Arkansas Marriage Laws - As of Feb 2004

This has been updated to reflect all of the NEW links since the database has been chabged.

We do NOT need Constitutional Amendments - we only need laws to be enforced.

The only Constitutional Amendment we really need is the RIGHT to RECALL elected and UNelected officials and judges who state they are our MASTERS.

1 posted on 02/21/2004 10:24:14 AM PST by steplock

Well--I agree with all but the "We do not need a Constitutional amendment" part. Thirtyeight States ,Colorado
included have Defence of Marriage Acts (Ratified as law)
PRoblem is most States now have State courts that ,like the
SJC in Mass. want to make Law.Any State court can invalidate any part of that States law code-and if they have suport from the Legislature,and or the Gov. (and in
Mass.there is clearly a legislature divided between those
determined to mandate /legislate same sex marriage--and those who do not) I hope in Our Kansas (Arkansas)your
State Legislature is made up of only men and women who will
serve in fear of God -and strong enough to stand against a
judiciary should th ejudges decide to make law.

2 posted on 02/21/2004 10:45:48 AM PST by StonyBurk

"The only Constitutional Amendment we really need is the RIGHT to RECALL elected and UNelected officials and judges who state they are our MASTERS."

BUMP!

3 posted on 02/21/2004 10:46:50 AM PST by Eastbound

They'd better do something about the so-called "transgendered." If not, and they're allowed to slip through the cracks, someone will claim that same-sex marriage has already been sanctioned.

4 posted on 02/21/2004 10:54:32 AM PST by Agnes Heep

http://usmarriagelaws.com/search/united_states/teen_marriage_laws/index.shtml

The state of Nebraska will only issue a marriage license if both parties are 19 or older or have parental consent. If however, two 18 year olds get married in Missouri and move to Nebraska before they turn 19, their marriage is not invalid.

The state of Nebraska has to recognize it because it was (is) a legal contract that was entered into legally in another state. States have control over matters that do not affect other states, which is why Nebraska can deny a marriage license or the privilege of marrying in Nebraska up to a certain age, but Nebraska cannot invalidate other states contracts. This applies for the age as well as sex of participants.

A couple of homo’s are gonna get married in Mass and move to Arkansas and the state law will not stop them or invalidate the marriage.

The only way to stop this is a Constitutional amendment.

5 posted on 02/21/2004 11:04:02 AM PST by dpa5923 (Small minds talk about people, normal minds talk about events, great minds talk about ideas.)

A couple of homo?s are gonna get married in Mass and move to Arkansas and the state law will not stop them or invalidate the marriage.

Only if the Defense of Marriage Act (signed by Clinton in the summer of 1996) is declared unconstitutional.

6 posted on 02/21/2004 11:35:41 AM PST by Paleo Conservative (Do not remove this tag under penalty of law.)

To: Paleo Conservative

With the manner in which the SC has ruled in recent cases, I belief it will be declared unconstitutional. I may be wrong, but I don't have faith in courts to understand what how this republic is suppose to work.

7 posted on 02/21/2004 11:39:35 AM PST by dpa5923 (Small minds talk about people, normal minds talk about events, great minds talk about ideas.)

To: dpa5923; Agnes Heep

9-11-107. Validity of foreign marriages.
(a) All marriages contracted outside this state which would be valid by the laws of the state or country in which the marriages were consummated and in which the parties then actually resided shall be valid in all the courts in this state.
(b) This section shall not apply to a marriage between persons of the same sex.

History. Rev. Stat., ch. 94, § 7; C. & M. Dig., § 7043; Pope's Dig., § 9023; A.S.A. 1947, § 55-110; Acts 1997, No. 144, § 2.

With the determined CONSTITUTIONAL backing of the SECOND AMENDMENT we will make sure our laws are enforced.

8 posted on 02/21/2004 3:47:30 PM PST by steplock

I agree! Everyone must be responsible for their actions.

9 posted on 02/21/2004 3:52:43 PM PST by patriot5186

Thanks for posting the whole law, it was my first chance to get a look at so-called "covenant marriage" in writing. It raises a few questions:

In a state that recognizes two levels of marriage: covenant, and unleaded (sorry, couldn't resist, let's just call them "regular" and "premium" from now on!), does that imply that a special religious meaning can be imparted to SOME marriages? Could that indicate that the church-state wall has been breached by those states, and cause the whole governmental regulation of marriage to be called into question? Alternatively, could that be seen by a state's Supreme Court as a way to create a third status, the civil union, or separate gay marriage?

You see where I'm coming from here, because of the fact some states deliberately created two classes of marriage? Even if it doesn't matter to the covenant marriage state's Supreme Court, might it matter to the SCOTUS if somebody tried to take an Arkansas gay couple's MA marriage certificate that far up the court system?

10 posted on 02/21/2004 4:16:35 PM PST by hunter112

Honestly? I haven't read the law completely since last year but I don't believe that the "Covenant" marriage was religious. It was more for show than any legal reason.

People LIKED the idea of the "feeling" (?) of the deeper commitment - also the requirement for counseling should actually help in raising the percentages of those, like my wife and I, who do NOT divorce - 33 years March 31 (Woke up and it was April Fool's Day!)

11 posted on 02/21/2004 4:32:46 PM PST by steplock

I haven't read the law completely since last year but I don't believe that the "Covenant" marriage was religious.

I'm pretty sure that you can find anti-divorce religious traditionalists behind the movement to create covenant marriage. In any case, its clearly a second class of marriage. It leaves a state's Supreme Court the opportunity to recognize that male-female marriage is indeed something special, and posit that the Legislature created covenant marriage for those people. It then leaves them free to allow "regular" marriage for gays, since its not as exalted as "premium" marriage.

If a state has recognized the concept of degrees of marital status, it creates the possibility of a court-created third status of civil union. Oddly enough, covenant marriage might have been the start of the oft-mentioned slippery slope.

12 posted on 02/21/2004 4:47:16 PM PST by hunter112

Unfortunately, all this started when lawyers were allowed to become legislators - giving them the power to control not only the Judicial branch of govt, but also the Legislative and the Executive branch. A nice monopoly!

A real human being knows what the meaning of the word "IS" is. We don't need a lawyer to lie (Not Parse- LIE!) his way through the English language.

We know what the Bill of Rights says and what our Constitution means - at least the ones of us who can still read do.

Marriage is DEFINED as the union between a man & a woman. This has been so since - when? - to assertain the proper linage for the passing on of titles and properties to legitimate progeny. It really wasn't religious to begin with. Not the "legal version" anyway. Homosexuals - by definition - do not create their own progeny by natural means. It's a bit difficult to create children with your horse also. Oooo! Racist!

If someone wants to claim that the definition is "fuzzy" I suppose then we can have the marriage of man & sheep? woman & horse? a 10 year old boy with a 90 year old homosexual - the REAL reason for this ?

I'm sorry, but I feel that we should simply move everyone who refuses to live by common decency (yes I use the dreaded word DECENCY) everyone who wants to destroy our Constitution, everyone who wants to destroy Christianity or any other MORAL code (omygod another one of THOSE words!) whether religios or secular - in other words all those who want to destroy what the United States of America was created for and built on - we need to move them all to the left coast - it will shake loose and sink soon anyway.

13 posted on 02/21/2004 5:15:11 PM PST by steplock

Unfortunately, all this started when lawyers were allowed to become legislators

Agreed, lawyers should have to get twice as many votes as anybody else to win an election!

That said, it certainly does give the unelected lawyers something extra to chew on while they make their cases in the covenant marriage states. Any Attorneys General in those states will have a few sleepless nights trying to figure out how to avoid the creation of a new marital status, or the incorporation of gays into "regular" marriage.

14 posted on 02/21/2004 5:32:31 PM PST by hunter112

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794