Hamilton County clerk voluntary dismissed from same-sex marriage appeal

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

One Indiana county clerk has withdrawn from the state’s fight to maintain its ban on same-sex marriage.

On July 30, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals granted a motion filed by Hamilton County Clerk Peggy Beaver asking for the voluntary dismissal of her appeal of a federal court’s decision which overturned Indiana’s marriage law. The appellate court has dismissed her as a defendant in Baskin et al. v Bogan et al., 14-2386, and Midori Fujii et al., v. Commissioner of the Indiana State Department of Revenue et al., 14-2387.  

Beaver’s motion, also filed July 30, states she has decided not to join the state’s same-sex marriage brief filed with the 7th Circuit and has no additional arguments to add to the appeal.

Calls to Beaver and her counsel, Darren Murphy, were not returned.

According to the motion, Lambda Legal, the organization which filed the Baskin lawsuit, and the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana which is representing the plaintiffs in Fujii, did not object to the clerk’s voluntary dismissal.

Also, none of the appellants, including Indiana Solicitor General Thomas Fisher, objected.

The other county clerks who are defendants added their names to the state’s appeal brief that was filed July 15 with the 7th Circuit. On July 28, the appellate court directed the Hamilton County clerk’s attorney to notify the court as to whether Beaver would remain a litigant.

Indiana attorney general spokesman Bryan Corbin said the Boone and Allen county clerks and the state of Indiana remain appellants in the Baskin case.

“The appeal will continue regardless,” Corbin said. “The state’s attorney, not the clerk’s attorney, is responsible for defending the state statute, and the ultimate deposition of the case likely would be applicable to county clerks in all 92 counties.”

Beaver stated in her motion that she is aware of her duty to follow all other orders regarding same-sex marriage issued from either the 7th Circuit or the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana.

Henry Greene, a plaintiff in the Baskin lawsuit, was not surprised by Beaver’s decision. Before the challenge was filed, Greene and his partner applied for a marriage license in Hamilton County. They both met Beaver and from their conversation, Greene said he got the impression she supported the freedom to marry.  

“We’re happy,” Greene said. “We hope that it sends a message to the attorney general and others who continue to appeal that there are many people who are on our side and who understand.”



Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I think the cops are doing a great job locking up criminals. The Murder rates in the inner cities are skyrocketing and you think that too any people are being incarcerated. Maybe we need to lock up more of them. We have the ACLU, BLM, NAACP, Civil right Division of the DOJ, the innocent Project etc. We have court system with an appeal process that can go on for years, with attorneys supplied by the government. I'm confused as to how that translates into the idea that the defendants are not being represented properly. Maybe the attorneys need to do more Pro-Bono work

  2. We do not have 10% of our population (which would mean about 32 million) incarcerated. It's closer to 2%.

  3. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  4. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  5. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.