ILNews

Same-sex couples ask Social Security Administration to recognize their Indiana marriage

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A pair of Indiana same-sex couples who were married in June have asked the U.S. Social Security Administration to recognize their marriages.

The two couples –  Alice Hoenigman and Brittany Jones and Kendrel Cooper and Justin Bretz – were among the many who married in late June after Indiana’s marriage statute was ruled unconstitutional. The marriages stopped when the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals issued a stay.

Since then, both Hoenigman and Cooper filed papers in Marion County to change their last names to that of their respective spouses. However, both were told their requests were being put into a holding file until the state received guidance from the Social Security Administration.

In a letter, their attorney, Richard Mann, charged the refusal to allow Hoenigman and Cooper to take the surnames of their spouses interferes with their right to identify with their spouse.   

“Our clients’ marriages are worthy of federal recognition and they should not be forced to incur the cost and time in filing separate civil actions in order to effectuate their name change as it unjustly labels their marriage as second-tier,” Mann wrote. “Their spouses’ surnames can be derived from those names shown on their marriage certificates and like any opposite-sex marriage certificate should be considered acceptable evidence of their new name.”

The letter stated the Social Security Administration has a duty to process the name change of same-sex couples who were married in Indiana before the stay was issued. Mann asked, on behalf of his clients, that the administration issue a statement that it will recognize marriage records of same-sex couples from Indiana as well as other states.

Dated July 25, 2014, the letter was addressed to Carolyn Colvin, acting commissioner of the Social Security Administration, Marcia Mosely, regional commissioner for the Chicago Region of the Social Security Administration and the Indianapolis field office of the Social Security Administration.

Indianapolis-based Mann is the lead attorney in Bowling et al. v. Pence et al., 1:14-cv-0405, the same-sex marriage case that is still pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana.      
 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Same issue today
    I had the same issue occur today at my local social security office. They said they had no direction on this and it would be placed in a hold file. I don't know what steps to take at this point. My partner and I were legally married prior to the stay going into effect. Was there any resolution on this matter?

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. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. 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.

  4. 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?

  5. 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

ADVERTISEMENT