ILNews

Marriage ruling brings Indiana same-sex couples to the courthouse

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Together more than eight years, Craig Bowen and Jake Miller finally got to say “I do.”

The men made history June 25 when they became the first legally wed same-sex couple in Marion County. The pair went to the Marion County Clerk of the Court’s office shortly after a federal judge ruled the state’s ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional.

“Hopefully (we’re) the first of many,” Bowen said, as a line for marriage licenses formed in the clerk’s office at the City-County Building in downtown Indianapolis.

Chief Judge Richard Young of theU.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana  issued his ruling Wednesday morning in four of the five challenges to Indiana’s marriage law. The chief judge agreed with the plaintiffs that the state’s law prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying violated the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment.

Young noted his decision is part of a historic change sweeping through the federal court system. U.S. District Courts are coming to the same conclusion that state laws banning same-sex marriage violate the U.S. Constitution.

“It is clear that the fundamental right to marry shall not be deprived to some individuals based solely on the person they choose to love,” Young wrote in the ruling.

“In time, Americans will look at the marriage of couples such as Plaintiffs, and refer to it simply as marriage – not as same-sex marriage.

Young granted summary judgment in part for the plaintiffs in Lee, et al. v. Pence, et al., 1:14-cv-00406;  Fujii et al. v. Pence, et al., 1:14-cv-00404; and Baskin, et al. v. Bogan, et al., 1:14-cv-0405.

“These couples, when gender and sexual orientation are taken away, are in all respects like the family down street,” Young concluded. “The Constitution demands we treat them as such.”

He granted the state’s motion to dismiss the first lawsuit filed, Love, et al. v. Pence, 4:14-cv-00015, finding Indiana Gov. Mike Pence is not the proper defendant since his office does not directly issue marriage licenses or administer the marriage statute. The remaining lawsuit, Bowling, Bowling and Bruner v. Pence, et al., 1:14-cv-0405, was not included in the order.

Karen Celestino-Horseman, an attorney on the legal team for Lee, et al. v. Pence, et. al., 1:14-cv-00406, had just finished a deposition when a client called with the news.

"Am I happy? Oh, I am ecstatic,” Celestino-Horseman said.

The reaction was the same at the headquarters for the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana. The organization had filed Fujii, et al. v. Pence, et al., on behalf of several same-sex couples and their children.

“We’re ecstatic,” said Ken Falk, legal director of the ACLU of Indiana. “We’re very pleased the judge has issued the decision and glad Indiana is in the same position as all other states” that have struck down bans on same-sex marriage.

The gay rights organization Lambda Legal also hailed the decision, saying Young recognized that same-sex families across the state “suffer significant harm when they are wrongly denied the freedom to marry” the person they love.

Lambda Legal represented the plaintiffs in Baskin, et al.  v. Bogan, et al. The case accelerated the challenges to Indiana’s marriage law when Lambda Legal filed a motion for immediate relief on behalf of Nicki Quasney and her spouse, Amy Sandler. Quasney has terminal cancer and asked the court to order the state to recognize their Massachusetts marriage before she died.

Sandler said Young’s decision made June 25 an “awesome day” for Indiana.

Less than an hour after Young issued his ruling, Marion County Clerk Beth White announced her staff was trained and ready to begin offering marriage licenses to same-sex couples in Marion County. She also offered to conduct short civil ceremonies on a first-come, first served basis. White announced that her office would remain open until 8 p.m. Wednesday and will process marriage license applications for anyone in line by that time.

In just a few hours Wednesday, the Marion County Clerk's Office processed nearly 50 applications and conducted 31 civil ceremonies.

Other county clerks appeared uncertain what to do. Clerks in Tippecanoe and Knox counties were reported to have been refusing to issue marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples.

The Indiana attorney general’s office said it would be filing an appeal with the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals as well as a motion to stay Young’s ruling pending appeal.

“Today’s ruling still is being studied and the Attorney General’s Office soon will advise county clerks who issue marriage licenses who were defendants – the State Department of Health, the Department of Revenue and the Indiana Public Retirement System – on what changes in procedure Chief Judge Young’s decision imposes upon them during the appeal,” said Bryan Corbin, spokesman for the Indiana attorney general.

The ruling from Indiana came on the same day as the first same-sex marriage ruling from an appellate court. The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed that Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage violates the 14th Amendment.

Indiana Senate President Pro Tem David Long said he hoped the federal court would respect the marriage law in Indiana and other states by granting a stay to Young’s ruling. He also said the Supreme Court of the United States must issue a ruling to end the current chaos surrounding marriage laws.

“Either the U.S. Constitution protects traditional marriage or it doesn’t,” Long, R-Fort Wayne, said. “If it does, it is likely that the Court will leave the decision on traditional marriage to each state to decide for itself.”

Long, describing himself as a strong proponent of states’ rights, said he believes the definition of marriage should be left to the states.

Indiana House Democratic Leader Scott Pelath called for an end to the debate on marriage. He called the debate on “matters that should be left to personal choice” unnecessary, and he said judges and legislatures across the country were deciding they should not be involved with the issue of marriage.  

“In Indiana, we need to take heed of this change,” the Michigan City Democrat said. “We need to stop this debate now. It is pointless to continue.”

 

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. Applause, applause, applause ..... but, is this duty to serve the constitutional order not much more incumbent upon the State, whose only aim is to be pure and unadulterated justice, than defense counsel, who is also charged with gaining a result for a client? I agree both are responsible, but it seems to me that the government attorneys bear a burden much heavier than defense counsel .... "“I note, much as we did in Mechling v. State, 16 N.E.3d 1015 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans. denied, that the attorneys representing the State and the defendant are both officers of the court and have a responsibility to correct any obvious errors at the time they are committed."

  2. Do I have to hire an attorney to get co-guardianship of my brother? My father has guardianship and my older sister was his co-guardian until this Dec 2014 when she passed and my father was me to go on as the co-guardian, but funds are limit and we need to get this process taken care of quickly as our fathers health isn't the greatest. So please advise me if there is anyway to do this our self or if it requires a lawyer? Thank you

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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)

ADVERTISEMENT