ILNews

7th Circuit grants motion recognizing marriage of same-sex couple in Indiana

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has issued an order compelling the state of Indiana to recognize the marriage of one same-sex couple.

Lambda Legal filed a motion on June 30 for an emergency stay to require Indiana to recognize the marriage of Niki Quasney and Amy Sandler. The motion asked the Circuit Court to lift for this one couple only a June 27 order that stayed the decision by a federal court which overturned Indiana’s ban on same-sex marriage.

The Indiana attorney general’s office had filed a response to the motion, arguing the marriage should not be legalized because Indiana law did not allow for hardship exceptions.

Quasney is terminally ill and has been pushing for Indiana to recognize her marriage so Sandler is considered her legal spouse, making her entitled to all of Quasney’s benefits. The U.S. District Court issued an order in May compelling the state to recognize their marriage. When the 7th Circuit issued a stay June 27 in Baskin v. Bogan, their marriage was no longer recognized.

The 7th Circuit issued an order Tuesday that the state recognize the marriage of Quasney and Sandler on an emergency basis.

Lamdba Legal, again, declared victory.  

“It is time for the State of Indiana to leave Niki and Amy in peace and not subject them and their marriage to any more stress and uncertainty as this case proceeds,” said Lambda Legal attorney Paul Castillo. “We’re thrilled that the court ruled in favor of this family as Niki battles stage four ovarian cancer.”



 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • should they move out of State anyway?
    One of them is dying of cancer and probably should move to Colorado anyway to use canabis oil in an attempt to destroy the cancer. Check out Rick Simpson oil website for more information.

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. I'm not sure what's more depressing: the fact that people would pay $35,000 per year to attend an unaccredited law school, or the fact that the same people "are hanging in there and willing to follow the dean’s lead in going forward" after the same school fails to gain accreditation, rendering their $70,000 and counting education worthless. Maybe it's a good thing these people can't sit for the bar.

  2. Such is not uncommon on law school startups. Students and faculty should tap Bruce Green, city attorney of Lufkin, Texas. He led a group of studnets and faculty and sued the ABA as a law student. He knows the ropes, has advised other law school startups. Very astute and principled attorney of unpopular clients, at least in his past, before Lufkin tapped him to run their show.

  3. Not that having the appellate records on Odyssey won't be welcome or useful, but I would rather they first bring in the stray counties that aren't yet connected on the trial court level.

  4. Aristotle said 350 bc: "The most hated sort, and with the greatest reason, is usury, which makes a gain out of money itself, and not from the natural object of it. For money was intended to be used in exchange, but not to increase at interest. And this term interest, which means the birth of money from money, is applied to the breeding of money because the offspring resembles the parent. Wherefore of an modes of getting wealth this is the most unnatural.

  5. Oh yes, lifetime tenure. The Founders gave that to the federal judges .... at that time no federal district courts existed .... so we are talking the Supreme Court justices only in context ....so that they could rule against traditional marriage and for the other pet projects of the sixties generation. Right. Hmmmm, but I must admit, there is something from that time frame that seems to recommend itself in this context ..... on yes, from a document the Founders penned in 1776: " He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good."

ADVERTISEMENT