ILNews

INBOX: State bar needs to speak up on marriage equality

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Letters to the Editor

Although the ABA itself endorsed marriage equality for gays and lesbians over three years ago, the Indiana Bar Association has failed to follow in the national organization’s footsteps. Given that the state appears poised to entrust the fate of gays’ and lesbians’ equal protection rights to the will of the plebiscite, the bar’s continued silence is indefensible.

It is important to remember that Indiana law currently does not permit gays and lesbians to marry, so taking a stand against the Amendment will not obligate the members of the bar to explicitly support gay marriage. Instead, one key reason why the state bar should oppose HJR6 is that the referendum will alter the state constitution to specifically condemn homosexuals to a form of second class citizenship. Our state constitution is a sacred covenant between our state government and the citizens of the state – one that proscribes the government’s ability to interfere with individual liberties. It is document that should bind us together rather than find ways to separate Hoosiers based on our personal opinions on divisive social issues.

When I moved from Madison, Wisconsin five years ago to Indiana, I moved from a community that had been represented in Congress by an openly gay lesbian to one of Indianapolis’ northern suburbs. In my early weeks here, while sitting in a coffee shop with a female friend, I was the butt of a homophobic slur. While I don’t pretend that Madison was paradise, the slur was an early sign that I had moved into a community with a different cultural climate. I have since found reasons to enjoy living here, but should this Amendment pass, I will actively pursue out of state employment opportunities. While the economic downturn may not immediately permit large numbers of gays and lesbians to leave the state, in the long run, gays and lesbians with a choice of opportunities will undoubtedly avoid staying in or moving to what is perceived as hostile territory.

While some may argue that the bar should stay out of politics, when political issues threaten to impair the state of justice in Indiana, the bar cannot remain silent. Despite the fact that the profession is often the subject of parody, as members of the profession, attorneys “are officers of the legal system and public citizens who possess special responsibilities for the quality of justice.” (Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct Preamble) By standing on the sidelines and hoping that the legislature will abandon this issue, the bar’s silence is a mark, not of courage and justice, but of cowardice.

Shawn Marie Boyne
Professor of Law
Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. 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!!!

  2. 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?

  3. 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?

  4. 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.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT