Page:Jegley v. Picado, 349 Ark. 600 (2002).pdf/8

Rh their sexual preference by engaging in the same activity heterosexuals are at liberty to perform.
 * 1) C A E R A.—The General Assembly cannot act, under the cloak of police power or public morality, arbitrarily to invade personal liberties of the individual citizen; Ark. Code Ann. § 5-14-122 invaded such liberties, arbitrarily condemning conduct between same-sex actors while permitting the exact same conduct among opposite-sex actors; appellant failed to demonstrate how such a distinction served a legitimate public interest; absent some rational basis for this disparate treatment under the law, the supreme court held that Ark. Code Ann. § 5-14-122 was unconstitutional as violative of Arkansas's Equal Rights Amendment.

Appeal from Pulaski Circuit Court; David B. Bogard, Judge; affirmed.

Mark Pryor, Att'y Gen., by: Jill Jones Moore, Ass't Att'y Gen., for appellant.

Mitchell, Blackstock, Barnes, Wagoner & Ivers, by: David L. Ivers and Emily Sneddon; and Lambda Legal Defense & Education Fund, Inc., by: Susan L. Sommer, Ruth E. Harlow, and Jennifer Middleton, for appellees.

Kaplan, Brewer & Maxey, P.A., by: Philip E. Kaplan; and Professor John M.A. DiPippa (Associate's License, Commonwealth of Virginia), for amici curiae National Conference for Community Justice, the Right Reverend Larry E. Maze, Rabbi Eugene Levy, the Reverend Jo Ellen Willis, the Reverend Donna Rountree, More Light Presbyterians of Central Arkansas, and University of Arkansas Law Professors Donald Judges, Cynthia E. Nance, Richard B. Atkinson, and Morton Gitelman.

Nathalie F.P. Gilfoyle and James L. McHugh, for amicus curiae American Psychological Association.

Carolyn I. Polowy, for amicus curiae National Association of Social Workers, Inc.

Ronald L. May and Jenner & Block, LLC, by: William M. Hohengarten and Nicole G. Berner, for amici curiae American