ILNews

Court hears arguments in same-sex marriage case

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A same-sex couple  fighting to have Indiana recognize their marriage returned to court Friday to convince a judge the state’s ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional.

Chief Judge Richard Young of the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana heard arguments May 2 on pending motions in Baskin et al. v. Bogan et al., 1:14-cv-0355. Lambda Legal argued on behalf of the plaintiffs and Indiana Solicitor General Thomas Fisher argued the state’s case.

On April 10, Young granted a temporary restraining order requiring the state to acknowledge the marriage of two of the plaintiffs, Nikole Quasney and Amy Sandler. The women made an emotional appeal to the court to make the state recognize their marriage before Quasney loses her battle with stage IV ovarian cancer.

Young’s TRO instructed the Indiana State Department of Health to list Sandler as the spouse on any future death certificate for Quasney.  

After today’s arguments in the Winfield K. Denton Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse in Evansville, Young took under advisement the motions for summary judgment. He will rule at a later date.

Lawsuits challenging state bans on same-sex marriage have been filed across the country ever since the U.S. Supreme Court knocked down part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act in U.S. v. Windsor. Five lawsuits have been filed in Indiana since March.

Today, Fisher argued the Windsor decision left intact the authority of states and their legislatures to define marriage. Therefore, he contends, Indiana can legislate marriage as being between one man and one woman and can legally choose to not recognize same-sex unions granted in other states.
 

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
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I'm not sure what's more depressing: the fact that people would pay $35,000 per year to attend an unaccredited law school, or the fact that the same people "are hanging in there and willing to follow the dean’s lead in going forward" after the same school fails to gain accreditation, rendering their $70,000 and counting education worthless. Maybe it's a good thing these people can't sit for the bar.

  2. Such is not uncommon on law school startups. Students and faculty should tap Bruce Green, city attorney of Lufkin, Texas. He led a group of studnets and faculty and sued the ABA as a law student. He knows the ropes, has advised other law school startups. Very astute and principled attorney of unpopular clients, at least in his past, before Lufkin tapped him to run their show.

  3. Not that having the appellate records on Odyssey won't be welcome or useful, but I would rather they first bring in the stray counties that aren't yet connected on the trial court level.

  4. Aristotle said 350 bc: "The most hated sort, and with the greatest reason, is usury, which makes a gain out of money itself, and not from the natural object of it. For money was intended to be used in exchange, but not to increase at interest. And this term interest, which means the birth of money from money, is applied to the breeding of money because the offspring resembles the parent. Wherefore of an modes of getting wealth this is the most unnatural.

  5. Oh yes, lifetime tenure. The Founders gave that to the federal judges .... at that time no federal district courts existed .... so we are talking the Supreme Court justices only in context ....so that they could rule against traditional marriage and for the other pet projects of the sixties generation. Right. Hmmmm, but I must admit, there is something from that time frame that seems to recommend itself in this context ..... on yes, from a document the Founders penned in 1776: " He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good."

ADVERTISEMENT