ILNews

Plaintiffs say they joined same-sex marriage lawsuit because ‘We wanted to be married’

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Although oral arguments in the Indiana same-sex marriage lawsuits will not be heard until late August, plaintiffs in one of the cases are hoping the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals acts quickly so their challenge can be heard by the Supreme Court of the United States.

Lambda Legal and some of the plaintiffs the organization represents in Baskin, et al. v. Bogan, et al., 1:14-cv-0355, spoke at a special forum on marriage equality Thursday evening in Indianapolis. Attorneys recapped the status of same-sex marriage lawsuits across the country and answered questions during the 90-minute event at the Indiana Landmarks Center.

An estimated 160 individuals attended.

In June, a federal court judge issued a ruling in Baskin and two other same-sex marriage complaints that Indiana’s statute defining marriage as only between one man and one woman was unconstitutional. Those three cases are now awaiting a hearing by the 7th Circuit.

The state appealed and the 7th Circuit had originally scheduled oral arguments for Aug. 13. However, that date was vacated after the Indiana Attorney General’s Office filed a motion asking the appellate court to hear the appeal en banc.

According to the court’s docket, the arguments have been rescheduled for Aug. 26. The motion to hear the cases en banc was denied.

“We want this case to go before the 7th Circuit sooner because we ultimately believe that the decision will rest with the United States Supreme Court,” said Paul Castillo, attorney for Lambda Legal. “We know that there are cases all across the country that are moving forward and we are eager to present our strong arguments as soon as possible.”

During the event, the lead plaintiffs in the Lambda Legal case, Marilyn Rae Baskin and Esther Fuller, were recognized with a loud applause from the audience.

At the conclusion of the event, Baskin explained their reasons for being part of the lawsuit.

“We wanted to be married,” she said. “Just like any other couple who’s been together and has a relationship, our relationship has value. We should be able to be married like every other family and enjoy the protections, enjoy the validity.”

Baskin and Fuller have been together for 24 years and live in Johnson County. After the Supreme Court of the United States knocked down part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act in the 2012 Windsor ruling, the couple contacted Lambda Legal to find out what their rights would be if they were to get married in a state that recognizes same-sex unions.

Lambda Legal eventually asked Baskin and Fuller if they wanted to join the fight against Indiana’s marriage law.

Fuller said the couple had concerns but decided to sign on to the lawsuit.  

“Somebody has to do it,” Fuller said. “It’s like somebody has to say I’m not going to move to the back of the bus, thank you very much.”   

The 7th Circuit did consolidate the three same-sex marriage cases from Indiana with one case from Wisconsin. All the plaintiffs from the Indiana lawsuits will file a single brief with the appellate court July 29. About a week later, all the organizations and individuals supporting the Indiana same-sex couples are expected to file amicus briefs with the court.

The families in Baskin are joining the families in Midori Fujii, et al. v. Indiana Governor, et al., 1:14-cv-00404, filed by the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana, and Lee, et al. v. Pence, et al., 1:14-cv-00406, filed by a legal team led by Karen Celestino-Horseman, William Groth, Mark Sniderman and Kathleen Sweeney.  

“While the different cases describe unique harms of their own individual plaintiffs, the legal arguments are the same across the three cases,” Castillo said. “So what I see in this brief is we’re speaking with one unique voice on behalf of the citizens of the state of Indiana who support the freedom to marry.”
 

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. 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?

  2. 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.

  3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT