ILNews

Bars discussing marriage amendment, but cautious about taking a stance

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Among the nearly 13,000 members of the Indiana State Bar Association, views on the proposed marriage amendment are falling into three separate camps: those who think the association should publicly support it, those who think the association should publicly oppose it and those who think the association should refrain from taking a position at all.

The specter of a bar association taking a public stance on such a charged political issue was increased Monday when the Indianapolis Bar Association announced its opposition to the proposed amendment banning same-sex marriage.

Following a survey of its members and internal discussions, the Indy Bar took a position against the amendment, HJR 3 and the companion legislation, House Bill 1153.

Whether any other bar association in Indiana will make a public statement on the amendment is unknown. However, a sampling of some associations around the state found a reluctance to speak out on social issues such as this.

“There are significant issues that this raises – political, religious, economic and public policy issues in addition to legal issues,” state bar president Jim Dimos said of the marriage amendment. “It’s hard to strike the right balance for representing and serving all the members of the association.”

The state bar has not turned a blind eye to the matter. Last year, two existing committees examined the amendment. One committee reached the conclusion that the association should oppose the measure while the other committee advocated against the bar taking any stance.

Instead of submitting competing resolutions during the October 2013 House of Delegates meeting, both committees decided to withdraw their respective proposals.

Since then, the ISBA has appointed a special committee, chaired by Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law professor Joel Schumm, which is tasked with monitoring HJR 3 as it moves through the Statehouse this session.

“Much like the fact that the Indianapolis Chamber of Commerce took a position on HJR 3 while the Indiana Chamber of Commerce did not, the IBA and the ISBA have different constituencies and both organizations need to serve their members as the respective boards see fit,” Dimos said.

The state bar president added he has a “tremendous amount of respect” for the Indy Bar and he is sure the board of managers gave the matter considerable thought and reached the decision that it believes was in the best interests of the membership.

Since the Indianapolis Bar made its announcement, Scott Wylie, president of the Evansville Bar Association, has received some phone calls from local attorneys, asking if the association was going to take a position.

Like the state bar committees, Wylie said EBA members have expressed two primary views: vigorously oppose the amendment or do not to get involved.

Among those opposed to the amendment, he has been hearing a nuanced position. Some members are against the proposal because they have doubts about enshrining legislation into the state constitution. They see putting a ban on same-sex marriage in the constitution as similar to moving punishment for a gun crime or methamphetamine offense into the state’s founding document.  

Traditionally, Wylie said, the Evansville bar does not get involved in political issues. He compared the association’s level of discretion on highly political matters to that of a family who chooses not to discuss certain topics over Thanksgiving dinner.
 
Given the very collegial nature of the association, Wylie emphasized he wants to be cautious and thoughtful. Before taking any position as an association, he said, as the bar president he would want to engage the members, perhaps through a survey like the Indy Bar conducted, to get their feelings and views.  

“I applaud the Indianapolis Bar, as a membership organization, for investing the resources they invested to engage their members,” Wylie said.

The EBA plans to discuss the marriage amendment at its monthly meeting Feb. 13. Also, the family law section has been asked to examine the amendment to determine how the proposal would potentially impact certain statutes.

Social issues are something the Allen County Bar Association also has traditionally not taken positions on, according to the bar’s president, Allen Superior Court Judge David Avery.

“To keep the collegiality in the bar, you just don’t need issues like that that bring out the difference in the individuals,” he said.

The Allen County bar’s board of directors has not been discussing the marriage issue nor have any members pushed the association to take a stance, Avery said.

“Personally, I don’t see it as the bar’s place,” Avery said. He noted he was speaking about the Allen County bar and did not have a problem with other bar associations taking a position on the amendment.
 

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. Applause, applause, applause ..... but, is this duty to serve the constitutional order not much more incumbent upon the State, whose only aim is to be pure and unadulterated justice, than defense counsel, who is also charged with gaining a result for a client? I agree both are responsible, but it seems to me that the government attorneys bear a burden much heavier than defense counsel .... "“I note, much as we did in Mechling v. State, 16 N.E.3d 1015 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans. denied, that the attorneys representing the State and the defendant are both officers of the court and have a responsibility to correct any obvious errors at the time they are committed."

  2. Do I have to hire an attorney to get co-guardianship of my brother? My father has guardianship and my older sister was his co-guardian until this Dec 2014 when she passed and my father was me to go on as the co-guardian, but funds are limit and we need to get this process taken care of quickly as our fathers health isn't the greatest. So please advise me if there is anyway to do this our self or if it requires a lawyer? Thank you

  3. I have been on this program while on parole from 2011-2013. No person should be forced mentally to share private details of their personal life with total strangers. Also giving permission for a mental therapist to report to your parole agent that your not participating in group therapy because you don't have the financial mean to be in the group therapy. I was personally singled out and sent back three times for not having money and also sent back within the six month when you aren't to be sent according to state law. I will work to het this INSOMM's removed from this state. I also had twelve or thirteen parole agents with a fifteen month period. Thanks for your time.

  4. Our nation produces very few jurists of the caliber of Justice DOUGLAS and his peers these days. Here is that great civil libertarian, who recognized government as both a blessing and, when corrupted by ideological interests, a curse: "Once the investigator has only the conscience of government as a guide, the conscience can become ‘ravenous,’ as Cromwell, bent on destroying Thomas More, said in Bolt, A Man For All Seasons (1960), p. 120. The First Amendment mirrors many episodes where men, harried and harassed by government, sought refuge in their conscience, as these lines of Thomas More show: ‘MORE: And when we stand before God, and you are sent to Paradise for doing according to your conscience, *575 and I am damned for not doing according to mine, will you come with me, for fellowship? ‘CRANMER: So those of us whose names are there are damned, Sir Thomas? ‘MORE: I don't know, Your Grace. I have no window to look into another man's conscience. I condemn no one. ‘CRANMER: Then the matter is capable of question? ‘MORE: Certainly. ‘CRANMER: But that you owe obedience to your King is not capable of question. So weigh a doubt against a certainty—and sign. ‘MORE: Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat; it is a matter capable of question. But if it is flat, will the King's command make it round? And if it is round, will the King's command flatten it? No, I will not sign.’ Id., pp. 132—133. DOUGLAS THEN WROTE: Where government is the Big Brother,11 privacy gives way to surveillance. **909 But our commitment is otherwise. *576 By the First Amendment we have staked our security on freedom to promote a multiplicity of ideas, to associate at will with kindred spirits, and to defy governmental intrusion into these precincts" Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Comm., 372 U.S. 539, 574-76, 83 S. Ct. 889, 908-09, 9 L. Ed. 2d 929 (1963) Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, concurring. I write: Happy Memorial Day to all -- God please bless our fallen who lived and died to preserve constitutional governance in our wonderful series of Republics. And God open the eyes of those government officials who denounce the constitutions of these Republics by arbitrary actions arising out capricious motives.

  5. From back in the day before secularism got a stranglehold on Hoosier jurists comes this great excerpt via Indiana federal court judge Allan Sharp, dedicated to those many Indiana government attorneys (with whom I have dealt) who count the law as a mere tool, an optional tool that is not to be used when political correctness compels a more acceptable result than merely following the path that the law directs: ALLEN SHARP, District Judge. I. In a scene following a visit by Henry VIII to the home of Sir Thomas More, playwriter Robert Bolt puts the following words into the mouths of his characters: Margaret: Father, that man's bad. MORE: There is no law against that. ROPER: There is! God's law! MORE: Then God can arrest him. ROPER: Sophistication upon sophistication! MORE: No, sheer simplicity. The law, Roper, the law. I know what's legal not what's right. And I'll stick to what's legal. ROPER: Then you set man's law above God's! MORE: No, far below; but let me draw your attention to a fact I'm not God. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain sailing, I can't navigate. I'm no voyager. But in the thickets of law, oh, there I'm a forester. I doubt if there's a man alive who could follow me there, thank God... ALICE: (Exasperated, pointing after Rich) While you talk, he's gone! MORE: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law! ROPER: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law! MORE: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? ROPER: I'd cut down every law in England to do that! MORE: (Roused and excited) Oh? (Advances on Roper) And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you where would you hide, Roper, the laws being flat? (He leaves *1257 him) This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast man's laws, not God's and if you cut them down and you're just the man to do it d'you really think you would stand upright in the winds that would blow then? (Quietly) Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake. ROPER: I have long suspected this; this is the golden calf; the law's your god. MORE: (Wearily) Oh, Roper, you're a fool, God's my god... (Rather bitterly) But I find him rather too (Very bitterly) subtle... I don't know where he is nor what he wants. ROPER: My God wants service, to the end and unremitting; nothing else! MORE: (Dryly) Are you sure that's God! He sounds like Moloch. But indeed it may be God And whoever hunts for me, Roper, God or Devil, will find me hiding in the thickets of the law! And I'll hide my daughter with me! Not hoist her up the mainmast of your seagoing principles! They put about too nimbly! (Exit More. They all look after him). Pgs. 65-67, A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS A Play in Two Acts, Robert Bolt, Random House, New York, 1960. Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen. of Indiana, Indianapolis, for defendants. Childs v. Duckworth, 509 F. Supp. 1254, 1256 (N.D. Ind. 1981) aff'd, 705 F.2d 915 (7th Cir. 1983)

ADVERTISEMENT