Law students’ research at center of support for fighting gay marriage ban

November 28, 2012
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

When opponents of the much talked about proposed amendment to ban gay marriage cite a study showing that the ban could impact 614 Indiana laws, they’ll be using research performed by students at Indiana University Maurer School of Law.

More than 25 students in the LGBT Project at the law school spent nine months researching and cataloguing Indiana statutes related to married and family life. Their research has been published by Indiana Equality Action, a nonprofit that is fighting the push to pass an amendment banning gay marriage in Indiana.

“What is clear from this compendium is the extent to which Indiana law uses civil marriage as a way to classify, grant rights to, and impose responsibilities upon couples and families in 614 ways. We hope that it serves as a resource for examining how legislative action around marriage can affect all Hoosier couples and families,” the executive board of the LGBT Project writes in the introduction.

Indiana Equality Action says that awareness of how pervasive the rights and benefits of civil marriage in Indiana are in the statutes is important to “meaningful dialogue concerning a proposed amendment to Indiana’s Constitution that would invalidate and prohibit recognition of any ‘legal status’ identical or ‘substantially similar’ to marriage for unmarried couples.

“Whether one supports or opposes such a proposal, knowing what is involved in something as enduring as an amendment to the Bill of Rights in Indiana’s highest legal document is critical to enlightened public discourse and decision,” the organization continues in the report, “More than Just a Couple: 614 Reasons Why Marriage Equality Matters in Indiana.”

The report points to several areas of the law which the students say would be impacted if the amendment passes, including employment and education, property and taxation, and probate and trusts.

Even if you take the gay marriage component out of it, it is a good resource for knowing statutes that are affected by a civil marriage. The intro does note that the document shouldn’t be construed as legal advice and the views expressed in the document are those of the law student authors.
 

ADVERTISEMENT
  • your tax dollars at work
    Its really great that the liberal professors have put the law students to work fighting the preservation of traditional marriage in favor of this other sort of partnership. The citizens of Indiana surely do not approve, but when has that ever stopped social engineering from being planned in law schools.
    • Get off my Lawn
      You tell 'em gramps, like all us self righteuous, em, I mean Real Christians say: Get of my lawn you Queers, Liberals, Professors, etc...[insert right wing strawman here]!! --Duly Chastened Straight** Internet Fan ** Pastor Ted said it was ok to tell everyone I am Officially de-gayed now even though all those private "prayer" sessions hasn't done the trick. Something about having to pay, I mean make a special offering, more to the church before the magic, I mean miracle, happens. Praise be! Sarcasm Off: PS - Seriously, these students and their advisors should be commended not sniped at by some right wing troll in the name of "tradition" (i.e., homophobia)
      • Information is Power
        Having not read the report, I take no stance on whether it is biased one way or another, nor should anyone else who doesn't actually read it. Regardless of any position put forth in the report, however, a solid point is made: No matter which position you espouse, knowing the effects of the amendment are critical to having reasoned discourse on it. I commend my alma mater for providing all with this information, regardless of whether it may be slanted one way or another.
      • ha
        I cant tell if that comment is a joke or not, though I kind of laughed; but if the point is that it's homophobic to oppose "gay marriage," then thats about as nonsensical as the notion that white people are racist every time they appose more affirmative action. No reasoning there, just name calling. "right wing" is another one. Means about as much as "left wing." My point was, the state university should not be picking sides in a democratic conflict in a way that is specifically calculated to defeat a popular referendum. I also think the report sounds bogus. Please, preventing the non-existent & faux instittution of gay marriage will somehow complicate laws? HELLO there IS no such institution now so how how could laws be "impacted." I guess I will have to read the wonderful report to be enlightened as to my bigoted ingorance and so forth. YAWN.
        • You missed it
          The point is not that a constitutional ban on gay MARRIAGE will complicate existing laws, but that a ban on anything SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR will. 614 Indiana provisions confer rights, impose responsibilities, or otherwise classify on the basis of spousal or potentially spouse-like relationships (same-sex AND opposite-sex). Anyway, the report is meant to be a resource that can facilitate the larger discussion around same-sex marriage. And as Dan Carpenter of the Star so aptly pointed out, that debate centers on "simple justice and first-class citizenship." http://www.indystar.com/article/20121127/OPINION05/211280306/Dan-Carpenter-Careful-what-you-vote-for
          • abolition of heterosexual marriage movement
            The "gay rights" crowd should be renamed these legal efforts the "Movement to Ban Marriage for Breeders" or something that really shows the truly negative animus against traditional marriage. If you render something downwards to the same level as anything else then the distinction without a difference means that the thing was effectively abolished. So framing this as "equal rights" or whatever belies the actual intent and effect which is to neutralize any advantage for heterosexuals in respect of "marriage" because gays deem it unfair. And yet Marriage (heterosexual couple marriage) has existed in societies around the world for centuries-- really, millennia. The cultural differences have revolved around things like property laws and divorce and plural marriage, for the most part. But the notion of homosexual marriage as such is quite novel. Even among the tolerant ancients of Greece and Rome this sort of equivalency between homosexual and heterosexual relationships was unknown. There is no accounting for why the public is so inert before the massive social engineering project to wreck one of the most universally sacred and fundamental social institutions-- marriage. Homosexual marriage is an oxymoron. Again, it baffles me that supposedly a legislative effort to forestall more social engineering along these lines would supposedly be such a bother. It makes no sense really. They can attach their bona fides and make as many citations as they want and people will know better.

          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
          1. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

          2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

          3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

          4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

          5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

          ADVERTISEMENT