ILNews

Indiana attorney general appeals marriage ruling

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Office of the Indiana Attorney General is fighting Wednesday’s decision that overturned the state’s marriage law.

Chief Judge Richard Young, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, issued a ruling that Indiana’s law prohibiting marriage violated the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment. Shortly after the decision was rendered, Attorney General Greg Zoeller indicated his office would appeal.

Late Wednesday, the attorney general’s office announced it had filed an emergency motion for stay in the U.S. District Court pending appeal. The motion asked Young to postpone the implementation of his order.

“The motion for stay is intended to prevent confusion and inconsistency between county clerk’s offices regarding license issuance, while the appeal is pending,” said Bryan Corbin, spokesman for the AG’s office.

The U.S. District Court has not ruled yet on the state’s motion to stay.

In addition, the AG’s office, along with Boone and Hamilton county clerks, filed a notice of appeal formally notifying the U.S. District Court that the defendants will appeal Young’s order to the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Once Young issued his ruling, county clerk’s office around the state began fielding requests from same-sex couples for marriage licenses. Some clerk’s issued the licenses but others did not, saying they were awaiting guidance from the attorney general.

According to Corbin, the AG’s office advised the five county clerks named in lawsuits (Hamilton, Allen, Boone, Porter and Lake) that they must comply with the U.S. District Court’s ruling or they would be subject to contempt of court.

“Other county clerks in the remaining counties are not under direct jurisdiction of the order,” Corbin said, “but as an officer of the court, the Attorney General’s Office must encourage everyone to show respect for the judge and the orders that are issued.”


 


 

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. 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