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. "Am I bugging you? I don't mean to bug ya." If what I wrote below is too much social philosophy for Indiana attorneys, just take ten this vacay to watch The Lego Movie with kiddies and sing along where appropriate: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etzMjoH0rJw

          2. I've got some free speech to share here about who is at work via the cat's paw of the ACLU stamping out Christian observances.... 2 Thessalonians chap 2: "And we also thank God continually because, when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as a human word, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is indeed at work in you who believe. For you, brothers and sisters, became imitators of God’s churches in Judea, which are in Christ Jesus: You suffered from your own people the same things those churches suffered from the Jews who killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets and also drove us out. They displease God and are hostile to everyone in their effort to keep us from speaking to the Gentiles so that they may be saved. In this way they always heap up their sins to the limit. The wrath of God has come upon them at last."

          3. Did someone not tell people who have access to the Chevy Volts that it has a gas engine and will run just like a normal car? The batteries give the Volt approximately a 40 mile range, but after that the gas engine will propel the vehicle either directly through the transmission like any other car, or gas engine recharges the batteries depending on the conditions.

          4. Catholic, Lutheran, even the Baptists nuzzling the wolf! http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-documents-reveal-obama-hhs-paid-baptist-children-family-services-182129786-four-months-housing-illegal-alien-children/ YET where is the Progressivist outcry? Silent. I wonder why?

          5. Thank you, Honorable Ladies, and thank you, TIL, for this interesting interview. The most interesting question was the last one, which drew the least response. Could it be that NFP stamps are a threat to the very foundation of our common law American legal tradition, a throwback to the continental system that facilitated differing standards of justice? A throwback to Star Chamber’s protection of the landed gentry? If TIL ever again interviews this same panel, I would recommend inviting one known for voicing socio-legal dissent for the masses, maybe Welch, maybe Ogden, maybe our own John Smith? As demographics shift and our social cohesion precipitously drops, a consistent judicial core will become more and more important so that Justice and Equal Protection and Due Process are yet guiding stars. If those stars fall from our collective social horizon (and can they be seen even now through the haze of NFP opinions?) then what glue other than more NFP decisions and TRO’s and executive orders -- all backed by more and more lethally armed praetorians – will prop up our government institutions? And if and when we do arrive at such an end … will any then dare call that tyranny? Or will the cost of such dissent be too high to justify?

          ADVERTISEMENT