ILNews

AG offers county clerks guidance on same-sex marriage questions

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller’s office issued a memo to county clerks July 1 attempting to clear the confusion lingering from the several days when same-sex marriage was legal in Indiana.

Careful to qualify its memo as “guidance” rather than “private legal advice,” the attorney general again reiterated that the validity of the same-sex marriages solemnized between June 25 and 27 remains undetermined and likely an issue a court will have to decide.

However, the attorney general did recommend that clerks and judges no longer marry any gay or lesbian couples until a conclusive ruling is issued on the appeal. For marriage licenses which were obtained during the two-day window but not returned until after the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals granted the stay, clerks should respect the Circuit Court order and no longer process or record the solemnized same-sex marriage certificates.

In addition, the attorney general said clerks and judges who perform a same-sex marriage ceremony while the stay is in place could face charges for a Class C infraction or a Class B misdemeanor. Penalties are a fine up to $500 for the former offense and up to 80 days in jail plus a possible fine up to $1,000 for the latter offense.

The attorney general’s office is also recommending county clerks consult with their county attorneys, said Bryan Corbin, spokesman for the Indiana attorney general. The guidance, Corbin continued, is not an “official legal opinion of the Attorney General’s Office” but is intended to assist clerks as they navigate unfamiliar legal terrain.

County clerks across Indiana fielded many requests for marriage licenses from same-sex couples after a federal judge ruled Indiana’s marriage law violated the U.S. Constitution. Richard Young, chief judge with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, issued his decision June 25.

The attorney general immediately filed a motion to stay the injunction pending appeal, but when District Court did not rule, the state filed another motion to stay with the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals on June 27. The Circuit Court granted the motion two hours later.

On June 30, attorneys representing Niki Quasney and Amy Sandler filed an emergency motion with the 7th Circuit to lift the stay in part. The northern Indiana couple who is struggling with the terminal illness of Quasney had their motion for relief which required the state recognize their marriage granted in May.

Attorneys from Lambda Legal who represent the couple as part of Baskin v. Bogan, argue the emergency motion should be granted because Quasney may not live to see the conclusion of the state’s appeal.

The Indiana attorney general met the 7th Circuit’s deadline of noon July 1 to file its response to Lambda Legal’s motion. The state advocated for the stay to include Quasney and Sandler because the law provided no hardship exceptions.  


 

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. Actually, and most strikingly, the ruling failed to address the central issue to the whole case: Namely, Black Knight/LPS, who was NEVER a party to the State court litigation, and who is under a 2013 consent judgment in Indiana (where it has stipulated to the forgery of loan documents, the ones specifically at issue in my case)never disclosed itself in State court or remediated the forged loan documents as was REQUIRED of them by the CJ. In essence, what the court is willfully ignoring, is that it is setting a precedent that the supplier of a defective product, one whom is under a consent judgment stipulating to such, and under obligation to remediate said defective product, can: 1.) Ignore the CJ 2.) Allow counsel to commit fraud on the state court 3.) Then try to hide behind Rooker Feldman doctrine as a bar to being held culpable in federal court. The problem here is the court is in direct conflict with its own ruling(s) in Johnson v. Pushpin Holdings & Iqbal- 780 F.3d 728, at 730 “What Johnson adds - what the defendants in this suit have failed to appreciate—is that federal courts retain jurisdiction to award damages for fraud that imposes extrajudicial injury. The Supreme Court drew that very line in Exxon Mobil ... Iqbal alleges that the defendants conducted a racketeering enterprise that predates the state court’s judgments ...but Exxon Mobil shows that the Rooker Feldman doctrine asks what injury the plaintiff asks the federal court to redress, not whether the injury is “intertwined” with something else …Because Iqbal seeks damages for activity that (he alleges) predates the state litigation and caused injury independently of it, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not block this suit. It must be reinstated.” So, as I already noted to others, I now have the chance to bring my case to SCOTUS; the ruling by Wood & Posner is flawed on numerous levels,BUT most troubling is the fact that the authors KNOW it's a flawed ruling and choose to ignore the flaws for one simple reason: The courts have decided to agree with former AG Eric Holder that national banks "Are too big to fail" and must win at any cost-even that of due process, case precedent, & the truth....Let's see if SCOTUS wants a bite at the apple.

  2. I am in NJ & just found out that there is a judgment against me in an action by Driver's Solutions LLC in IN. I was never served with any Court pleadings, etc. and the only thing that I can find out is that they were using an old Staten Island NY address for me. I have been in NJ for over 20 years and cannot get any response from Drivers Solutions in IN. They have a different lawyer now. I need to get this vacated or stopped - it is now almost double & at 18%. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you.

  3. I am in NJ & just found out that there is a judgment against me in an action by Driver's Solutions LLC in IN. I was never served with any Court pleadings, etc. and the only thing that I can find out is that they were using an old Staten Island NY address for me. I have been in NJ for over 20 years and cannot get any response from Drivers Solutions in IN. They have a different lawyer now. I need to get this vacated or stopped - it is now almost double & at 18%. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you.

  4. Please I need help with my class action lawsuits, im currently in pro-se and im having hard time findiNG A LAWYER TO ASSIST ME

  5. Access to the court (judiciary branch of government) is the REAL problem, NOT necessarily lack of access to an attorney. Unfortunately, I've lived in a legal and financial hell for the past six years due to a divorce (where I was, supposedly, represented by an attorney) in which I was defrauded of settlement and the other party (and helpers) enriched through the fraud. When I attempted to introduce evidence and testify (pro se) in a foreclosure/eviction, I was silenced (apparently on procedural grounds, as research I've done since indicates). I was thrown out of a residence which was to be sold, by a judge who refused to allow me to speak in (the supposedly "informal") small claims court where the eviction proceeding (by ex-brother-in-law) was held. Six years and I can't even get back on solid or stable ground ... having bank account seized twice, unlawfully ... and now, for the past year, being dragged into court - again, contrary to law and appellate decisions - by former attorney, who is trying to force payment from exempt funds. Friday will mark fifth appearance. Hopefully, I'll be allowed to speak. The situation I find myself in shouldn't even be possible, much less dragging out with no end in sight, for years. I've done nothing wrong, but am watching a lot of wrong being accomplished under court jurisdiction; only because I was married to someone who wanted and was granted a divorce (but was not willing to assume the responsibilities that come with granting the divorce). In fact, the recalcitrant party was enriched by well over $100k, although it was necessarily split with other actors. Pro bono help? It's a nice dream ... but that's all it is, for too many. Meanwhile, injustice marches on.

ADVERTISEMENT