Discussion for article #222764
I had the impression that constitutions trumped statutes. If banning ssm is unconstitutional for a state constitution, it is for a statute too.
1 Like
Your’re right, of course. The problem is that, through sloppy lawyering or sloppy opinion writing, somebody forgot to insert some language that would designate that all laws inconsistent with this ruling should be abrogated. It should probably also have affirmatively stated that the law as it pertains to clerks is abrogated and no longer in affect and that clerks should go ahead. All of this could be fixed rather easily with a quick motion for clarification.
The plaintiffs have already filed this morning to clarify the law and overturn/supercede, whatever, contradictory laws. Hopefully Piazza will clean it up soon.
It’s Arkansas, it takes them a little longer to figure that stuff out. 
The statute doesn’t ban gay marriage, it threatens County Clerks who issue a license to same-sex couples with unspecified punishment (probably fines).
It’s clearly unconstitutional, but it is a de facto ban rather than a de jure ban. It’s just an “i” that needs to be dotted. My guess is that the attorneys who brought the suit didn’t know about that statute. Someone’s Google Fu failed.