ILNews

Marriage ruling brings Indiana same-sex couples to the courthouse

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Together more than eight years, Craig Bowen and Jake Miller finally got to say “I do.”

The men made history June 25 when they became the first legally wed same-sex couple in Marion County. The pair went to the Marion County Clerk of the Court’s office shortly after a federal judge ruled the state’s ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional.

“Hopefully (we’re) the first of many,” Bowen said, as a line for marriage licenses formed in the clerk’s office at the City-County Building in downtown Indianapolis.

Chief Judge Richard Young of theU.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana  issued his ruling Wednesday morning in four of the five challenges to Indiana’s marriage law. The chief judge agreed with the plaintiffs that the state’s law prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying violated the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment.

Young noted his decision is part of a historic change sweeping through the federal court system. U.S. District Courts are coming to the same conclusion that state laws banning same-sex marriage violate the U.S. Constitution.

“It is clear that the fundamental right to marry shall not be deprived to some individuals based solely on the person they choose to love,” Young wrote in the ruling.

“In time, Americans will look at the marriage of couples such as Plaintiffs, and refer to it simply as marriage – not as same-sex marriage.

Young granted summary judgment in part for the plaintiffs in Lee, et al. v. Pence, et al., 1:14-cv-00406;  Fujii et al. v. Pence, et al., 1:14-cv-00404; and Baskin, et al. v. Bogan, et al., 1:14-cv-0405.

“These couples, when gender and sexual orientation are taken away, are in all respects like the family down street,” Young concluded. “The Constitution demands we treat them as such.”

He granted the state’s motion to dismiss the first lawsuit filed, Love, et al. v. Pence, 4:14-cv-00015, finding Indiana Gov. Mike Pence is not the proper defendant since his office does not directly issue marriage licenses or administer the marriage statute. The remaining lawsuit, Bowling, Bowling and Bruner v. Pence, et al., 1:14-cv-0405, was not included in the order.

Karen Celestino-Horseman, an attorney on the legal team for Lee, et al. v. Pence, et. al., 1:14-cv-00406, had just finished a deposition when a client called with the news.

"Am I happy? Oh, I am ecstatic,” Celestino-Horseman said.

The reaction was the same at the headquarters for the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana. The organization had filed Fujii, et al. v. Pence, et al., on behalf of several same-sex couples and their children.

“We’re ecstatic,” said Ken Falk, legal director of the ACLU of Indiana. “We’re very pleased the judge has issued the decision and glad Indiana is in the same position as all other states” that have struck down bans on same-sex marriage.

The gay rights organization Lambda Legal also hailed the decision, saying Young recognized that same-sex families across the state “suffer significant harm when they are wrongly denied the freedom to marry” the person they love.

Lambda Legal represented the plaintiffs in Baskin, et al.  v. Bogan, et al. The case accelerated the challenges to Indiana’s marriage law when Lambda Legal filed a motion for immediate relief on behalf of Nicki Quasney and her spouse, Amy Sandler. Quasney has terminal cancer and asked the court to order the state to recognize their Massachusetts marriage before she died.

Sandler said Young’s decision made June 25 an “awesome day” for Indiana.

Less than an hour after Young issued his ruling, Marion County Clerk Beth White announced her staff was trained and ready to begin offering marriage licenses to same-sex couples in Marion County. She also offered to conduct short civil ceremonies on a first-come, first served basis. White announced that her office would remain open until 8 p.m. Wednesday and will process marriage license applications for anyone in line by that time.

In just a few hours Wednesday, the Marion County Clerk's Office processed nearly 50 applications and conducted 31 civil ceremonies.

Other county clerks appeared uncertain what to do. Clerks in Tippecanoe and Knox counties were reported to have been refusing to issue marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples.

The Indiana attorney general’s office said it would be filing an appeal with the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals as well as a motion to stay Young’s ruling pending appeal.

“Today’s ruling still is being studied and the Attorney General’s Office soon will advise county clerks who issue marriage licenses who were defendants – the State Department of Health, the Department of Revenue and the Indiana Public Retirement System – on what changes in procedure Chief Judge Young’s decision imposes upon them during the appeal,” said Bryan Corbin, spokesman for the Indiana attorney general.

The ruling from Indiana came on the same day as the first same-sex marriage ruling from an appellate court. The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed that Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage violates the 14th Amendment.

Indiana Senate President Pro Tem David Long said he hoped the federal court would respect the marriage law in Indiana and other states by granting a stay to Young’s ruling. He also said the Supreme Court of the United States must issue a ruling to end the current chaos surrounding marriage laws.

“Either the U.S. Constitution protects traditional marriage or it doesn’t,” Long, R-Fort Wayne, said. “If it does, it is likely that the Court will leave the decision on traditional marriage to each state to decide for itself.”

Long, describing himself as a strong proponent of states’ rights, said he believes the definition of marriage should be left to the states.

Indiana House Democratic Leader Scott Pelath called for an end to the debate on marriage. He called the debate on “matters that should be left to personal choice” unnecessary, and he said judges and legislatures across the country were deciding they should not be involved with the issue of marriage.  

“In Indiana, we need to take heed of this change,” the Michigan City Democrat said. “We need to stop this debate now. It is pointless to continue.”

 

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. 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?

  2. 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?

  3. 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.

  4. 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?

  5. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

ADVERTISEMENT