1365 W. Cleveland St.
Fayetteville, AR 72701-4007
November 1, 2014
Senator Mark Pryor
500 Clinton Ave
Suite 401
Little Rock, AR 72201
Dear Senator Mark Pryor:
From this current day, the state of Arkansas is 1 of 18 states that have yet to legalize Gay Marriage. Act 144 of 1997 and the 83rd amendment in the Arkansas State Constitution states that a marriage consists of a man and woman only. The recent decision of the Circuit Judge Chris Piazza to legalize Gay marriage was immediately put on hold for constitutional reasons on May 15, 2014. Chris Piazza’s decision has called for many people to speak their opinion on the matter. With Piazza's ruling, I was encouraged to ask you to re-evaluate your decision in 2006 to not support …show more content…
By definition marriage is a legal institution, as well as a religious and a social system. The law that Judge Piazza passed pertains exclusively to the legal establishment of marriage. It is not about the religious legitimacy or inaccuracy of different forms of marriage. With that being said the legalizing would not force any religious organization to implement a marriage that goes against its religious opinions, but would allow same-sex couples to get lawfully married by their government. Furthermore, explained in the article Gay Marriage is a Fundamental Right written by Nathan Goetting defines a fundamental right when pertaining to marriage as a “right to many, and to marry the person of one's choice, is a fundamental right and a necessary aspect of human happiness. This has been an explicitly stated abiding principle since the Court used its power of judicial review to strike down as unconstitutional a legislature's definition of marriage in 1967.” So again Senator Pryor I ask you, does not supporting the legalization of gay marriages have any proper reason than your religious affiliation and moral belief in the current law? Now with that knowledge I encourage you understand why “Piazza denied the state’s request for a stay, saying he “cannot in good conscience grant such request” because it would impose “irreparable harm” on the couples who filed the lawsuit challenging the