ILNews

Challenges to Indiana’s same-sex marriage ban piling up in federal court

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Update: This story has been edited to add the fourth lawsuit filed Friday.

 

And then there were four.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana Friday filed a lawsuit in federal court challenging the state’s ban on same-sex marriage, becoming the third such complaint lodged against Indiana in a week. Another suit challening the ban was also filed in federal court Friday.

The wave of lawsuits began March 7 when four couples in southern Indiana, represented by the legal team in Louisville who successfully challenged Kentucky’s marriage statute, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana. This was followed by the national organization Lambda Legal filing a complaint March 10 in the Southern District on behalf of three Indiana couples.

The ACLU filed its suit on behalf of 14 couples, including two children who have faced discrimination because Indiana does not permit or recognize same-sex marriage. Midori Fujii, whose wife of 11 years died after a two-year battle with ovarian cancer, is the lead plaintiff. Because their California marriage was not recognized in Indiana, Fujii was not allowed by the funeral home to make decisions for her wife’s funeral and had to pay more than $300,000 in state inheritance taxes on property her wife left.

“Marriage has long played a fundamental role in our society,” said ACLU of Indiana Legal Director Kenneth J. Falk. “By failing to allow or recognize marriages for same-sex couples in Indiana, the state is perpetuating a discriminatory practice that cannot be squared with the Constitution.”

The ACLU suit argues Indiana Code 31-11-1-1 violates the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the 14th Amendment. The suit seeks to stop the state from enforcing this law and to allow same-sex couples to wed in Indiana as well as recognize same-sex marriages that have been performed in other states.

Also Friday, Richard A. Mann P.C. in Indianapolis filed a lawsuit in federal court on behalf of Michelle and Shannon Bowling and Linda Bruner challening the state's Defense of Marriage Act. The Bowlings, who were married in Iowa, reside and work in Indianapolis, have been denied state recognition of their lawful marriage. Linda Bruner, who was lawfully married in Iowa is also seeking recognition of her marriage here as she is seeking to obtain a divorce from her wife and has had a divorce pending since January 2013.

The ACLU challenge, Midori Fujii, et al. v. Indiana Governor, et al., 1:14-CV-00404; Michelle Bowling, Shannon Bowling and Linda Bruner v. Michael Pence, et al., 1:14-CV-0405; and the case filed a week ago by the Louisville team, Love v. Pence, 4:14-CV-00015, name Gov. Mike Pence as the defendant.

However, the Lambda suit, Baskin v. Bogan, 1:14-CV-0355, names the clerks of Boone, Porter and Lake counties along with Indiana Attorney Greg Zoeller as defendants.

In response to the first two lawsuits, Zoeller has vowed to defend Indiana’s definition of marriage as between one man and one woman.

“When plaintiffs who disagree with an Indiana statute file a challenge in court, I have a duty as Indiana’s Attorney General to defend our state and the statute the Legislature passed to the best of my skill and ability – and will here, both now and on any appeal,” Zoeller said.

Indiana has not filed an answer to any of the suits filed, but Zoeller has submitted amicus briefs in support of marriage laws in other District courts. Indiana is the lead author in a multistate amicus brief filed in the 10th Circuit in the combined case of Kitchen v. Herbert (from Utah) and Bishop v. Smith (from Oklahoma).

The 10th Circuit panel is scheduled to hear arguments in the Utah appeal April 10. This will be the first appeal to a federal court’s ruling that same-sex marriage bans are unconstitutional and could become the first federal court of appeals decision on the topic since the Supreme Court of the United States ruled on United States v. Windsor.

Besides Kentucky, Utah, and Oklahoma, same-sex marriage prohibitions have been knocked down by the federal courts in Virginia, Ohio and Texas. Also, seven couples in Arizona, represented by Lambda Legal, filed suit March 13 in federal court, challenging that state’s marriage law.

The trio of lawsuits come just weeks after proponents of same-sex marriage suffered a setback when the marriage amendment to the state Constitution, HJR 3, failed to gain enough support among Indiana lawmakers to appear on the 2014 November ballot. Legislators altered the wording of HJR 3 to remove the ban on civil unions which essentially put the amendment process back to the beginning.

“Even though we have temporarily avoided a state constitutional amendment banning marriage for same-sex couples, we cannot stand by idly while the Constitution’s guarantees of fairness and equality are denied to so many loving couples,” said Jane Henegar, ACLU of Indiana executive director.

 
 
 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité
    ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL BUT SOME ANIMALS ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS
  • Now hear this
    Attention subjects: "democracy" no longer a factor in the subject matter henceforth designated "gay rights." So ordered.

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. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT