Arkansas Marriage Ban Struck Down

The dominoes continue to fall despite the Sixth Circuit's seemingly white supremacist inspired ruling.  Today, Arkansas joined the list of states where anti-gay animus inspired marriage bans have been ruled unconstitutional.   Unfortunately, the federal judge handing down the ruling has stayed the ruling's effectiveness pending an appeal by state officials eager to prostitute themselves to Christofascist elements of the population.  Here are  excerpts via Towleroad:

A federal judge has struck down Arkansas' ban on same-sex marriage, the AP reports:

U.S. District Judge Kristine Baker ruled in favor of two same-sex couples who had challenged a 2004 constitutional amendment and earlier state law defining marriage as between a man and a woman, arguing that the ban violated the U.S. Constitution and discriminated based on sexual orientation.

But Baker put her ruling on hold, and the state is expected to appeal it to the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, based in St. Louis.

Baker wrote in her ruling that the state's marriage laws violate the U.S. Constitution by "precluding same-sex couples from exercising their fundamental right to marry in Arkansas, by not recognizing valid same-sex marriages from other states, and by discriminating on the basis of gender."

Arkansas' State Supreme Court is also currently considering a challenge to the state's same-sex marriage ban. The justices will decide whether to uphold Pulaski County Circuit Judge Chris Piazza's ruling which struck down the Natural State's marriage ban or to find in favor of the state and reverse that decision. Piazza's ruling made it possible for 541 same-sex couples to say "I do" earlier this year until the state Supreme Court intervened and ordered the marriages to cease until it could review the matter.

The full ruling of the federal District Court can be found here.  Here are some highlights from the opinion:

This Court acknowledges that some courts have recently concluded that  Baker  is still  binding precedent.   See, e.g.,  DeBoer, 2014 WL 5748990. This Court determines that the Sixth Circuit’s reasoning is not as persuasive on this point as that of the Fourth, Seventh, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits. . . . it is difficult to reconcile the Supreme Court’s statement in Windsor  that the Constitution protects the moral and sexual choices of homosexual couples, Windsor, 133 S. Ct. at 2694, with the idea that state laws prohibiting same-sex marriage do not present a substantial federal question.  For the foregoing reasons,  Baker does not bar the Court from reaching the merits of plaintiffs’ claims. 

[T]he drafters of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments “knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom.”   Lawrence, 539 U.S. at 579.  Accordingly, this Court finds that the Jernigans and Austins have adequately described their asserted right to marry. Directed by Supreme Court and Eighth Circuit  precedents, this Court concludes that the right to marry is a fundamental right.

This Court finds that the Arkansas marriage laws at issue here overstep this constitutional limit. The Due Process Clause prevents the government from infringing upon a fundamental right “unless the infringement is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest.”   Reno, 507 U.S. at 302. Likewise, under the Equal Protection Clause, if a state makes a classification that “impinge[s] upon the exercise of a fundamental right,” then the state must “demonstrate that its classification has been precisely tailored to serve a compelling governmental interest.”

Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 217 (1982).

Defendants’ other rationales focus on connections between marriage and  procreation and the interests of children. These rationales run afoul of the basic tenets of the state’s marriage system, one that does not distinguish procreative from non-procreative couples. Further, the Supreme Court has held that married couples have a right not to procreate and that the Constitution protects the right of individuals to marry regardless of their ability or desire to  procreate, including those who are elderly, infertile, and incarcerated.

This Court finds that the principal purpose of Amendment 83 and the challenged statutes “is to impose inequality, not for other reasons like governmental efficiency.”  Windsor, 133 S. Ct. at 2694. Amendment 83 of the Arkansas Constitution and Arkansas Code Annotated §§ 9-11-107, 9-11-109, and 9-11-208 unconstitutionally deny consenting adult same-sex couples their fundamental right to marry in violation of the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.