ILNews

Court rules Indiana must recognize couple’s same-sex marriage

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana must recognize the same-sex marriage of two women wed in Massachusetts, one of whom is gravely ill, a federal judge ruled Thursday. The state said it will appeal the narrow but historic ruling.

Niki Quasney and Amy Sandler are the first same-sex couple granted legal recognition by the state of Indiana under the order issued by Chief Judge Richard Young of the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana.

“The court finds that the Plaintiffs, Amy, Niki, (and children) A.Q-S., and M.Q.-S., have satisfied their burden for a preliminary injunction. They have shown a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm with no adequate remedy at law, that the public interest is in favor of the relief, and the balance of harm weighs in their favor,” Young wrote.

“Therefore, the court grants Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. … Defendants and all those acting in concert are enjoined from enforcing Indiana statute § 31-11-1-1(b) against recognition of Plaintiffs’, Niki Quasney’s and Amy Sandler’s, valid out-of-state marriage; the State of Indiana must recognize their marriage,” the order states.

The opinion also orders the Indiana Department of Health to record Quasney as married and Sandler as surviving spouse on a death certificate if Quasney dies in Indiana. Quasney has been diagnosed with Stage IV ovarian cancer, according to the record.  

“We are relieved and happy to send our congratulations and best wishes to Amy, Niki and their family. We applaud their courage and commitment to each other and to equality as they fight Niki’s illness,” said Paul Castillo, staff attorney for Lambda Legal, which represents the couple.

“While this family is experiencing urgent, life-threatening medical circumstances, they’re just one of the thousands of same-sex couples in Indiana enduring real financial and dignitary harm due to the state’s discriminatory marriage ban. Our work in Indiana is not done.  All same-sex couples in Indiana need the security only marriage provides,” Castillo said in a statement.

Quasney and Sandler previously won a temporary restraining order that would have expired Friday. Young concluded his 14-page opinion by stressing its narrowness but also acknowledging the growing recognition of same-sex marriage after the Supreme Court of the United States opinion last year in United States v. Windsor, 134 S.Ct. 2675 (2013).

“(T)he court recognizes that the issues with which it is confronted are highly contentious and provoke strong emotions both in favor and against same-sex marriages. The court’s ruling today is not a final resolution of the merits of the case – it is a preliminary look, or in other words, a best guess by the court as to what the outcome will be,” Young wrote.

“Currently, all federal district court cases decided post-Windsor indicate that Plaintiffs are likely to prevail. Nevertheless, the strength or weakness of Plaintiffs’ case at the time of final dissolution will inevitably be impacted as more courts are presented with this issue,” he wrote.

The state will appeal Thursday’s ruling, according to a statement from the office of Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller.

“The Indiana Attorney General’s Office is notifying county clerks that the federal court’s decision today is limited and applies to one couple in this case only,” spokesman Bryan Corbin said. “County clerks still are prohibited from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples in Indiana.”

The state argues Indiana’s statute defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman is constitutional and should remain intact.

“The state’s legal defense of the statute notes that the Legislature has the legal authority to determine how marriage shall be defined within Indiana’s borders; and Indiana’s Legislature has chosen in statute to define marriage in the traditional way – between one man and one woman – and to not legally recognize same-sex unions granted in other states,” Corbin said. Windsor, he said, “continues to leave this state policy decision-making authority with states and their legislatures. The judge has the motions under advisement and will rule later.”  

Likewise, plaintiffs in this case have moved for summary judgment.

This case, Baskin, et al. v. Bogan, et al., 1:14-CV-00355, is one of several federal lawsuits challenging Indiana’s marriage statute. The suits were filed this year after the Legislature passed House Joint Resolution 3, a proposed amendment to the Indiana Constitution that would ban same-sex marriage.

In the statement provided by Lambda Legal, Quasney said she and her wife were relieved. “We are so thankful that we can move forward and concentrate on being with each other. Our time together and with our daughters is the most important thing in the world to me. I look forward to the day when all couples in Indiana have the freedom to marry,” Quasney said.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Two Wrongs Don't Make a Right
    This is a good thing. To point out how un-Constitutional state gun laws vary from state to state only proves that the laws need to be changed so that they are the same across the board, gun laws and marriage rights included. This is America after all, and people should not be restricted on their freedoms as long as it's not hurting anyone else. And, the last i checked, who someone else is married to does not hurt me or anyone else. People should have the freedom to decide for themselves what is best for them without someone else's interference.
  • Sad Day
    These couples moved here to our state either without research our laws, not caring about our laws or expecting us to change for them. While I sympathize with their medical issues and shortened time frame, I find it very sad that we have to put our laws out to pasture in order to appease them. Other states don't seem to recognize other issues where they disagree with another state, say for example, New York not recognizing gun ownership laws or concealed carry permits from other states and will jail you on the spot for the first infraction, yet the second amendment allows personal gun ownership. It seems like Judge Young just rolled over on this ruling and the citizens of the state are left to pick up the pieces of our values.

    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
    ADVERTISEMENT
    Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
    1. On a related note, I offered the ICLU my cases against the BLE repeatedly, and sought their amici aid repeatedly as well. Crickets. Usually not even a response. I am guessing they do not do allegations of anti-Christian bias? No matter how glaring? I have posted on other links the amicus brief that did get filed (search this ezine, e.g., Kansas attorney), read the Thomas More Society brief to note what the ACLU ran from like vampires from garlic. An Examiner pledged to advance diversity and inclusion came right out on the record and demanded that I choose Man's law or God's law. I wonder, had I been asked to swear off Allah ... what result then, ICLU? Had I been found of bad character and fitness for advocating sexual deviance, what result then ICLU? Had I been lifetime banned for posting left of center statements denigrating the US Constitution, what result ICLU? Hey, we all know don't we? Rather Biased.

    2. It was mentioned in the article that there have been numerous CLE events to train attorneys on e-filing. I would like someone to provide a list of those events, because I have not seen any such events in east central Indiana, and since Hamilton County is one of the counties where e-filing is mandatory, one would expect some instruction in this area. Come on, people, give some instruction, not just applause!

    3. This law is troubling in two respects: First, why wasn't the law reviewed "with the intention of getting all the facts surrounding the legislation and its actual impact on the marketplace" BEFORE it was passed and signed? Seems a bit backwards to me (even acknowledging that this is the Indiana state legislature we're talking about. Second, what is it with the laws in this state that seem to create artificial monopolies in various industries? Besides this one, the other law that comes to mind is the legislation that governed the granting of licenses to firms that wanted to set up craft distilleries. The licensing was limited to only those entities that were already in the craft beer brewing business. Republicans in this state talk a big game when it comes to being "business friendly". They're friendly alright . . . to certain businesses.

    4. Gretchen, Asia, Roberto, Tonia, Shannon, Cheri, Nicholas, Sondra, Carey, Laura ... my heart breaks for you, reaching out in a forum in which you are ignored by a professional suffering through both compassion fatigue and the love of filthy lucre. Most if not all of you seek a warm blooded Hoosier attorney unafraid to take on the government and plead that government officials have acted unconstitutionally to try to save a family and/or rescue children in need and/or press individual rights against the Leviathan state. I know an attorney from Kansas who has taken such cases across the country, arguing before half of the federal courts of appeal and presenting cases to the US S.Ct. numerous times seeking cert. Unfortunately, due to his zeal for the constitutional rights of peasants and willingness to confront powerful government bureaucrats seemingly violating the same ... he was denied character and fitness certification to join the Indiana bar, even after he was cleared to sit for, and passed, both the bar exam and ethics exam. And was even admitted to the Indiana federal bar! NOW KNOW THIS .... you will face headwinds and difficulties in locating a zealously motivated Hoosier attorney to face off against powerful government agents who violate the constitution, for those who do so tend to end up as marginalized as Paul Odgen, who was driven from the profession. So beware, many are mere expensive lapdogs, the kind of breed who will gladly take a large retainer, but then fail to press against the status quo and powers that be when told to heel to. It is a common belief among some in Indiana that those attorneys who truly fight the power and rigorously confront corruption often end up, actually or metaphorically, in real life or at least as to their careers, as dead as the late, great Gary Welch. All of that said, I wish you the very best in finding a Hoosier attorney with a fighting spirit to press your rights as far as you can, for you do have rights against government actors, no matter what said actors may tell you otherwise. Attorneys outside the elitist camp are often better fighters that those owing the powers that be for their salaries, corner offices and end of year bonuses. So do not be afraid to retain a green horn or unconnected lawyer, many of them are fine men and woman who are yet untainted by the "unique" Hoosier system.

    5. I am not the John below. He is a journalist and talk show host who knows me through my years working in Kansas government. I did no ask John to post the note below ...

    ADVERTISEMENT