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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  2. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  3. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  4. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT