Marriage plaintiffs object to stay of Piazza's ruling | Arkansas Blog

Friday, May 16, 2014

Marriage plaintiffs object to stay of Piazza's ruling

Posted By on Fri, May 16, 2014 at 1:40 PM

The deadline is 2 p.m. for arguments on whether the Arkansas Supreme Court will stay Judge Chris Piazza's marriage equality ruling. I think the court's decision to move up the deadline from Monday to 2 p.m. on five hours' notice indicates their minds are made up to stay the ruling. But plaintiffs in the lawsuit are taking their licks at keeping the order in effect.


The state must show both a likelihood of success and irreparable harm to win a stay, attorneys Jack Wagoner and Cheryl Maples argue. The plaintiffs naturally think the facts favor them on prevailing. But what harm does the state suffer in continuing to allow people to marry? The pleading says the New Jersey Supreme Court rejected a stay in a similar case because the state could make no showing of tangible harm and that the only damage was to plaintiffs. They continued to be denied equal protection under the law.

At a minimum, the court should do a substantive evaluation before denying a stay, the attorneys argue. It quotes Judge Piazza, who denied a stay because he said it would further damage plaintiffs. The attorneys also dismiss the state's "confusion" argument. Piazza was clear. Counties should issue licenses. Any harm from an ultimate reversal would not be to defendants. Speculation about potential future confusion is not a tangible harm, the New Jersey court held.

The confusion lies more with the plaintiffs, they say. With a stay, plaintiffs will "again be forced to navigate a complex, bewildering and ever-shifting terrain of uncertainty as to whether they will be respected as a legally married couple by particular federal agencies, private employers, businesses and particular state and local governmental actors. For such couples, the notion that maintaining this untenable and chaotic 'status quo' will somehow insulate them from uncertainty and confusion has no basis in reality."

If the court order is stayed, the pleading notes, what happens concerning the University of Arkansas's recent decision to cover same-sex spouses on benefit plans? Will they be deprived of this "critical protection," the pleading wonders.

Every court case since the U.S. Supreme Court Windsor ruling has been decided on behalf of plaintiffs, the brief notes. The public has no interest in enforcing unconstitutional laws, it said.

Jason Rapert not included, of course.

Tags: , , ,


Favorite

Comments

Showing 1-1 of 1

Add a comment

 
Subscribe to this thread:
Showing 1-1 of 1

Add a comment

More by Max Brantley

Readers also liked…

  • Little Rock school activists announce events for 60th anniversary of Central High crisis

    The group is not affiliated with the official "Reflections of Progress" commemoration of the 60th anniversary. However, at least two of the Little Rock Nine may be joining the group for an event at 2:30 p.m. at the state Capitol in the Old Supreme Court Chamber.
    • Sep 14, 2017
  • Trump tariffs hit farmers hard

    Well, the trade war has begun and the early returns for farmers are not good — sharp reductions in the prices for soybeans and corn. You may have heard that Arkansas, which overwhelmingly supported Donald Trump, has some agricultural interests, particularly in soybeans.
    • Jul 6, 2018
  • Arkansas legislature rejects bipartisan effort to study race relations

    On Friday, the Arkansas Legislative Council soundly rejected a bipartisan effort by two senators to to create a temporary legislative subcommittee to study race relations in the state.
    • Sep 15, 2017

Most Recent Comments

 

© 2019 Arkansas Times | 201 East Markham, Suite 200, Little Rock, AR 72201
Powered by Foundation