ILNews

Couples rush to marry after ruling makes same-sex marriage legal in Indiana

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

legal-limbofact.jpgWe remember history by the photographs.

Whether the event is a heartbreaking tragedy or joyous celebration, we capture the images before us with our cameras. Those who were not there can look at the pictures and see the faces, feel the emotions, and get a sense of what the moment was like.

The pictures taken June 25 inside county clerks’ offices and outside courthouses show happy twosomes holding hands, exchanging vows, and hugging friends and family.

Cellphones and digital cameras saved the memories from those weddings with pictures that were rather ordinary in content but remarkable in meaning. The images depict the day when same-sex couples could legally marry in Indiana.
 

aclu-15col.jpg Steven Stoler, (L) and his partner Rob MacPherson, address the media June 25 after a judge threw out the state’s ban on same-sex marriage. (IL Photo/Eric Learned)

Craig Bowen and Jake Miller gleefully let everyone take their photo as they became the first gay couple in Marion County to wed. The pictures of the floppy-haired, bearded pair getting married and signing the marriage license are the images that history will keep.

“Hopefully (we’re) the first of many,” Bowen

said as he and his partner waited in line at the Marion County Clerk’s Office in Indianapolis.

The race to the courthouse began for many couples shortly after Richard Young, chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, issued a ruling that declared Indiana’s ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional and permanently enjoined the state defendants from enforcing the laws barring same-sex marriage.

Young issued the ruling in three of the five lawsuits – Lee, et al. v. Pence, et al., 1:14-CV-00406; Fujii, et al. v. Pence, et al., 1:14-CV-00404; and Baskin, et al. v. Bogan, et al., 1:14-CV-0405 – filed since March against the state’s statute that defines marriage as only between one man and one woman. He found the law violates the 14th Amendment’s due process and equal protection clauses.


countyclerkoffice3-15col.jpg Many couples raced to clerk’s offices after the ruling, including Mindy, (L) Lacie and Harvey Little (IL Photo/ Eric Learned)

“It is clear,” Young wrote, “that the fundamental right to marry shall not be deprived to some individuals based solely on the person they choose to love.”

He dismissed the fourth lawsuit, Love, et al. v. Pence, 4:14-CV-00015. Young agreed with the state that Gov. Mike Pence, the only defendant named, could not redress the plaintiffs’ injuries.

News of the ruling traveled through phone calls, emails and text messages. And soon the phones began ringing at county clerks’ offices with inquiries as to whether they were issuing marriage licenses for same-sex couples.


Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller’s office filed both an emergency motion to stay Young’s decision pending appeal and a notice of appeal to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. The 7th Circuit granted the emergency stay June 27.

In arguing that the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment should have been denied, the state asserts the Indiana Legislature has the legal authority to define marriage and that authority was not taken away when the Supreme Court of the United States made the landmark ruling in United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. 12 (2013), which found sections of the federal Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional.

The same-sex couples who filed the lawsuits and their attorneys know the fight has not ended but, noting the number of state marriage laws that have been overturned, they believe the U.S. Supreme Court will consider the matter soon and, again, affirm the recent rulings.

 


053-15col.jpg  Same-sex couples wait in line at the Marion County Clerk’s Office June 25 for a marriage license. (IL Photo/ Dave Stafford)

“Marriage is still the same,” said Ken Falk, legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana. “It’s between two people who love each other and want to commit to each other. Marriage is even stronger today than it was yesterday in Indiana.”

Ecstatic

Plaintiffs represented by the ACLU of Indiana in Fujii, et al. v. Pence, et al., gathered at the ACLU of Indiana’s Indianapolis headquarters to celebrate Young’s decision. Several keyed on the judge’s conclusion that “In time, Americans will look at the marriage of couples such as Plaintiffs, and refer to it simply as marriage – not a same-sex marriage.”

Steven Stolen, sitting next to Rob MacPherson, his partner of 27 years, said he, MacPherson and their two children, along with the other couples in the room, are the people to which Young was referring.

“We are the families down the street,” Stolen said. “As far as we’re concerned it doesn’t matter that we’re two men. We’re married.”

Tara Betterman and Melody Layne said the ruling brought great relief. The pair married in 2012 in New York and since then, their trips across state lines have led them to wonder which states recognize their marriage and which ones do not.

“I feel protected and I feel safe, finally,” Layne said.

In Evansville, Karen Vaughn-Kajmowicz, sergeant with the Evansville Police Department, stopped by the Vanderburgh County courthouse the day of the ruling to watch same-sex couples get married.

Vaughn-Kajmowicz and her wife, Tammy Vaughn-Kajmowicz, are among the plaintiffs in Lee, et al. v. Pence, et al. This lawsuit includes all first responders who had already been married elsewhere and were challenging the section of Indiana’s law that did not recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states.

The couples being wed were all strangers to Vaughn-Kajmowicz but she did not want to miss such a historical event.


countyclerkoffice2-15col.jpg Leono Lopez, foreground, and Larry Guest apply for a marriage license at the Marion County Clerk’s Office June 25.  (IL Photo/ Eric Learned)

“I felt like Tammy and I have worked hard to have this change happen,” she said. “I just wanted to see it.”

Confusion

Less than an hour after Young issued his ruling, Marion County Clerk Beth White announced her staff was trained and ready to begin offering marriage licenses and short civil ceremonies to same-sex couples.

White’s office, in an extended workday, issued 250 marriage licenses to both same-sex and opposite-sex couples, and it conducted 186 same-sex weddings. The last couple was married around 11 p.m.

Falk expected county clerks around the state to follow Marion County and begin issuing licenses immediately. However, some county clerks were not sure whether the decision applied to them and awaited guidance from the attorney general.

Zoeller’s advice did not do much to clear the confusion. The office instructed the five county clerks in Allen, Boone, Hamilton, Lake and Porter counties who had been named in the lawsuits to comply with Young’s ruling. To the remaining clerks, Zoeller simply said he “must encourage everyone to show respect for the judge and the orders that were issued.”

The day after Young’s ruling, Daviess County Clerk Sherri Healy was refusing to issue marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples, citing her religious beliefs. Cass County Clerk Beth Liming also was not giving marriage licenses after county attorney John Hillis told her that she did not have to comply.

“Is that disrespectful to the judge? I don’t think so,” Hillis said.

Steve Sanders, professor at Indiana University Maurer School of Law, was unsure why some county clerks were not issuing licenses, but he noted one argument often made questions the authority of a federal judge. Some attorneys and legal scholars in other lawsuits have said if the federal judge decides a case that is not a class action, the decision does not apply statewide.

Attorney Karen Celestino-Horseman, a member of the plaintiffs’ legal team for Lee, et al. v. Pence, et al., had to explain to an excited same-sex couple that getting the license was just the first step. The pair had called her after receiving the marriage license to tell her they were married.

Celestino-Horseman advised them to quickly find someone to perform the ceremony. That way, the attorney said, even if the motion to stay is granted, the couple will still be married.

Soon, Celestino-Horseman may be performing some wedding ceremonies herself. Friends and clients have been putting in requests that she preside at their marriages.

“I have many, many dear friends who are gays and lesbians and on a personal level I’ve seen the loving relationship that exists,” she said. “I am so happy for them that they are going to have legal recognition of their relationship.”

Struggle

Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law professor Shawn Boyne has been fighting for gay rights since 1991. At that time as a student at the University of Southern California’s Gould School of Law, she led a protest against the school’s invitation to then-U.S. Supreme Court Justice Byron White. He had authored the court’s opinion in Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986), which upheld Georgia’s sodomy law.

The school had threatened to not let her graduate, but Boyne found the decision too outrageous to remain silent.

As the 2014 session of the Indiana Legislature was gearing up to consider an amendment to the state constitution that would have defined marriage as only between opposite-sex couples, Boyne criticized the Indiana State Bar Association for not speaking out publicly against the measure.
 

countyclerkoffice1-15col.jpg Chris Paulsen (L) and Deanna Medsker. (IL Photo/ Eric Learned)

“I think it’s important to live in an environment where you are accepted for who you are from a legal standpoint,” Boyne said. “I mean, it does hurt every time a member of the state government makes a statement that is non-accepting.”

After the day of hoopla that greeted Young’s decision, Ruth Morrison, retired battalion chief with the Indianapolis Fire Department, and her wife, Martha Leverett, settled at their home for the evening. They huddled around their computer looking at the photos posted on Facebook of friends getting married.

Morrison and Leverett, who have known each other for more than 20 years, traveled to Maryland in September 2013 to get married. They took photos of the courthouse and room where they were married by the justice of the peace.

Like Karen and Tammy Vaughn-Kajmowicz, Morrison and Leverett are part of Lee, et al. v. Pence, et al. Having their marriages recognized, Morrison said, means first responders can relax knowing their spouses and children will receive their benefits and pensions just like their colleagues. Opposite-sex married couples get benefits to which same-sex married couples were not entitled. The latter group does not want special treatment, she said, they just want to be treated the same.

“America, this is the melting pot,” Morrison said. “We all should be treated equally.”•

ADVERTISEMENT

  • oh yeah
    So great to read you hear again j.s.
  • Undemocratic decision
    I am wondering why democracy does not apply to this question. Democracy, blah blah blah, that is just a mask for capitalism. Capitalism and its ideological justification of individualism, demands that all social institutions which stand in the way of money get destroyed. The big money decided that the many-millennia old definition of marriage supported by a majority of Americans was no longer desirable. So they orchestrated this aggressive litigation and mass media strategy and now here we are. I wonder if Indiana can secede if it doesn't like the US deciding which Indiana laws will apply or not. Oh I guess not that was decided in the Civil war of which Indiana supplied many of its native sons to die. What an irony. Democracy: what we inflict on other nations by war. Not allowed at home.

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. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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)

  4. "Meanwhile small- and mid-size firms are getting squeezed and likely will not survive unless they become a boutique firm." I've been a business attorney in small, and now mid-size firm for over 30 years, and for over 30 years legal consultants have been preaching this exact same mantra of impending doom for small and mid-sized firms -- verbatim. This claim apparently helps them gin up merger opportunities from smaller firms who become convinced that they need to become larger overnight. The claim that large corporations are interested in cost-saving and efficiency has likewise been preached for decades, and is likewise bunk. If large corporations had any real interest in saving money they wouldn't use large law firms whose rates are substantially higher than those of high-quality mid-sized firms.

  5. The family is the foundation of all human government. That is the Grand Design. Modern governments throw off this Design and make bureaucratic war against the family, as does Hollywood and cultural elitists such as third wave feminists. Since WWII we have been on a ship of fools that way, with both the elite and government and their social engineering hacks relentlessly attacking the very foundation of social order. And their success? See it in the streets of Fergusson, on the food stamp doles (mostly broken families)and in the above article. Reject the Grand Design for true social function, enter the Glorious State to manage social dysfunction. Our Brave New World will be a prison camp, and we will welcome it as the only way to manage given the anarchy without it.

ADVERTISEMENT