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 Richard Young, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, 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 office 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.”


 


 

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. Paul Ogden doing a fine job of remembering his peer Gary Welsh with the post below and a call for an Indy gettogether to celebrate Gary .... http://www.ogdenonpolitics.com/2016/05/indiana-loses-citizen-journalist-giant.html Castaways of Indiana, unite!

  2. It's unfortunate that someone has attempted to hijack the comments to promote his own business. This is not an article discussing the means of preserving the record; no matter how it's accomplished, ethics and impartiality are paramount concerns. When a party to litigation contracts directly with a reporting firm, it creates, at the very least, the appearance of a conflict of interest. Court reporters, attorneys and judges are officers of the court and must abide by court rules as well as state and federal laws. Parties to litigation have no such ethical responsibilities. Would we accept insurance companies contracting with judges? This practice effectively shifts costs to the party who can least afford it while reducing costs for the party with the most resources. The success of our justice system depends on equal access for all, not just for those who have the deepest pockets.

  3. As a licensed court reporter in California, I have to say that I'm sure that at some point we will be replaced by speech recognition. However, from what I've seen of it so far, it's a lot farther away than three years. It doesn't sound like Mr. Hubbard has ever sat in a courtroom or a deposition room where testimony is being given. Not all procedures are the same, and often they become quite heated with the ends of question and beginning of answers overlapping. The human mind can discern the words to a certain extent in those cases, but I doubt very much that a computer can yet. There is also the issue of very heavy accents and mumbling. People speak very fast nowadays, and in order to do that, they generally slur everything together, they drop or swallow words like "the" and "and." Voice recognition might be able to produce some form of a transcript, but I'd be very surprised if it produces an accurate or verbatim transcript, as is required in the legal world.

  4. Really enjoyed the profile. Congratulations to Craig on living the dream, and kudos to the pros who got involved to help him realize the vision.

  5. Why in the world would someone need a person to correct a transcript when a realtime court reporter could provide them with a transcript (rough draft) immediately?

ADVERTISEMENT