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
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I have dealt with more than a few I-465 moat-protected government attorneys and even judges who just cannot seem to wrap their heads around the core of this 800 year old document. I guess monarchial privileges and powers corrupt still ..... from an academic website on this fantastic "treaty" between the King and the people ... "Enduring Principles of Liberty Magna Carta was written by a group of 13th-century barons to protect their rights and property against a tyrannical king. There are two principles expressed in Magna Carta that resonate to this day: "No freeman shall be taken, imprisoned, disseised, outlawed, banished, or in any way destroyed, nor will We proceed against or prosecute him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land." "To no one will We sell, to no one will We deny or delay, right or justice." Inspiration for Americans During the American Revolution, Magna Carta served to inspire and justify action in liberty’s defense. The colonists believed they were entitled to the same rights as Englishmen, rights guaranteed in Magna Carta. They embedded those rights into the laws of their states and later into the Constitution and Bill of Rights. The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution ("no person shall . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.") is a direct descendent of Magna Carta's guarantee of proceedings according to the "law of the land." http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/featured_documents/magna_carta/

  2. I'm not sure what's more depressing: the fact that people would pay $35,000 per year to attend an unaccredited law school, or the fact that the same people "are hanging in there and willing to follow the dean’s lead in going forward" after the same school fails to gain accreditation, rendering their $70,000 and counting education worthless. Maybe it's a good thing these people can't sit for the bar.

  3. Such is not uncommon on law school startups. Students and faculty should tap Bruce Green, city attorney of Lufkin, Texas. He led a group of studnets and faculty and sued the ABA as a law student. He knows the ropes, has advised other law school startups. Very astute and principled attorney of unpopular clients, at least in his past, before Lufkin tapped him to run their show.

  4. Not that having the appellate records on Odyssey won't be welcome or useful, but I would rather they first bring in the stray counties that aren't yet connected on the trial court level.

  5. Aristotle said 350 bc: "The most hated sort, and with the greatest reason, is usury, which makes a gain out of money itself, and not from the natural object of it. For money was intended to be used in exchange, but not to increase at interest. And this term interest, which means the birth of money from money, is applied to the breeding of money because the offspring resembles the parent. Wherefore of an modes of getting wealth this is the most unnatural.

ADVERTISEMENT