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. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  2. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

  3. I will agree with that as soon as law schools stop lying to prospective students about salaries and employment opportunities in the legal profession. There is no defense to the fraudulent numbers first year salaries they post to mislead people into going to law school.

  4. The sad thing is that no fish were thrown overboard The "greenhorn" who had never fished before those 5 days was interrogated for over 4 hours by 5 officers until his statement was illicited, "I don't want to go to prison....." The truth is that these fish were measured frozen off shore and thawed on shore. The FWC (state) officer did not know fish shrink, so the only reason that these fish could be bigger was a swap. There is no difference between a 19 1/2 fish or 19 3/4 fish, short fish is short fish, the ticket was written. In addition the FWC officer testified at trial, he does not measure fish in accordance with federal law. There was a document prepared by the FWC expert that said yes, fish shrink and if these had been measured correctly they averaged over 20 inches (offshore frozen). This was a smoke and mirror prosecution.

  5. I love this, Dave! Many congrats to you! We've come a long way from studying for the bar together! :)

ADVERTISEMENT