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. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. 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!!!

  3. 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?

  4. 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?

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT