ILNews

Law school to host symposium on Defense of Marriage Act

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana University Maurer School of Law will host a mini-symposium on same-sex marriage and the Defense of Marriage Act to discuss lawsuits and controversies surrounding the issue.

The April 7 symposium will feature Maura Healey, chief of the Civil Rights Division of the Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office, who will give the lecture “One State’s Challenge to DOMA.” Massachusetts filed a lawsuit against DOMA in 2009. It was the first state to legalize same-sex marriage. In 2010, a federal judge ruled that DOMA violates the 10th Amendment of the Constitution and equal protection guarantee. The suit is pending before the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals.

A panel will follow the lecture comprised of Thomas M. Fisher, solicitor general, State of Indiana; Dawn Johnsen, Walter W. Foskett Professor, IU Maurer School of Law; Brian Powell, Rudy Professor of Sociology, IU College of Arts and Sciences; and Deborah Widiss, associate professor at the law school.

Steve Sanders, a lecturer at the University of Michigan Law School, will moderate the panel discussion. Topics will include the lawsuits challenging the federal Defense of Marriage Act and controversies over whether the government should continuing defending the act.

The event begins at 3 p.m. in the Bloomington law school and is free to the public. Video of the event will be streamed live. Indiana attorneys who attend in person may receive CLE credit free of charge. For more information, visit the law school’s website.

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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT