ILNews

Dissolution of same-sex marriages a legal puzzle for lawyers, judges

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Lawyer Focus

“A marriage between persons of the same gender is void in Indiana even if the marriage is lawful in the place where it is solemnized.” – Indiana Code 31-11-1-1.

Indiana statute makes clear the state’s position on same-sex marriage, but it also leaves murky the rights of Hoosier couples who, despite the law, are legally married.

“We are supposed to, if a marriage is legal somewhere else, honor it,” said attorney Karen Jensen. “Equally placed people should have the same rights.”

harmon-kathy-mug Harmon

But because same-sex marriage isn’t recognized in Indiana, neither is same-sex divorce. In 2009, Jensen unsuccessfully sought a dissolution of marriage for Larissa Chism and Tara Ranzy, who had been wed in Canada before moving to Indiana.

Marion Superior Master Commissioner Jeff Marchal at the time denied the petition, citing I.C. 31-11-1-1. But in that case and one other same-sex dissolution that’s come before him, he found a tightrope to walk. Rather than grant the dissolution, he ordered the marriage null and void.

“It seemed the only other thing I could do. The only other option was to say, ‘You’re still married,’ and I can’t fathom that’s what the General Assembly intended,” Marchal said.

Jensen and Marchal recalled a parking garage conversation they had some time later in which Marchal told Jensen that he had hoped the parties would appeal his decision to perhaps settle the law. They chose not to appeal, and Jensen said she couldn’t discuss the reasons without breaching confidentiality.

In the cases where Marchal has voided unions, there have been no children, no assets to divide and the dissolutions were uncontested. Whether denial of a dissolution petition for same-sex couples

violates the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the U.S. Constitution is an unanswered question, he said, but it’s also a question that’s never been pleaded before him. “I didn’t think it was appropriate for me to start raising issues,” he said.

Jensen had hoped that the case would find a basis in the state’s divorce statutes, which make no mention of gender. Denying application of those laws to same-sex couples seems to conflict with the Full Faith and Credit Clause, she believes.

How family law attorneys counsel same-sex couples has swiftly evolved and will continue to do so, particularly in light of last month’s Supreme Court of the United States decision striking down the definition of marriage in the Defense of Marriage Act.

Kathy Harmon, a partner at Mallor Grodner LLP in Indianapolis, is representing Donald Schultz Lee in his dissolution petition against Justin Chad Schultz Lee. The couple married in Massachusetts, and Harmon counseled her client to wait until the SCOTUS ruled on DOMA to file the divorce action. The case is pending before Marion Superior Judge David Shaheed.

“Whether you approve or believe in same-sex couples or not, we’re going to have to address what you do with same-sex couples married in other states,” Harmon said. “What’s the remedy?”

After Harmon filed the petition, she said “the phone started blowing up” with media inquiries.

“We weren’t planning on doing a media tour, so to speak. This isn’t something he’s doing for the purpose of being a trailblazer or a pioneer. … He just wants to get a divorce and move on with his life,” she said.

Harmon’s firm counsels many same-sex couples, and she explained that the issues they face can be addressed contractually in most instances. Cohabitation agreements, general power of attorney arrangements and health care power of attorney agreements can protect same-sex couples in much the same way a marriage license assures the rights and benefits of couples as defined by Indiana law.

Still, “Indiana has been fairly progressive whether it knows it or not” on matters that impact same-sex couples, Harmon said. Elimination of the inheritance tax, for instance, benefited same-sex couples by removing taxes on asset transfers that were higher than those for recognized families. She noted the state also was among the first to allow adoption by same-sex couples.

lee-donald-mug Donald Lee

Kokomo attorney Megan Schueler of Noel Law blogged about the Supreme Court’s June decisions on same-sex marriage, which also included a ruling that held proponents of California’s Proposition 8 did not have standing to appeal a federal court order holding the initiative defining marriage as between a man and a woman violates the 14th Amendment. She said that even as the court gave momentum to same-sex couples, its decisions left open questions for Shaheed and other judges.

“I wouldn’t want to be that judge,” she said, noting the question of standing is among the unsettled issues. “This is the kind of case that can go up and overturn DOMA Section 2,” which says states shall not be required to recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere.

Bryan Corbin, spokesman for Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller, said the office has not been named or served notice of the Schultz Lee case as would be required if the constitutionality of state law were being challenged. “It would not be appropriate for us to make assessments or predictions at this early phase” about whether the AG’s office might become involved, he said.

Indiana University School of Public and Environmental Affairs associate professor Beth Cate said it’s also unclear whether the recently decided Supreme Court cases might grant couples another avenue if their union dissolves by going back to the state or jurisdiction where the union was made official.

“Can you get into another state’s court without being a resident? … I think that’s an unknown, and at this point I wouldn’t say it’s out of the question,” she said.

Cate compared recognition of same-sex marriage to heterosexual marriages performed elsewhere in which parties were married when they were younger than the laws of a different state would allow. Those marriages nonetheless are recognized. “It may not be a wholly new issue,” she said.

“By eliminating a uniform federal definition of marriage, it creates a need to resolve these issues,” she said. It will be up to the states to decide questions such as same-sex divorce, but she anticipates that as the cases arise, there could be changes in attitudes for opponents of marriage equality.

“I think that to the extent that these cases put a face and a real set of facts and circumstances and relationships on same-sex marriage … hopefully that will deepen the analysis of what the policy considerations should be,” Cate said.

Jensen is more blunt. “We live in a civil society, and this issue of homosexuality is a civil issue, not a religious issue,” she said.

Harmon said it’s difficult to predict other issues that may arise from the SCOTUS ruling on DOMA. “The ruling is so new that I don’t know that we’re going to know for several months what’s flowing out of it.”•

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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I have been on this program while on parole from 2011-2013. No person should be forced mentally to share private details of their personal life with total strangers. Also giving permission for a mental therapist to report to your parole agent that your not participating in group therapy because you don't have the financial mean to be in the group therapy. I was personally singled out and sent back three times for not having money and also sent back within the six month when you aren't to be sent according to state law. I will work to het this INSOMM's removed from this state. I also had twelve or thirteen parole agents with a fifteen month period. Thanks for your time.

  2. Our nation produces very few jurists of the caliber of Justice DOUGLAS and his peers these days. Here is that great civil libertarian, who recognized government as both a blessing and, when corrupted by ideological interests, a curse: "Once the investigator has only the conscience of government as a guide, the conscience can become ‘ravenous,’ as Cromwell, bent on destroying Thomas More, said in Bolt, A Man For All Seasons (1960), p. 120. The First Amendment mirrors many episodes where men, harried and harassed by government, sought refuge in their conscience, as these lines of Thomas More show: ‘MORE: And when we stand before God, and you are sent to Paradise for doing according to your conscience, *575 and I am damned for not doing according to mine, will you come with me, for fellowship? ‘CRANMER: So those of us whose names are there are damned, Sir Thomas? ‘MORE: I don't know, Your Grace. I have no window to look into another man's conscience. I condemn no one. ‘CRANMER: Then the matter is capable of question? ‘MORE: Certainly. ‘CRANMER: But that you owe obedience to your King is not capable of question. So weigh a doubt against a certainty—and sign. ‘MORE: Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat; it is a matter capable of question. But if it is flat, will the King's command make it round? And if it is round, will the King's command flatten it? No, I will not sign.’ Id., pp. 132—133. DOUGLAS THEN WROTE: Where government is the Big Brother,11 privacy gives way to surveillance. **909 But our commitment is otherwise. *576 By the First Amendment we have staked our security on freedom to promote a multiplicity of ideas, to associate at will with kindred spirits, and to defy governmental intrusion into these precincts" Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Comm., 372 U.S. 539, 574-76, 83 S. Ct. 889, 908-09, 9 L. Ed. 2d 929 (1963) Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, concurring. I write: Happy Memorial Day to all -- God please bless our fallen who lived and died to preserve constitutional governance in our wonderful series of Republics. And God open the eyes of those government officials who denounce the constitutions of these Republics by arbitrary actions arising out capricious motives.

  3. From back in the day before secularism got a stranglehold on Hoosier jurists comes this great excerpt via Indiana federal court judge Allan Sharp, dedicated to those many Indiana government attorneys (with whom I have dealt) who count the law as a mere tool, an optional tool that is not to be used when political correctness compels a more acceptable result than merely following the path that the law directs: ALLEN SHARP, District Judge. I. In a scene following a visit by Henry VIII to the home of Sir Thomas More, playwriter Robert Bolt puts the following words into the mouths of his characters: Margaret: Father, that man's bad. MORE: There is no law against that. ROPER: There is! God's law! MORE: Then God can arrest him. ROPER: Sophistication upon sophistication! MORE: No, sheer simplicity. The law, Roper, the law. I know what's legal not what's right. And I'll stick to what's legal. ROPER: Then you set man's law above God's! MORE: No, far below; but let me draw your attention to a fact I'm not God. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain sailing, I can't navigate. I'm no voyager. But in the thickets of law, oh, there I'm a forester. I doubt if there's a man alive who could follow me there, thank God... ALICE: (Exasperated, pointing after Rich) While you talk, he's gone! MORE: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law! ROPER: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law! MORE: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? ROPER: I'd cut down every law in England to do that! MORE: (Roused and excited) Oh? (Advances on Roper) And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you where would you hide, Roper, the laws being flat? (He leaves *1257 him) This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast man's laws, not God's and if you cut them down and you're just the man to do it d'you really think you would stand upright in the winds that would blow then? (Quietly) Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake. ROPER: I have long suspected this; this is the golden calf; the law's your god. MORE: (Wearily) Oh, Roper, you're a fool, God's my god... (Rather bitterly) But I find him rather too (Very bitterly) subtle... I don't know where he is nor what he wants. ROPER: My God wants service, to the end and unremitting; nothing else! MORE: (Dryly) Are you sure that's God! He sounds like Moloch. But indeed it may be God And whoever hunts for me, Roper, God or Devil, will find me hiding in the thickets of the law! And I'll hide my daughter with me! Not hoist her up the mainmast of your seagoing principles! They put about too nimbly! (Exit More. They all look after him). Pgs. 65-67, A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS A Play in Two Acts, Robert Bolt, Random House, New York, 1960. Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen. of Indiana, Indianapolis, for defendants. Childs v. Duckworth, 509 F. Supp. 1254, 1256 (N.D. Ind. 1981) aff'd, 705 F.2d 915 (7th Cir. 1983)

  4. "Meanwhile small- and mid-size firms are getting squeezed and likely will not survive unless they become a boutique firm." I've been a business attorney in small, and now mid-size firm for over 30 years, and for over 30 years legal consultants have been preaching this exact same mantra of impending doom for small and mid-sized firms -- verbatim. This claim apparently helps them gin up merger opportunities from smaller firms who become convinced that they need to become larger overnight. The claim that large corporations are interested in cost-saving and efficiency has likewise been preached for decades, and is likewise bunk. If large corporations had any real interest in saving money they wouldn't use large law firms whose rates are substantially higher than those of high-quality mid-sized firms.

  5. The family is the foundation of all human government. That is the Grand Design. Modern governments throw off this Design and make bureaucratic war against the family, as does Hollywood and cultural elitists such as third wave feminists. Since WWII we have been on a ship of fools that way, with both the elite and government and their social engineering hacks relentlessly attacking the very foundation of social order. And their success? See it in the streets of Fergusson, on the food stamp doles (mostly broken families)and in the above article. Reject the Grand Design for true social function, enter the Glorious State to manage social dysfunction. Our Brave New World will be a prison camp, and we will welcome it as the only way to manage given the anarchy without it.

ADVERTISEMENT