ILNews

5 lawsuits keep marriage debate alive in Indiana

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

During the debate in the Statehouse about House Joint Resolution 3, the proposed amendment to ban same-sex marriage in the Indiana Constitution, lawmakers were told repeatedly that whether or not the Legislature passed the constitutional provision there would be lawsuits.

The Indiana General Assembly neither approved nor rejected HJR 3 as introduced – the version approved by lawmakers in 2011 – opting instead to alter the language in the amendment which sent the ratification process back to the beginning. But still the lawsuits have come. Same-sex couples began filing their challenges to Indiana’s Defense of Marriage Act just as the 2014 legislative session drew to a close.

Kentucky attorney Laura Landenwich said whether the same-sex marriage ban is a statute or a constitutional amendment does not matter. The fact is, she said, the prohibition creates two classes of people, and there is not a rational basis to create two classes.

Landenwich is a member of the legal team that filed the first suit, Love v. Pence, 4:14-CV-15.

To date, five complaints have been filed, all in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, where they have been assigned to Chief Judge Richard Young. The couples seeking to have the law overturned come from across the state with some living in metropolitan areas and others residing in very small rural enclaves.
 

marraige-15col.jpg Melody Layne (left) and her wife Tara Betterman are part of the lawsuit filed by the ACLU of Indiana seeking to overturn Indiana’s ban on same-sex marriage. (Photo submitted)

All the lawsuits primarily challenge Indiana’s DOMA as violating the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Similar suits making the same argument have been successful in knocking down same-sex marriage bans in a number of states including Kentucky, Texas, Utah and Virginia.

Ironically, the odds for success for same-sex couples in Indiana may be hampered by the lack of an amendment to the state Constitution. The states that have lost in federal court have had both statutes and constitutional amendments that defined marriage.

Indiana University Maurer School of Law professor Daniel Conkle explained the courts tend to view a constitutional amendment as the state immunizing the political process. Gays and lesbians who want to abolish a same-sex marriage ban will have a more difficult task removing language from the Constitution as compared to going through the legislative process to change a statute.

Provisions considered discriminatory that are encased in a state’s constitution seem to be more vulnerable in federal courts, Conkle said. The courts tend to find the challenged amendments violate the U.S. constitutional guarantees on the grounds that the political process has been skewered.

Conkle pointed out that while Indiana’s prohibition on same-sex marriage might have been in further jeopardy from the federal court if the amendment had been approved, the state law is still being fought with the same arguments. Proponents of same-sex marriage claim the ban violates the Constitution by discriminating against homosexuals.

By not being allowed to marry or not having their marriages performed in other states recognized, the couples bringing the lawsuits are barred from 

lawsuits-facts.jpg

the multitude of rights and privileges enjoyed by married heterosexuals, plaintiffs’ attorneys said.

Indiana has yet to file an answer to the complaints but Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller has vowed to defend the state’s marriage law.

“The mere fact that plaintiffs challenge an Indiana statute does not mean the Legislature did anything wrong when it adopted a statute years before,” Zoeller said in a statement. “Plaintiffs are exercising their right to assert their federal claims in court, just as my office is doing its duty to defend our state’s duly-enacted statutes and defend the Legislature’s authority.”

Religious beliefs

April 10 is scheduled to be the first time an overturned marriage ban goes before a federal appellate court post-Windsor, in which the Supreme Court of the United States struck down a portion of the federal Defense of Marriage Act as unconstitutional for violating the 14th Amendment.

The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals will hear arguments in Kitchen, et al. v. Herbert, et al., 13-4178, the case that overturned Utah’s prohibition on same-sex marriage.

A week later on April 17, the same court will hear Bishop, et al. v. Smith, et al., 14-5003, the successful suit against Oklahoma’s marriage law.

Indiana was the lead author of an amicus brief filed by 10 states in the 10th Circuit, supporting state laws which define marriage as between one man and one woman. The states contend procreation gives them a rational interest in “traditional marriage.” Only opposite-sex couples can procreate naturally and heterosexual marriage is the way states can ensure the parents remain together to care for and raise their children.

Both Landenwich and Richard Mann, an Indianapolis attorney representing same-sex couples in Bowling, Bowling and Bruner v. Pence, et al., 1:14-CV-0405, scoffed at that argument.

“It’s a farce,” said Landenwich, attorney at Clay Daniel Walton & Adams PLC. “If procreation was the purpose of marriage then procreation would be a requirement.”

The procreation argument is a classic defense that has been upheld by Indiana courts. In 2005, the ACLU of Indiana filed a lawsuit on behalf of same-sex couples, claiming the state’s marriage law violated the Indiana Constitution. The trial court dismissed the challenge, and the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed in Morrison v. Sadler, 821 N.E.2d 15, 35 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005).

COA Judge Michael Barnes wrote the majority opinion which held that the state’s interest in supporting opposite-sex marriage is to encourage heterosexual couples to “procreate responsibly.”

The underlying reason that flows through all the arguments defending heterosexual marriage is religion, Landenwich and Mann said. Bans on same-sex marriage are based on the religious and moral code established by Christian beliefs. They contend the Establishment Clause prohibits government from choosing one set of religious values over another.

However, Conkle countered the mere invocation of Christianity is not enough to toss the marriage ban. Legislatures can be animated by their religious values when making decisions and courts have underscored that by finding religious reasons alone do not render a statute or amendment unconstitutional.

If the courts were to overturn provisions solely because they were religiously motivated, Conkle said that would be “quite troubling.” Namely because, as the marriage debate has shown, religious beliefs can underpin liberal and conservative positions so, he said, the reasons for finding something constitutionally justifiable should extend beyond church-inspired values.

Quickly changing

Kenneth Falk, ACLU of Indiana legal director, argued Morrison before the Court of Appeals and, nine years later, is the lead attorney in the same-sex marriage suit, Fujii, et al. v. Pence, et al., 1:14-CV-404. He will be trying Fujii in a markedly different atmosphere where more of society is accepting of homosexual marriage.

“It’s amazing to see how quickly things have changed, and it’s amazing to see so many young people, regardless of political affiliation, who just don’t understand why this is a big deal at all,” he said. “It’s heartening.”

Falk expects the trend to continue. Just as people now question why states in the past banned interracial marriages, future generations will wonder why there was contention over same-sex marriage.

The pace of change has not escaped Zoeller. He believes the challenges already in the federal appeals courts will likely reach the Supreme Court of the United States well ahead of Indiana’s cases. Still, he said he will defend Indiana’s law.

“This is not personal advocacy on my part or that of the lawyers who represent the state,” Zoeller said. “Indiana courts previously have upheld Indiana’s marriage law, and the U.S. Supreme Court has previously permitted states to license marriage as between one man and one woman. My office will continue to defend the state’s authority to set the licensing for marriage until and unless the U.S. Supreme Court rules otherwise.”

To Falk, change in favor of same-sex marriage is inevitable. The decisions by the federal courts reflect the mainstream thought and if the courts do not uphold same-sex marriage, eventually legislatures will as more people with accepting attitudes get elected to public office, he said.•

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