The last 10 days were history-making in Arkansas, with a whirlwind of matrimony the likes of which the state's residents had never witnessed. And many thought they never would.
In a state where 75 percent of voters a decade ago declared by amendment to the state constitution that marriage was between one man and one woman, the first same-sex marriage came as a shock to the system.
Colleague and columnist Doug Thompson rightly noted Sunday that nobody could have been genuinely surprised by Pulaski County Circuit Judge Chris Piazza's ruling. He ruled the amendment violated the state and U.S. constitutions. Society has been marching toward marriage rights for gay couples for years.
Even some Arkansans who expected the courts would one day invalidate the amendment, however, were surprised at how quickly the actual marriages got under way. Piazza issued his ruling on a Friday afternoon. By Saturday, the vows were happening in Eureka Springs and Washington County joined in on Monday, the first day the courthouse was open since the ruling. Some couples came from local cities while others from out of state responded to notices from "action networks" to get to Arkansas and get married before the hitchin's stopped.
These newlyweds enjoyed a moment they had dreamed of for years, sharing emotions anyone getting married would experience, but amplified by the historic nature of the moment. But also with every issuance of a new license, potential new litigants were born if Arkansas' highest court -- an elected group of justices -- chooses to back up Arkansas voters.
Arkansans in that 2004 vote clearly wanted to preserve marriage as a one woman-one man institution, as it has been, well, forever. Resistance to same-sex marriage has declined in the last decade, but if Piazza's ruling had been up for a vote 10 days ago, I doubt it would have survived.
The week was filled with confusion, particularly among Arkansans who see same-sex marriage as a threat to society and to traditional marriage. How could Piazza's ruling so quickly trigger the issuance of licenses in three counties named in the lawsuit -- Pulaski, Washington and Saline -- but three others involved in the litigation -- Conway, Lonoke and White -- stood fast to the one-man, one-woman approach to marriage licenses? In his original ruling, Piazza did not order the counties to immediately begin issuing them.
Why couldn't everyone just wait, knowing that the matter would ultimately be decided by the Arkansas Supreme Court, or maybe the U.S. Supreme Court?
George Butler, the longtime county attorney for Washington County, said the answer for him boiled down to keeping Washington County government's legal liability at a minimum.
"Fayetteville being Fayetteville, like Eureka being Eureka, we live in a very litigious society," Butler said Friday. "If someone was going to get hit with a lawsuit, it was going to come from Fayetteville."
Attorneys for the county's risk management group agreed: It's far safer to operate under a judge's ruling than to defy it.
What about the counties that decided not to issue licenses? Butler said their constituencies are far more conservative, so even though the legal analysis would be the same, the risk of lawsuit in those communities are far lower than in places with identifiable gay communities.
"But this is Fayetteville and ... I felt like we were a moving target for litigation, and I felt litigation could be successful given what the judge had ruled so far," Butler said.
There's no question some Arkansans -- of all circumstances -- thought the movement toward same-sex marriage would be more gradual, such as acceptance of so-called civil unions rather than marriages as a next step. But from a legal perspective, if you're trying to argue you're being denied a fundamental right to be treated equally, half-measures are inadequate.
So what happens now? Washington County had stopped issuing licenses midweek due to some legal clarifications needed in Piazza's order. The judge quickly made modifications and Washington County resumed the practice Friday. Nobody in the judicial system has chosen to issue a stay of his ruling, which could be interpreted as the courts saying the issuance of marriage licenses is not hurting anyone.
But the Supreme Court will make this decision, and needs to. No matter which side of this debate one falls on, it makes sense that people should be able to know with certainty what their legal status is.
GREG HARTON IS OPINION PAGE EDITOR FOR NWA MEDIA.
Commentary on 05/19/2014