who filed the Wright v. Arkansas challenge last summer and has worked tirelessly to win marriage in the state.

http://www.freedomtomarry.org/blog/entry...-the-south

Excellent news.

Another victory for equal rights.

Nothing to do with equal rights.

Why did it take over 200 years for all these judges to come out at once?

How does a circuit court judge in Arkansas have the authority to challenge an amendment to the Arkansas State Constitution? I hope you understand this an election year publicity stunt that will do nothing to help the broader discussion. It's not going to advance equal rights in America to have rogue local judges trying to implement this at the local level.

Regardless of what you think about this particular action, it's dangerous from a public policy position. Mainly because it bypasses the current federal lawsuits on marriage equality that actually may get to the SCOTUS. It's also dangerous because a higher state court will no doubt overturn the decision, leaving those new marriages in uncharted territory.

In speaking about Roe v. Wade, Ginsburg said that she thought the case's handling itself lead to much of the acrimony we still see today on the issue. The current SCOTUS revealed their hesitation last summer in their decisions

(05-10-2014 01:41 PM)supertiger Wrote:  How does a circuit court judge in Arkansas have the authority to challenge an amendment to the Arkansas State Constitution? I hope you understand this an election year publicity stunt that will do nothing to help the broader discussion. It's not going to advance equal rights in America to have rogue local judges trying to implement this at the local level.

Regardless of what you think about this particular action, it's dangerous from a public policy position. Mainly because it bypasses the current federal lawsuits on marriage equality that actually may get to the SCOTUS. It's also dangerous because a higher state court will no doubt overturn the decision, leaving those new marriages in uncharted territory.

In speaking about Roe v. Wade, Ginsburg said that she thought the case's handling itself lead to much of the acrimony we still see today on the issue. The current SCOTUS revealed their hesitation last summer in their decisions

Exactly. I'm afraid this will only hurt the gay rights agenda.

No problem here. Why should these two get to live together without having to suffer like the rest of us?

(05-10-2014 02:55 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  No problem here. Why should these two get to live together without having to suffer like the rest of us?

Because marriage is a unit designed for the opposite sexes. It has a broader purpose involving child bearing and societal norms. Cute little statements aside. Ignorance is not why the majority in AR is against it.

(05-10-2014 03:01 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(05-10-2014 02:55 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  No problem here. Why should these two get to live together without having to suffer like the rest of us?

Because marriage is a unit designed for the opposite sexes. It has a broader purpose involving child bearing and societal norms. Cute little statements aside. Ignorance is not why the majority in AR is against it.

Fck it. I have more important schit to worry about.

(05-10-2014 03:05 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(05-10-2014 03:01 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(05-10-2014 02:55 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  No problem here. Why should these two get to live together without having to suffer like the rest of us?

Because marriage is a unit designed for the opposite sexes. It has a broader purpose involving child bearing and societal norms. Cute little statements aside. Ignorance is not why the majority in AR is against it.

Fck it. I have more important schit to worry about.

Why the f**k did you comment at all, if as you say "I have more important sh*t to worry about"?

(05-10-2014 03:01 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(05-10-2014 02:55 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  No problem here. Why should these two get to live together without having to suffer like the rest of us?

Because marriage is a unit designed for the opposite sexes. It has a broader purpose involving child bearing and societal norms. Cute little statements aside. Ignorance is not why the majority in AR is against it.

So why do we allow the elderly and infertile to marry? It goes against YOUR version of marriage.

Marriage in America is a contract between two people and the State...

You go to the court house...file papers with the State...and get married by a Justice of the Peace...you can hold it in a church/temple/mosque...but its not required.

There is no legal justifaction to deny gay people the right to that government contract. That is why it keeps winning in the courts.

And lets not forget marriage was ruled a civil right in Loving vs Virginia.

(05-10-2014 03:30 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  Marriage in America is a contract between two people and the State...

You go to the court house...file papers with the State...and get married by a Justice of the Peace...you can hold it in a church/temple/mosque...but its not required.

OK, so they have their contract, but it's still not a marriage.

(05-10-2014 03:30 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  There is no legal justifaction to deny gay people the right to that government contract.

Since when were gays unable to see a lawyer and obtain things similar to what straight couples have?

"OK, so they have their contract, but it's still not a marriage."

That's not for you to decide, the government says their marriage license is just as valid as yours...now if you want to have some "my church says you're not married" debate with them, go for it...but it has no bearing on the law.

"Since when were gays unable to see a lawyer and obtain things similar to what straight couples have?"

Reeks of separate but equal...

(05-10-2014 12:26 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(05-10-2014 12:24 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  Muslims in Arkansas aren't going to like this.

The law doesn't require anyone to "like it ", so no issues there...

But that was different when gay marriage wasn't legal, right?

(05-10-2014 04:31 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(05-10-2014 12:26 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(05-10-2014 12:24 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  Muslims in Arkansas aren't going to like this.

The law doesn't require anyone to "like it ", so no issues there...

But that was different when gay marriage wasn't legal, right?

No, you didn't have to "like" that law, either...

(05-10-2014 04:27 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  "OK, so they have their contract, but it's still not a marriage."

That's not for you to decide, the government says their marriage license is just as valid as yours...now if you want to have some "my church says you're not married" debate with them, go for it...but it has no bearing on the law.

A marriage requires a bride and a groom, a man and a wife. The contract gays enter into has none of those things.

(05-10-2014 04:33 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(05-10-2014 04:27 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  "OK, so they have their contract, but it's still not a marriage."

That's not for you to decide, the government says their marriage license is just as valid as yours...now if you want to have some "my church says you're not married" debate with them, go for it...but it has no bearing on the law.

A marriage requires a bride and a groom, a man and a wife. The contract gays enter into has none of those things.

The law does not say that...

Sounds like you don't like the fact the government decides who's married...you're not the only one...problem is, if you leave it to churches...there are plenty of churches that would marry gay people...you may not like them, but they are churches all the same.

http://www.gaychurch.org

So that still leads to nationwide gay marriage.