If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Talking Points Memo)   Gay marriage is legal in Arkansas. But clerks will be fined for issuing licenses   (talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 22
    More: Followup, Arkansas, opponents of same-sex marriage, Bible Belt, Attorney General Dustin McDaniel, same-sex couples, gays, Carroll County  
•       •       •

5937 clicks; posted to Main » on 15 May 2014 at 2:11 PM (31 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2014-05-15 02:20:24 PM  
5 votes:
Two good friends of mine (i was the photographer at their "wedding" a few years ago) ran up to little rock and got it done legal a few days ago...

fark you haters, fark you all to hell.
2014-05-15 02:52:37 PM  
3 votes:
License ban declared unconstitutional, order will be written today.

Not a Rick Roll, it's a link to an AP article just issued.
2014-05-15 02:26:01 PM  
3 votes:
Let's be clear who we're hating on here. The rank and file deputy clerks standing at the window don't give a shiat; they'll do whatever the big-C head County Clerk tells them the procedure is. They're not going to risk losing their jobs or being personally fined when they haven't been given any guidance as to procedure, and when the County Clerk is telling them they're not to issue licenses. So it's the County Clerks at the top who need to be catching the heat, not blue-haired Mavis who works at the license window two days a week.
d23 [TotalFark]
2014-05-15 03:20:31 PM  
2 votes:
The south (and Indiana) way: always go into the future throwing as many fits as possible while screaming and clawing the ground.  You are godly... you are never wrong... even when history is sure to show you as the dumb fark you really are.

media.nola.com
2014-05-15 03:17:50 PM  
2 votes:
I work in Little Rock, the amount of Arkansas brand "Wharrgarble Jeebus herp-derp" has reached Beijing smog levels. But more and more every day they are being silenced by others who realize, finally, that Jesus didn't farking stutter when he said "hey why not try love instead of hate for once."

We had a man interviewed on TV saying that GAWD was going to wither the rice crop, foul the waters and poison the air if this wasn't reversed. I'm not looking forward to every tornado down here from now on to be blamed on this... might just start calling them "judgement twisters" and save time...

I had some very good friends get married Monday morning, at last! It's about time the state recognizes their love for their partner isn't different than the love I have for my wife. It's about time that shiat is celebrated! Yes, I cried a little, I always cry at weddings.
2014-05-15 02:45:01 PM  
2 votes:

BMFPitt: Theaetetus: BMFPitt: I'd like to apply for a clerk job just so I could brag about beating a state in court pro se.

Yes, but you'd probably end up crossing out the word "marriage" on every license and writing in "civil union".

Why?


Because you don't believe government should use the word "marriage", remember?
2014-05-15 02:32:12 PM  
2 votes:

Scrotastic Method: I support traditional marriage.

You should have seen the biatchin' goat I got from my father-in-law to convince me to take the burden that was his daughter off his hands. We disagreed the other night so I beat her for a while, since I own her now.

Huzzah traditional marriage.


Marriage is a sacred bond between a man and his wives and concubines. It's in the Bible, you can look it up.
2014-05-15 02:26:33 PM  
2 votes:
what kind of derpfarkery is this?

if the ban is unconstitutional, any law enforcing it is unconstitutional.
2014-05-15 02:00:00 PM  
2 votes:
Nah...
Here's the relevant statute:
9-11-204.  Issuance of license unlawfully -- Penalty.

  If any county clerk in this state shall issue any license contrary to the provisions of this act, or to any persons who are declared by law as not entitled to the license, he or she shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction shall be fined in any sum not less than one hundred dollars ($100) nor more than five hundred dollars ($500).


And there's this other statute:
9-11-109  Validity Of Same-Sex Marriages
Marriage shall be only between a man and a woman. A marriage between persons of the same sex is void.


But wait, that statute was explicitly invalidated:
There are two state laws at issue in this matter which expressly prohibit such
recognition-Act 144 of 1997 of the Arkansas General Assembly and Amendment
83 to the Arkansas Constitution. Act 144 states that "a marriage shall be only
between a man and a woman. A marriage between persons of the same sex is
void." Ark. Acr 144 of 1997, $ 1 (codified at Ark. Code Ann. $9-11-109). The
Act further provides that a marriage which would be valid by the laws of the state
or county entered into by a person of the same sex is void in Arkansas. Id. at $ 2
(codified at Ark. Code Ann. $ 9-11-107).
 ...THIS COURT HEREBY FINDS the Arkansas constitutional
and legislative ban on same-sex marriage through Act 144 of 1997 and
Amendment 83 is unconstitutional.


So, issuing a license to a gay couple is not "contrary to the (still valid) provisions of this act" nor is it to any persons who are declared by law as not entitled to one.

Plus, in order for the clerk to be fined, the state would have to bring charges. And there's no better way to be found in contempt by a judge than to criminally charge people who are following their rulings.
2014-05-15 06:22:06 PM  
1 votes:

jshine: hardinparamedic: Arkansas chief legal counsel is willing to defend the discrimination despite the fact that he "doesn't agree with it"

I'm personally in support of marriage between any two adults, but I always found it problematic when the executive branch decided to simply not enforce laws that were passed by (prior) legislatures or public referendums (as in California).  This effectively amounts to a retroactive veto that can (at least in theory) be arbitrarily exercised by the executive branch.  That's not how the democratic process is supposed to work at either the state or federal level.

Giving any executive the power to simply ignore laws they personally find objectionable seems like a very slippery slope that could easily lead to a constitutional crisis.  If an attorney general, governor, etc., doesn't like the laws that his/her office may be called upon to enforce, then the right thing to do is not to accept the job in the first place (or to resign).


The thing is that the attorney general's office has the right to look at each case and decide if it is winnable or not.  They have the right to look at a case and based on info at hand and say that the case is not winnable and not waste taxpayer money to fight it

This is why in some state the AG office said they wouldn't fight the court ruling.  They knew that the chance of a win was so slim that it was not worth the cost to fight it.
2014-05-15 04:27:23 PM  
1 votes:

BMFPitt: Theaetetus: I don't understand the concept of supersets.

So you've got nothing?


Huh. I was joking in the last thread about you hallucinating and seeing words that weren't there, but now we've got definitive proof!
2014-05-15 03:45:53 PM  
1 votes:

BMFPitt: Theaetetus: Like when you propose that we shouldn't call it "marriage", because that has a traditional definition and people will get "confused", so we should allow everyone to form relationships and get benefits but we'll call them "civil unions"?

So where is the part where marriages are no longer called marriage?


The part where you said that was what your proposal was?
BMFPitt: Theaetetus: Just to be absolutely crystal clear - in your proposal, there's one institution under law, open to any combination of consenting adults, and providing all of the benefits that marriage currently provides... but it's not called "marriage". Right?

Correct.
2014-05-15 03:29:16 PM  
1 votes:

BMFPitt: Theaetetus: BMFPitt: By your insane logic, if I proposed that age reductions be removed from voting, that means women can no longer vote and the term "adult" has been banned.

If you proposed that we shouldn't call it "voting" because that's what it's been traditionally called when men do it, and we should allow everyone to vote but instead call it "civilly electioning" and have government stop using the term "vote", then it would be comparable.

And if I ever suggest anything remotely like that, feel free to point it out.


Like when you propose that we shouldn't call it "marriage", because that has a traditional definition and people will get "confused", so we should allow everyone to form relationships and get benefits but we'll call them "civil unions"?
d23 [TotalFark]
2014-05-15 03:25:49 PM  
1 votes:
here's one that should be shared far and wide...

4.bp.blogspot.com

Bible verses, mis-written signs... oh how the good old things stay the same.
2014-05-15 03:21:59 PM  
1 votes:

BMFPitt: By your insane logic, if I proposed that age reductions be removed from voting, that means women can no longer vote and the term "adult" has been banned.


If you proposed that we shouldn't call it "voting" because that's what it's been traditionally called when men do it, and we should allow everyone to vote but instead call it "civilly electioning" and have government stop using the term "vote", then it would be comparable.
2014-05-15 03:01:08 PM  
1 votes:

BMFPitt: Theaetetus: BMFPitt: Theaetetus: BMFPitt: I'd like to apply for a clerk job just so I could brag about beating a state in court pro se.

Yes, but you'd probably end up crossing out the word "marriage" on every license and writing in "civil union".

Why?

Because you don't believe government should use the word "marriage", remember?

Oh yes, your profoundly delusional fantasy world built on functional illiteracy.

BMFPitt: I would also like to replace government sanctioned marriage with civil unions


BMFPitt: Theaetetus: Just to be absolutely crystal clear - in your proposal, there's one institution under law, open to any combination of consenting adults, and providing all of the benefits that marriage currently provides... but it's not called "marriage". Right?

Correct.
2014-05-15 02:53:09 PM  
1 votes:

letrole: Homosexual marriage is pursued as a means to an end. Homosexuals, by an exceedingly large margin, do not wish to get married or to form civil unions. Rather, they want to be accepted as normal. Their hope is that public approval of homosexuality will follow the legal establishment of homosexual marriages.


Thank you for revealing my true feelings and motives as a gay man.

I don't know what we homosexuals would do without you straight folk clarifying our lives for us.
2014-05-15 02:44:55 PM  
1 votes:
States can keep things legal and still make every loophole possible to make it practically illegal. Look at Chicago/Illinois and their gun laws.
2014-05-15 02:40:16 PM  
1 votes:

bungle_jr: the state in which i was raised...there are some great places...little rock, hot springs, i hear the whole nw arkansas area is great...my hometown of hope SUCKS! unfortunately i have a lot of relatives (including my mom, dad, sister & her family, grandpa, etc etc etc) still in hope, so i have to go there occasionally


Ironically Arkansas has one of the largest rural openly gay communities in the United States outside of a major city (Eureka Springs), and Little Rock and Hot Springs both have large gay communities.

In this case, it's just sad and hilarious at the same time to watch the gnashing of teeth and writhing of the bigots as they slowly become irrelevant, and the fact that the Arkansas chief legal counsel is willing to defend the discrimination despite the fact that he "doesn't agree with it"
2014-05-15 02:35:27 PM  
1 votes:

timujin: So, issuing a license to a gay couple is not "contrary to the (still valid) provisions of this act" nor is it to any persons who are declared by law as not entitled to one.

Plus, in order for the clerk to be fined, the state would have to bring charges. And there's no better way to be found in contempt by a judge than to criminally charge people who are following their rulings.


I'm hoping there are clerks out there willing to chance it. The only thing to do right now is wait and see.


Simple enough to take the next step. Just have a gay couple try to get a license, and if the clerk refuses, then sue the clerk and the state in Federal court for a section 1983 violation.
2014-05-15 02:29:29 PM  
1 votes:
I support traditional marriage.

You should have seen the biatchin' goat I got from my father-in-law to convince me to take the burden that was his daughter off his hands. We disagreed the other night so I beat her for a while, since I own her now.

Huzzah traditional marriage.
2014-05-15 02:17:25 PM  
1 votes:

Theaetetus: Nah...
Here's the relevant statute:
9-11-204.  Issuance of license unlawfully -- Penalty.

  If any county clerk in this state shall issue any license contrary to the provisions of this act, or to any persons who are declared by law as not entitled to the license, he or she shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction shall be fined in any sum not less than one hundred dollars ($100) nor more than five hundred dollars ($500).

And there's this other statute:
9-11-109  Validity Of Same-Sex Marriages
Marriage shall be only between a man and a woman. A marriage between persons of the same sex is void.

But wait, that statute was explicitly invalidated:
There are two state laws at issue in this matter which expressly prohibit such
recognition-Act 144 of 1997 of the Arkansas General Assembly and Amendment
83 to the Arkansas Constitution. Act 144 states that "a marriage shall be only
between a man and a woman. A marriage between persons of the same sex is
void." Ark. Acr 144 of 1997, $ 1 (codified at Ark. Code Ann. $9-11-109). The
Act further provides that a marriage which would be valid by the laws of the state
or county entered into by a person of the same sex is void in Arkansas. Id. at $ 2
(codified at Ark. Code Ann. $ 9-11-107).
 ...THIS COURT HEREBY FINDS the Arkansas constitutional
and legislative ban on same-sex marriage through Act 144 of 1997 and
Amendment 83 is unconstitutional.

So, issuing a license to a gay couple is not "contrary to the (still valid) provisions of this act" nor is it to any persons who are declared by law as not entitled to one.

Plus, in order for the clerk to be fined, the state would have to bring charges. And there's no better way to be found in contempt by a judge than to criminally charge people who are following their rulings.


I'm hoping there are clerks out there willing to chance it.  The only thing to do right now is wait and see.
 
Displayed 22 of 22 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report