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

    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. 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!!!

    2. 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?

    3. 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?

    4. 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.

    5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

    ADVERTISEMENT