ILNews

Hamilton County clerk voluntary dismissed from same-sex marriage appeal

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

One Indiana county clerk has withdrawn from the state’s fight to maintain its ban on same-sex marriage.

On July 30, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals granted a motion filed by Hamilton County Clerk Peggy Beaver asking for the voluntary dismissal of her appeal of a federal court’s decision which overturned Indiana’s marriage law. The appellate court has dismissed her as a defendant in Baskin et al. v Bogan et al., 14-2386, and Midori Fujii et al., v. Commissioner of the Indiana State Department of Revenue et al., 14-2387.  

Beaver’s motion, also filed July 30, states she has decided not to join the state’s same-sex marriage brief filed with the 7th Circuit and has no additional arguments to add to the appeal.

Calls to Beaver and her counsel, Darren Murphy, were not returned.

According to the motion, Lambda Legal, the organization which filed the Baskin lawsuit, and the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana which is representing the plaintiffs in Fujii, did not object to the clerk’s voluntary dismissal.

Also, none of the appellants, including Indiana Solicitor General Thomas Fisher, objected.

The other county clerks who are defendants added their names to the state’s appeal brief that was filed July 15 with the 7th Circuit. On July 28, the appellate court directed the Hamilton County clerk’s attorney to notify the court as to whether Beaver would remain a litigant.

Indiana attorney general spokesman Bryan Corbin said the Boone and Allen county clerks and the state of Indiana remain appellants in the Baskin case.

“The appeal will continue regardless,” Corbin said. “The state’s attorney, not the clerk’s attorney, is responsible for defending the state statute, and the ultimate deposition of the case likely would be applicable to county clerks in all 92 counties.”

Beaver stated in her motion that she is aware of her duty to follow all other orders regarding same-sex marriage issued from either the 7th Circuit or the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana.

Henry Greene, a plaintiff in the Baskin lawsuit, was not surprised by Beaver’s decision. Before the challenge was filed, Greene and his partner applied for a marriage license in Hamilton County. They both met Beaver and from their conversation, Greene said he got the impression she supported the freedom to marry.  

“We’re happy,” Greene said. “We hope that it sends a message to the attorney general and others who continue to appeal that there are many people who are on our side and who understand.”


 

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. The ADA acts as a tax upon all for the benefit of a few. And, most importantly, the many have no individual say in whether they pay the tax. Those with handicaps suffered in military service should get a pass, but those who are handicapped by accident or birth do NOT deserve that pass. The drivel about "equal access" is spurious because the handicapped HAVE equal access, they just can't effectively use it. That is their problem, not society's. The burden to remediate should be that of those who seek the benefit of some social, constructional, or dimensional change, NOT society generally. Everybody wants to socialize the costs and concentrate the benefits of government intrusion so that they benefit and largely avoid the costs. This simply maintains the constant push to the slop trough, and explains, in part, why the nation is 20 trillion dollars in the hole.

  2. Hey 2 psychs is never enough, since it is statistically unlikely that three will ever agree on anything! New study admits this pseudo science is about as scientifically valid as astrology ... done by via fortune cookie ....John Ioannidis, professor of health research and policy at Stanford University, said the study was impressive and that its results had been eagerly awaited by the scientific community. “Sadly, the picture it paints - a 64% failure rate even among papers published in the best journals in the field - is not very nice about the current status of psychological science in general, and for fields like social psychology it is just devastating,” he said. http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/aug/27/study-delivers-bleak-verdict-on-validity-of-psychology-experiment-results

  3. Indianapolis Bar Association President John Trimble and I are on the same page, but it is a very large page with plenty of room for others to join us. As my final Res Gestae article will express in more detail in a few days, the Great Recession hastened a fundamental and permanent sea change for the global legal service profession. Every state bar is facing the same existential questions that thrust the medical profession into national healthcare reform debates. The bench, bar, and law schools must comprehensively reconsider how we define the practice of law and what it means to access justice. If the three principals of the legal service profession do not recast the vision of their roles and responsibilities soon, the marketplace will dictate those roles and responsibilities without regard for the public interests that the legal profession professes to serve.

  4. I have met some highly placed bureaucrats who vehemently disagree, Mr. Smith. This is not your father's time in America. Some ideas are just too politically incorrect too allow spoken, says those who watch over us for the good of their concept of order.

  5. Lets talk about this without forgetting that Lawyers, too, have FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND ASSOCIATION

ADVERTISEMENT