ILNews

Same-sex couple facing terminal illness files emergency motion with 7th Circuit

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The couple who won an initial battle to have their same-sex marriage recognized – a case that foreshadowed the overturning of Indiana’s marriage law last week – is now fighting the emergency stay granted June 27 by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Lambda Legal, a national gay-rights organization, has filed an emergency motion with the 7th Circuit to keep in place an earlier order that recognized the marriage of Indiana residents Niki Quasney and Amy Sandler. This couple turned to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana for an emergency order in April because Quasney is terminally ill and wanted to be able to list Sandler as her spouse on a future death certificate.

The 7th Circuit’s order issued late last week, staying the June 25 ruling by the U.S. District Court that found Indiana’s marriage law unconstitutional, included preventing the state from recognizing Quasney and Sandler’s Massachusetts marriage.

Camilla Taylor, marriage project director for Lambda Legal, is asking Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller to not oppose this motion.

“This is one family in all of Indiana that is undergoing tremendous stress while they courageously fight Ms. Quasney’s stage four ovarian cancer,” Taylor said in a press release. “Their marriage doesn’t harm anyone in Indiana, it simply protects them and their children.”

Lamba Legal filed Baskin v. Bogan, 1:140-cv-0355 in March which was one of five challenges to Indiana’ ban on same-sex marriage. The organization later filed a motion seeking immediate relief for Quasney, Sandler and their two children because of Quasney’s serious health situation.

The state filed a motion to stay the recognition of Quasney and Sandler’s marriage, but Young never issued a ruling.

Meanwhile, other same-sex couples are wondering about the current status of their marriages. After Young struck down Indiana’s marriage law June 25, many gays and lesbians raced to their county clerks’ offices to get married, but the stay issued by the 7th Circuit has put those marriages in legal limbo.

“Our position is these are valid marriages,” said Ken Falk, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana. “It would be unprecedented for the state to take the position that even though these marriages were valid at the time they were entered into, they are no longer valid.”

Paul Castillo, Lambda Legal attorney, echoed Falk in saying the marriages performed during the window between Young’s decision and the 7th Circuit stay were still valid.

However, Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller’s Office said the question of validity has not been determined and might have to be decided by a court at a later time.

Castillo said the validity question has been answered in federal court. After a stay was granted in the ruling that found Utah’s marriage law violated the U.S. Constitution, the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah ruled in the separate case of Evans v. Utah that vows exchanged during the window in the beehive state were still valid.

Utah has filed a motion to stay that decision.

Despite questions at the state level, Indiana same-sex couples who were married after Young’s decision may get recognition from the federal government. Castillo pointed out when a marriage law has been overturned in other states, the U.S. government has considered those marriages as valid even while a stay is in place.  

 

 

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. @BryanJBrown, You are totally correct. I have no words, you nailed it.....

  2. You have not overstated the reality of the present situation. The government inquisitor in my case, who demanded that I, on the record, to choose between obedience to God's law or man's law, remains on the BLE, even an officer of the BLE, and was recently renewed in her contract for another four years. She has a long history in advancing LGBQT rights. http://www.realjock.com/article/1071 THINK WITH ME: What if a currently serving BLE officer or analogous court official (ie discplinary officer) asked an atheist to affirm the Existence, or demanded a transsexual to undergo a mental evaluation to probe his/her alleged mindcrime? That would end a career. The double standard is glaring, see the troubling question used to ban me for life from the Ind bar right here: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners (see page 8 of 21) Again, what if I had been a homosexual rights activist before law school rather than a prolife activist? A gay rights activist after law school admitted to the SCOTUS and Kansas since 1996, without discipline? A homosexual rights activist who had argued before half the federal appellate courts in the country? I am pretty certain that had I been that LGBQT activist, and not a pro-life activist, my passing of the Indiana bar exam would have rendered me an Indiana attorney .... rather than forever banished. So yes, there is a glaring double standard. And some are even beyond the reach of constitutional and statutory protections. I was.

  3. Historically speaking pagans devalue children and worship animals. How close are we? Consider the ruling above plus today's tidbit from the politically correct high Court: http://indianacourts.us/times/2016/12/are-you-asking-the-right-questions-intimate-partner-violence-and-pet-abuse/

  4. The father is a convicted of spousal abuse. 2 restaining orders been put on him, never made any difference the whole time she was there. The time he choked the mother she dropped the baby the police were called. That was the only time he was taken away. The mother was suppose to have been notified when he was released no call was ever made. He made his way back, kicked the door open and terrified the mother. She ran down the hallway and locked herself and the baby in the bathroom called 911. The police came and said there was nothing they could do (the policeman was a old friend from highschool, good ole boy thing).They told her he could burn the place down as long as she wasn't in it.The mother got another resataining order, the judge told her if you were my daughter I would tell you to leave. So she did. He told her "If you ever leave me I will make your life hell, you don't know who your f!@#$%^ with". The fathers other 2 grown children from his 1st exwife havent spoke 1 word to him in almost 15yrs not 1 word.This is what will be a forsure nightmare for this little girl who is in the hands of pillar of the community. Totally corrupt system. Where I come from I would be in jail not only for that but non payment of child support. Unbelievably pitiful...

  5. dsm 5 indicates that a lot of kids with gender dysphoria grow out of it. so is it really a good idea to encourage gender reassignment? Perhaps that should wait for the age of majority. I don't question the compassionate motives of many of the trans-advocates, but I do question their wisdom. Likewise, they should not question the compassion of those whose potty policies differ. too often, any opposition to the official GLBT agenda is instantly denounced as "homophobia" etc.

ADVERTISEMENT