ILNews

2 attorneys to argue for same-sex marriage before 7th Circuit

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

In a rare move, two attorneys will share the podium and argue before the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals that Indiana’s law defining marriage as only between one man and one woman is unconstitutional.

The federal appellate court in Chicago will hear arguments in Indiana’s and Wisconsin’s same-sex marriage cases Aug. 26. The court added the day to its calendar especially for the marriage lawsuits.

The parties in the Indiana case will start the court session at 9:30 a.m. (CDT).

Three cases from Indiana – Baskin, et al. v. Bogan, et al., brought by Lambda Legal; Fujii, et al. v. Commissioner, et al., brought by the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana; and Lee, at al. v. Abbott, et al., brought by a group of attorneys led by William Groth – were consolidated and will be presented in one argument.

Since three cases are challenging Indiana’s law, Ken Falk, legal director of the ACLU of Indiana, said splitting the arguments between different attorneys made sense. He has shared arguments in other cases but Falk admitted the practice is “relatively rare.”

Falk and Camilla Taylor, marriage project director for Lambda Legal, will argue on behalf of the Indiana same-sex couples. Taylor will be at the podium for eight minutes and Falk for 12 minutes.

Prior to their appearance at the 7th Circuit, the same-sex couples’ attorneys will be mooting the case in a videoconference.

Indiana Solicitor General Thomas Fisher, who has defended the state’s marriage law since the lawsuits were filed in March, will deliver the argument for the state.
 

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. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT