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
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The $320,000 is the amount the school spent in litigating two lawsuits: One to release the report involving John Trimble (as noted in the story above) and one defending the discrimination lawsuit. The story above does not mention the amount spent to defend the discrimination suit, that's why the numbers don't match. Thanks for reading.

  2. $160k? Yesterday the figure was $320k. Which is it Indiana Lawyer. And even more interesting, which well connected law firm got the (I am guessing) $320k, six time was the fired chancellor received. LOL. (From yesterday's story, which I guess we were expected to forget overnight ... "According to records obtained by the Journal & Courier, Purdue spent $161,812, beginning in July 2012, in a state open records lawsuit and $168,312, beginning in April 2013, for defense in a federal lawsuit. Much of those fees were spent battling court orders to release an independent investigation by attorney John Trimble that found Purdue could have handled the forced retirement better")

  3. The numbers are harsh; 66 - 24 in the House, 40 - 10 in the Senate. And it is an idea pushed by the Democrats. Dead end? Ummm not necessarily. Just need to go big rather than go home. Nuclear option. Give it to the federal courts, the federal courts will ram this down our throats. Like that other invented right of the modern age, feticide. Rights too precious to be held up by 2000 years of civilization hang in the balance. Onward!

  4. I'm currently seeing someone who has a charge of child pornography possession, he didn't know he had it because it was attached to a music video file he downloaded when he was 19/20 yrs old and fought it for years until he couldn't handle it and plead guilty of possession. He's been convicted in Illinois and now lives in Indiana. Wouldn't it be better to give them a chance to prove to the community and their families that they pose no threat? He's so young and now because he was being a kid and downloaded music at a younger age, he has to pay for it the rest of his life? It's unfair, he can't live a normal life, and has to live in fear of what people can say and do to him because of something that happened 10 years ago? No one deserves that, and no one deserves to be labeled for one mistake, he got labeled even though there was no intent to obtain and use the said content. It makes me so sad to see someone I love go through this and it makes me holds me back a lot because I don't know how people around me will accept him...second chances should be given to those under the age of 21 at least so they can be given a chance to live a normal life as a productive member of society.

  5. It's just an ill considered remark. The Sup Ct is inherently political, as it is a core part of government, and Marbury V Madison guaranteed that it would become ever more so Supremely thus. So her remark is meaningless and she just should have not made it.... what she could have said is that Congress is a bunch of lazys and cowards who wont do their jobs so the hard work of making laws clear, oftentimes stops with the Sups sorting things out that could have been resolved by more competent legislation. That would have been a more worthwhile remark and maybe would have had some relevance to what voters do, since voters cant affect who gets appointed to the supremely un-democratic art III courts.

ADVERTISEMENT