ILNews

Indiana likely to be involved in gay marriage cases before SCOTUS

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Attorney General Greg Zoeller’s office announced late Friday that Indiana will likely participate in some way in the California case involving the definition of marriage that the U.S. Supreme Court accepted Dec. 7.

In August, Indiana co-authored an amicus brief in Hollingsworth v. Perry, an appeal of the ruling by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals that had found California’s marriage definition unconstitutional. The brief asked SCOTUS to take the case and reverse the Circuit Court.

On Friday, the U.S. justices took Hollingsworth and U.S. v. Windsor, which relates to the federal Defense of Marriage Act. The act prohibits extending certain federal benefits of marriage to same-sex unions.

“With all due respect to those who have called for a truce from conflict on social issues, this is a legal question of central importance in our nation that only the United States Supreme Court can evaluate and determine with finality. We contend the people of each state – either through their elected legislators or directly by referendum – should have the authority to define marriage within their state, and Indiana stands firm in its vigorous defense of each state’s legal authority to recognize the traditional definition of marriage as a significant state interest,” Zoeller said in a statement.

The Indiana General Assembly approved an amendment to the Constitution in 2011 that would ban same-sex marriage. That amendment will need approved by a separately elected Legislature before the amendment would go before voters. If approved this session, the amendment could go before voters in 2014.

The Supreme Court is expected to hear arguments in both cases next spring and rule by the end of its term in June 2013.


 

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. Someone off their meds? C'mon John, it is called the politics of Empire. Get with the program, will ya? How can we build one world under secularist ideals without breaking a few eggs? Of course, once it is fully built, is the American public who will feel the deadly grip of the velvet glove. One cannot lay down with dogs without getting fleas. The cup of wrath is nearly full, John Smith, nearly full. Oops, there I go, almost sounding as alarmist as Smith. Guess he and I both need to listen to this again: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRnQ65J02XA

  2. Charles Rice was one of the greatest of the so-called great generation in America. I was privileged to count him among my mentors. He stood firm for Christ and Christ's Church in the Spirit of Thomas More, always quick to be a good servant of the King, but always God's first. I had Rice come speak to 700 in Fort Wayne as Obama took office. Rice was concerned that this rise of aggressive secularism and militant Islam were dual threats to Christendom,er, please forgive, I meant to say "Western Civilization". RIP Charlie. You are safe at home.

  3. It's a big fat black mark against the US that they radicalized a lot of these Afghan jihadis in the 80s to fight the soviets and then when they predictably got around to biting the hand that fed them, the US had to invade their homelands, install a bunch of corrupt drug kingpins and kleptocrats, take these guys and torture the hell out of them. Why for example did the US have to sodomize them? Dubya said "they hate us for our freedoms!" Here, try some of that freedom whether you like it or not!!! Now they got even more reasons to hate us-- lets just keep bombing the crap out of their populations, installing more puppet regimes, arming one faction against another, etc etc etc.... the US is becoming a monster. No wonder they hate us. Here's my modest recommendation. How about we follow "Just War" theory in the future. St Augustine had it right. How about we treat these obvious prisoners of war according to the Geneva convention instead of torturing them in sadistic and perverted ways.

  4. As usual, John is "spot-on." The subtle but poignant points he makes are numerous and warrant reflection by mediators and users. Oh but were it so simple.

  5. ACLU. Way to step up against the police state. I see a lot of things from the ACLU I don't like but this one is a gold star in its column.... instead of fighting it the authorities should apologize and back off.

ADVERTISEMENT