ILNews

AG finds no caselaw that answers same-sex amendment question

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Nearly 13 minutes into a press conference touting the accomplishments of his office in 2013, Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller got a question on a topic he may have been hoping to avoid – same-sex marriage.

State legislators have been grappling privately with the proposed amendment to the Indiana Constitution banning marriage between two people of the same gender. Their concern is the second sentence of the amendment which some view as too broad and possibly removing legal protections from unmarried heterosexual couples.  

Zoeller said his office has fielded questions and had conversations with elected officials who are actively in favor of the amendment getting a second approval from the Statehouse as well as with elected officials who are opposed. Pointing to recent decisions by federal judges striking down same-sex marriage statutes in other states, Zoeller described the issue as a “very volatile area of the law.”

To the question of whether the Legislature could alter the second sentence and still go forward with getting the issue before voters in the November 2014 general election or if any rewrite would force the amendment process to start all over again, the attorney general had no definite answer.

There have been no cases directly on point that has provided a response to that question, he said.

“I think the fact that it’s not been fully addressed leaves it open to a supposition as to what a federal court might do or a state court might do when it comes to changing language or altering it,” Zoeller said. “So it’s an open question.”

Zoeller devoted most of the press conference to highlighting what he called “an extraordinary year” for himself as well as the Office of the Attorney General. He noted, specifically, the work on getting more resource officers into schools, battling prescription drug abuse and providing extra consumer protection for senior citizens.

The Indiana General Assembly approved legislation proposed by Zoeller and Sen. Pete Miller, R-Avon, that clarified the duties of school resource officers and established a state grant program to help schools pay for these officers. The measure appropriated $10 million in 2013 and again in 2014 for the grants.

In 2013, 116 school corporations, out of a total of 290, received grants.

Zoeller is now turning his efforts to securing additional funding for more officers. He is eyeing a federal appropriations bill which includes monies for these law enforcement personnel.

If Congress approves the bill and develops a competitive grant program to award the funds, the attorney general believes Indiana will be well-positioned to get federal support. The partnerships between local communities, law enforcement and the Indiana Criminal Justice Institute along with Miller’s bill puts Indiana in a leadership role, showing the state has prepared for greater use of school resource officers.

Zoeller also pointed to another piece of legislation, the Senior Consumer Protection Act, recommended by his office and authored by Sen. Tim Lanane, D-Anderson. Approved by the General Assembly, the new law increases civil penalties for those who financially exploit state residents who are 60 and older.

The attorney general’s office filed its first lawsuit under the new statute in September against an Indianapolis-based tree service company. Zoeller’s office claims that Steve Spaulding and his company, Spaulding’s Tree Experts, bilked a 93-year-old homeowner out of $7,500 in exchange for minimal and faulty work.

While the case is still pending in Marion County, the attorney general plans to seek a default judgment against the defendant.   

Also in 2013, the attorney general filed disciplinary complaints with the Indiana Medical Licensing Board against 15 doctors for overprescribing painkillers. Zoeller credited the state’s Prescription Drug Abuse Prevention Task Force with making an “emergency effort” to try to stem prescription drug abuse, which has reached epidemic levels.

The task force, of which Zoeller is a co-chair, brought together more than 80 people from different agencies to examine the problem of “pill mills” and the growing dependence on opiate painkillers. During the 2014 legislative session, the task force plans to recommend the state speed up the process that requires pharmacists report their dispensing of certain amounts of opioids.

Zoeller said he has met with physicians who are concerned about new regulations.

“I told them that they should watch the actions taken to date against physicians who have overprescribed,” he said, “and if they see their own practice looking like that, then they should probably worry.”

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. He called our nation a nation of cowards because we didn't want to talk about race. That was a cheap shot coming from the top cop. The man who decides who gets the federal government indicts. Wow. Not a gentleman if that is the measure. More importantly, this insult delivered as we all understand, to white people-- without him or anybody needing to explain that is precisely what he meant-- but this is an insult to timid white persons who fear the government and don't want to say anything about race for fear of being accused a racist. With all the legal heat that can come down on somebody if they say something which can be construed by a prosecutor like Mr Holder as racist, is it any wonder white people-- that's who he meant obviously-- is there any surprise that white people don't want to talk about race? And as lawyers we have even less freedom lest our remarks be considered violations of the rules. Mr Holder also demonstrated his bias by publically visiting with the family of the young man who was killed by a police offering in the line of duty, which was a very strong indicator of bias agains the offer who is under investigation, and was a failure to lead properly by letting his investigators do their job without him predetermining the proper outcome. He also has potentially biased the jury pool. All in all this worsens race relations by feeding into the perception shared by whites as well as blacks that justice will not be impartial. I will say this much, I do not blame Obama for all of HOlder's missteps. Obama has done a lot of things to stay above the fray and try and be a leader for all Americans. Maybe he should have reigned Holder in some but Obama's got his hands full with other problelms. Oh did I mention HOlder is a bank crony who will probably get a job in a silkstocking law firm working for millions of bucks a year defending bankers whom he didn't have the integrity or courage to hold to account for their acts of fraud on the United States, other financial institutions, and the people. His tenure will be regarded by history as a failure of leadership at one of the most important jobs in our nation. Finally and most importantly besides him insulting the public and letting off the big financial cheats, he has been at the forefront of over-prosecuting the secrecy laws to punish whistleblowers and chill free speech. What has Holder done to vindicate the rights of privacy of the American public against the illegal snooping of the NSA? He could have charged NSA personnel with violations of law for their warrantless wiretapping which has been done millions of times and instead he did not persecute a single soul. That is a defalcation of historical proportions and it signals to the public that the government DOJ under him was not willing to do a damn thing to protect the public against the rapid growth of the illegal surveillance state. Who else could have done this? Nobody. And for that omission Obama deserves the blame too. Here were are sliding into a police state and Eric Holder made it go all the faster.

  2. JOE CLAYPOOL candidate for Superior Court in Harrison County - Indiana This candidate is misleading voters to think he is a Judge by putting Elect Judge Joe Claypool on his campaign literature. paragraphs 2 and 9 below clearly indicate this injustice to voting public to gain employment. What can we do? Indiana Code - Section 35-43-5-3: Deception (a) A person who: (1) being an officer, manager, or other person participating in the direction of a credit institution, knowingly or intentionally receives or permits the receipt of a deposit or other investment, knowing that the institution is insolvent; (2) knowingly or intentionally makes a false or misleading written statement with intent to obtain property, employment, or an educational opportunity; (3) misapplies entrusted property, property of a governmental entity, or property of a credit institution in a manner that the person knows is unlawful or that the person knows involves substantial risk of loss or detriment to either the owner of the property or to a person for whose benefit the property was entrusted; (4) knowingly or intentionally, in the regular course of business, either: (A) uses or possesses for use a false weight or measure or other device for falsely determining or recording the quality or quantity of any commodity; or (B) sells, offers, or displays for sale or delivers less than the represented quality or quantity of any commodity; (5) with intent to defraud another person furnishing electricity, gas, water, telecommunication, or any other utility service, avoids a lawful charge for that service by scheme or device or by tampering with facilities or equipment of the person furnishing the service; (6) with intent to defraud, misrepresents the identity of the person or another person or the identity or quality of property; (7) with intent to defraud an owner of a coin machine, deposits a slug in that machine; (8) with intent to enable the person or another person to deposit a slug in a coin machine, makes, possesses, or disposes of a slug; (9) disseminates to the public an advertisement that the person knows is false, misleading, or deceptive, with intent to promote the purchase or sale of property or the acceptance of employment;

  3. The story that you have shared is quite interesting and also the information is very helpful. Thanks for sharing the article. For more info: http://www.treasurecoastbailbonds.com/

  4. I grew up on a farm and live in the county and it's interesting that the big industrial farmers like Jeff Shoaf don't live next to their industrial operations...

  5. So that none are misinformed by my posting wihtout a non de plume here, please allow me to state that I am NOT an Indiana licensed attorney, although I am an Indiana resident approved to practice law and represent clients in Indiana's fed court of Nth Dist and before the 7th circuit. I remain licensed in KS, since 1996, no discipline. This must be clarified since the IN court records will reveal that I did sit for and pass the Indiana bar last February. Yet be not confused by the fact that I was so allowed to be tested .... I am not, to be clear in the service of my duty to be absolutely candid about this, I AM NOT a member of the Indiana bar, and might never be so licensed given my unrepented from errors of thought documented in this opinion, at fn2, which likely supports Mr Smith's initial post in this thread: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1592921.html

ADVERTISEMENT