ILNews

Indiana attorney general appeals marriage ruling

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Office of the Indiana Attorney General is fighting Wednesday’s decision that overturned the state’s marriage law.

Chief Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana Richard Young issued a ruling that Indiana’s law prohibiting marriage violated the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment. Shortly after the decision was rendered, Attorney General Greg Zoeller indicated his office would appeal.

Late Wednesday, the attorney general’s office announced it had filed an emergency motion for stay in the U.S. District Court pending appeal. The motion asked Young to postpone the implementation of his order.

“The motion for stay is intended to prevent confusion and inconsistency between county clerk’s offices regarding license issuance, while the appeal is pending,” said Bryan Corbin, spokesman for the AG’s office.

The U.S. District Court has not ruled yet on the state’s motion to stay.

In addition, the AG’s office, along with Boone and Hamilton county clerks, filed a notice of appeal formally notifying the U.S. District Court that the defendants will appeal Young’s order to the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Once Young issued his ruling, county clerk’s offices around the state began fielding requests from same-sex couples for marriage licenses. Some clerk’s issued the licenses but others did not, saying they were awaiting guidance from the attorney general.

According to Corbin, the AG’s office advised the five county clerks named in lawsuits (Hamilton, Allen, Boone, Porter and Lake) that they must comply with the U.S. District Court’s ruling or they would be subject to contempt of court.

“Other county clerks in the remaining counties are not under direct jurisdiction of the order,” Corbin said, “but as an officer of the court, the Attorney General’s Office must encourage everyone to show respect for the judge and the orders that are issued.”

As of 6 p.m., the Marion County Clerk’s Office had processed almost 90 marriage license applications and conducted 63 wedding ceremonies. The office extended its hours June 25 to 8 p.m.




 

 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Another Wrong Use of State Resources
    Another wrong use of State resources is the Clerk's office staying open until 8:00 pm, when it usually closes at 4:30! Employee overtime, building security, etc. Cha-ching!
  • Wrong Use of State Resources
    It is truly unfortunate that the Attorney General of Indiana is using state resources to appeal this ruling. It certainly looks like the AG is using state resources in pursuit of a political objective. Wrong use of state resources.

    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. 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.

    2. 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?

    3. 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

    4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

    5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

    ADVERTISEMENT