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. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  2. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

  3. Pass Legislation to require guilty defendants to pay for the costs of lab work, etc as part of court costs...

  4. The fee increase would be livable except for the 11% increase in spending at the Disciplinary Commission. The Commission should be focused on true public harm rather than going on witch hunts against lawyers who dare to criticize judges.

  5. Marijuana is safer than alcohol. AT the time the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act was enacted all major pharmaceutical companies in the US sold marijuana products. 11 Presidents of the US have smoked marijuana. Smoking it does not increase the likelihood that you will get lung cancer. There are numerous reports of canabis oil killing many kinds of incurable cancer. (See Rick Simpson's Oil on the internet or facebook).

ADVERTISEMENT