ILNews

Dissolution of same-sex marriages a legal puzzle for lawyers, judges

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Lawyer Focus

“A marriage between persons of the same gender is void in Indiana even if the marriage is lawful in the place where it is solemnized.” – Indiana Code 31-11-1-1.

Indiana statute makes clear the state’s position on same-sex marriage, but it also leaves murky the rights of Hoosier couples who, despite the law, are legally married.

“We are supposed to, if a marriage is legal somewhere else, honor it,” said attorney Karen Jensen. “Equally placed people should have the same rights.”

harmon-kathy-mug Harmon

But because same-sex marriage isn’t recognized in Indiana, neither is same-sex divorce. In 2009, Jensen unsuccessfully sought a dissolution of marriage for Larissa Chism and Tara Ranzy, who had been wed in Canada before moving to Indiana.

Marion Superior Master Commissioner Jeff Marchal at the time denied the petition, citing I.C. 31-11-1-1. But in that case and one other same-sex dissolution that’s come before him, he found a tightrope to walk. Rather than grant the dissolution, he ordered the marriage null and void.

“It seemed the only other thing I could do. The only other option was to say, ‘You’re still married,’ and I can’t fathom that’s what the General Assembly intended,” Marchal said.

Jensen and Marchal recalled a parking garage conversation they had some time later in which Marchal told Jensen that he had hoped the parties would appeal his decision to perhaps settle the law. They chose not to appeal, and Jensen said she couldn’t discuss the reasons without breaching confidentiality.

In the cases where Marchal has voided unions, there have been no children, no assets to divide and the dissolutions were uncontested. Whether denial of a dissolution petition for same-sex couples

violates the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the U.S. Constitution is an unanswered question, he said, but it’s also a question that’s never been pleaded before him. “I didn’t think it was appropriate for me to start raising issues,” he said.

Jensen had hoped that the case would find a basis in the state’s divorce statutes, which make no mention of gender. Denying application of those laws to same-sex couples seems to conflict with the Full Faith and Credit Clause, she believes.

How family law attorneys counsel same-sex couples has swiftly evolved and will continue to do so, particularly in light of last month’s Supreme Court of the United States decision striking down the definition of marriage in the Defense of Marriage Act.

Kathy Harmon, a partner at Mallor Grodner LLP in Indianapolis, is representing Donald Schultz Lee in his dissolution petition against Justin Chad Schultz Lee. The couple married in Massachusetts, and Harmon counseled her client to wait until the SCOTUS ruled on DOMA to file the divorce action. The case is pending before Marion Superior Judge David Shaheed.

“Whether you approve or believe in same-sex couples or not, we’re going to have to address what you do with same-sex couples married in other states,” Harmon said. “What’s the remedy?”

After Harmon filed the petition, she said “the phone started blowing up” with media inquiries.

“We weren’t planning on doing a media tour, so to speak. This isn’t something he’s doing for the purpose of being a trailblazer or a pioneer. … He just wants to get a divorce and move on with his life,” she said.

Harmon’s firm counsels many same-sex couples, and she explained that the issues they face can be addressed contractually in most instances. Cohabitation agreements, general power of attorney arrangements and health care power of attorney agreements can protect same-sex couples in much the same way a marriage license assures the rights and benefits of couples as defined by Indiana law.

Still, “Indiana has been fairly progressive whether it knows it or not” on matters that impact same-sex couples, Harmon said. Elimination of the inheritance tax, for instance, benefited same-sex couples by removing taxes on asset transfers that were higher than those for recognized families. She noted the state also was among the first to allow adoption by same-sex couples.

lee-donald-mug Donald Lee

Kokomo attorney Megan Schueler of Noel Law blogged about the Supreme Court’s June decisions on same-sex marriage, which also included a ruling that held proponents of California’s Proposition 8 did not have standing to appeal a federal court order holding the initiative defining marriage as between a man and a woman violates the 14th Amendment. She said that even as the court gave momentum to same-sex couples, its decisions left open questions for Shaheed and other judges.

“I wouldn’t want to be that judge,” she said, noting the question of standing is among the unsettled issues. “This is the kind of case that can go up and overturn DOMA Section 2,” which says states shall not be required to recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere.

Bryan Corbin, spokesman for Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller, said the office has not been named or served notice of the Schultz Lee case as would be required if the constitutionality of state law were being challenged. “It would not be appropriate for us to make assessments or predictions at this early phase” about whether the AG’s office might become involved, he said.

Indiana University School of Public and Environmental Affairs associate professor Beth Cate said it’s also unclear whether the recently decided Supreme Court cases might grant couples another avenue if their union dissolves by going back to the state or jurisdiction where the union was made official.

“Can you get into another state’s court without being a resident? … I think that’s an unknown, and at this point I wouldn’t say it’s out of the question,” she said.

Cate compared recognition of same-sex marriage to heterosexual marriages performed elsewhere in which parties were married when they were younger than the laws of a different state would allow. Those marriages nonetheless are recognized. “It may not be a wholly new issue,” she said.

“By eliminating a uniform federal definition of marriage, it creates a need to resolve these issues,” she said. It will be up to the states to decide questions such as same-sex divorce, but she anticipates that as the cases arise, there could be changes in attitudes for opponents of marriage equality.

“I think that to the extent that these cases put a face and a real set of facts and circumstances and relationships on same-sex marriage … hopefully that will deepen the analysis of what the policy considerations should be,” Cate said.

Jensen is more blunt. “We live in a civil society, and this issue of homosexuality is a civil issue, not a religious issue,” she said.

Harmon said it’s difficult to predict other issues that may arise from the SCOTUS ruling on DOMA. “The ruling is so new that I don’t know that we’re going to know for several months what’s flowing out of it.”•

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. The $320,000 is the amount the school spent in litigating two lawsuits: One to release the report involving John Trimble (as noted in the story above) and one defending the discrimination lawsuit. The story above does not mention the amount spent to defend the discrimination suit, that's why the numbers don't match. Thanks for reading.

  2. $160k? Yesterday the figure was $320k. Which is it Indiana Lawyer. And even more interesting, which well connected law firm got the (I am guessing) $320k, six time was the fired chancellor received. LOL. (From yesterday's story, which I guess we were expected to forget overnight ... "According to records obtained by the Journal & Courier, Purdue spent $161,812, beginning in July 2012, in a state open records lawsuit and $168,312, beginning in April 2013, for defense in a federal lawsuit. Much of those fees were spent battling court orders to release an independent investigation by attorney John Trimble that found Purdue could have handled the forced retirement better")

  3. The numbers are harsh; 66 - 24 in the House, 40 - 10 in the Senate. And it is an idea pushed by the Democrats. Dead end? Ummm not necessarily. Just need to go big rather than go home. Nuclear option. Give it to the federal courts, the federal courts will ram this down our throats. Like that other invented right of the modern age, feticide. Rights too precious to be held up by 2000 years of civilization hang in the balance. Onward!

  4. I'm currently seeing someone who has a charge of child pornography possession, he didn't know he had it because it was attached to a music video file he downloaded when he was 19/20 yrs old and fought it for years until he couldn't handle it and plead guilty of possession. He's been convicted in Illinois and now lives in Indiana. Wouldn't it be better to give them a chance to prove to the community and their families that they pose no threat? He's so young and now because he was being a kid and downloaded music at a younger age, he has to pay for it the rest of his life? It's unfair, he can't live a normal life, and has to live in fear of what people can say and do to him because of something that happened 10 years ago? No one deserves that, and no one deserves to be labeled for one mistake, he got labeled even though there was no intent to obtain and use the said content. It makes me so sad to see someone I love go through this and it makes me holds me back a lot because I don't know how people around me will accept him...second chances should be given to those under the age of 21 at least so they can be given a chance to live a normal life as a productive member of society.

  5. It's just an ill considered remark. The Sup Ct is inherently political, as it is a core part of government, and Marbury V Madison guaranteed that it would become ever more so Supremely thus. So her remark is meaningless and she just should have not made it.... what she could have said is that Congress is a bunch of lazys and cowards who wont do their jobs so the hard work of making laws clear, oftentimes stops with the Sups sorting things out that could have been resolved by more competent legislation. That would have been a more worthwhile remark and maybe would have had some relevance to what voters do, since voters cant affect who gets appointed to the supremely un-democratic art III courts.

ADVERTISEMENT