ILNews

Federal suit filed against Indiana marriage statute

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

While Indiana’s same-sex marriage amendment is on hold in the Legislature, a challenge to the state’s law banning same-sex marriage was filed March 7 in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana.

Four same-sex couples living in Clark and Floyd counties filed the lawsuit against Gov. Mike Pence, challenging the constitutionality of Indiana’s law that prohibits issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples and does not recognize such marriages legally performed in other states.

In Love et al v. Pence, 4:14-cv-15, the couples are asking for an injunctive order directing the state to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples; an injunction enjoining the state from denying same-sex couples the rights, burdens and benefits associated with lawful marriage; and an order directing the state to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states.

The plaintiffs are represented by Clay Daniel Walton & Adams PLC and Fauver Law Office PLLC, both in Louisville, Ky.

“My clients are part of Indiana. They work there, they raise their children there, they pay taxes there,” attorney Dan Canon said. “My clients are certainly ready to see the same-sex marriage ban lifted.”

Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller said his office will defend Indiana’s marriage statute.

“As state government’s lawyer, I must defend the state’s authority to define marriage at the state level within Indiana’s borders,” Zoeller said in a press release. “People of goodwill have sincere differences of opinion on the marriage definition, but I hope Hoosiers can remain civil to each other as this legal question is litigated in the federal court.”

Attorneys representing the Indiana plaintiffs also represented same-sex couples in Kentucky who filed a similar suit challenging the commonwealth’s statute and constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman.

Also, the constitutional arguments being made in the Indiana complaint were asserted in the Kentucky suit, Love et al. v. Beshear, et al., 3:13-cv-750.

Both suits claim the bans on same-sex marriage violated the due process and equal protection clauses in the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. In addition, the Indiana plaintiffs argue the state’s ban violates the First Amendment’s freedom of association and establishment provisions.

The Kentucky plaintiffs were given a victory when U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky Judge John G. Heyburn struck down the commonwealth’s marriage amendment and part of the marriage law on constitutional grounds.

Kentucky Attorney General Jack Conway has refused to appeal Heyburn’s ruling, prompting Gov. Steven Beshear to say he would then hire outside counsel to defend the ban.

Noting that constitutional arguments against same-sex marriage laws have been successful in federal courts across the country, Canon said the plaintiffs are confident the southern Indiana District Court will “do the right thing.”

 

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. Whilst it may be true that Judges and Justices enjoy such freedom of time and effort, it certainly does not hold true for the average working person. To say that one must 1) take a day or a half day off work every 3 months, 2) gather a list of information including recent photographs, and 3) set up a time that is convenient for the local sheriff or other such office to complete the registry is more than a bit near-sighted. This may be procedural, and hence, in the near-sighted minds of the court, not 'punishment,' but it is in fact 'punishment.' The local sheriffs probably feel a little punished too by the overwork. Registries serve to punish the offender whilst simultaneously providing the public at large with a false sense of security. The false sense of security is dangerous to the public who may not exercise due diligence by thinking there are no offenders in their locale. In fact, the registry only informs them of those who have been convicted.

  2. Unfortunately, the court doesn't understand the difference between ebidta and adjusted ebidta as they clearly got the ruling wrong based on their misunderstanding

  3. A common refrain in the comments on this website comes from people who cannot locate attorneys willing put justice over retainers. At the same time the judiciary threatens to make pro bono work mandatory, seemingly noting the same concern. But what happens to attorneys who have the chumptzah to threatened the legal status quo in Indiana? Ask Gary Welch, ask Paul Ogden, ask me. Speak truth to power, suffer horrendously accordingly. No wonder Hoosier attorneys who want to keep in good graces merely chase the dollars ... the powers that be have no concerns as to those who are ever for sale to the highest bidder ... for those even willing to compromise for $$$ never allow either justice or constitutionality to cause them to stand up to injustice or unconstitutionality. And the bad apples in the Hoosier barrel, like this one, just keep rotting.

  4. I am one of Steele's victims and was taken for $6,000. I want my money back due to him doing nothing for me. I filed for divorce after a 16 year marriage and lost everything. My kids, my home, cars, money, pension. Every attorney I have talked to is not willing to help me. What can I do? I was told i can file a civil suit but you have to have all of Steelers info that I don't have. Of someone can please help me or tell me what info I need would be great.

  5. It would appear that news breaking on Drudge from the Hoosier state (link below) ties back to this Hoosier story from the beginning of the recent police disrespect period .... MCBA president Cassandra Bentley McNair issued the statement on behalf of the association Dec. 1. The association said it was “saddened and disappointed” by the decision not to indict Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson for shooting Michael Brown. “The MCBA does not believe this was a just outcome to this process, and is disheartened that the system we as lawyers are intended to uphold failed the African-American community in such a way,” the association stated. “This situation is not just about the death of Michael Brown, but the thousands of other African-Americans who are disproportionately targeted and killed by police officers.” http://www.thestarpress.com/story/news/local/2016/07/18/hate-cops-sign-prompts-controversy/87242664/

ADVERTISEMENT