A federal lawsuit challenging Arkansas' same-sex marriage ban should be allowed to proceed, its proponents argued Wednesday in pleadings that urge a Little Rock federal judge to follow the example of a Virginia appeals court.
The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va., refused Wednesday a request to stay its ruling striking down Virginia laws that prohibit gay marriage. That decision means same-sex marriages in that state could begin next week.
The Arkansas attorney general's office earlier this month petitioned U.S. District Judge Kristine Baker to put the 13-month-old litigation on hold until the question of whether the marriage bans are legal is settled by the U.S. Supreme Court. Already pending before the judge is a motion by the plaintiffs asking Baker to rule in their favor.
In response Wednesday to the state petition, plaintiffs' attorneys Angela Mann and Jack Wagoner countered that all a delay will do is make gay couples who are being treated as inferior continue to suffer.
"Arkansas' treatment of plaintiffs' relationships as lesser than the relationships of opposite-sex couples ... deprives them of important constitutional rights, causes them anxiety and stress, deprives them of dignity as individuals and couples and has ongoing financial ramification," the pleadings state, noting that one of the plaintiffs has been denied recognition as the legal parent to her children while another has been denied some insurance benefits.
But the state won't be harmed if the litigation is allowed to proceed, the lawyers said. The plaintiffs' lawyers argue that the state has no legal basis for the request. Federal courts have a test for determining whether litigation can be delayed and the state's petition to hold up the proceedings doesn't pass it, the lawyers said.
The Supreme Court has said that a stay like the one the state is seeking should only be granted in "rare circumstances," according to the 12 pages of pleadings filed in response to the attorney general's request.
The state wants to wait on the outcome of an appeal from a lawsuit in a different jurisdiction that does not raise the same issues as the Arkansas lawsuit, the plaintiffs' lawyers said. That other case, arising from Utah litigation, has not even been accepted for consideration by the high court, they said, adding that there is no guarantee the U.S. Supreme Court will hear the case.
"Defendants have presented no legal basis -- and the plaintiffs are aware of none -- for staying this case based purely on speculation that the United States Supreme Court may at some point in the future resolve a similar question posed by a case from another state involving unrelated parties," a plaintiffs' filing said.
The plaintiffs are two couples -- Rita and Pam Jernigan, and Becca and Tara Austin -- who are challenging the constitutionality of Amendment 83 to the state constitution, which says a marriage is between a man and a woman, and other state laws pertaining to marriage.
A similar lawsuit in state court led to Pulaski County Circuit Judge Chris Piazza's May 9 ruling that the state bans against same-sex marriage are unconstitutional. The Arkansas Supreme Court stayed the ruling on May 16 until it can hear the state's appeal. The state also has asked the Arkansas court to wait for the U.S. Supreme Court to rule on the bans.
The first written arguments in that case are due Sept. 8.
Metro on 08/14/2014