ILNews

Religious bent of Indiana’s marriage statute is not unconstitutional, federal court rules

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Center For Inquiry, a non-profit that promotes a secular society based on science and reason, plans to appeal a federal court’s ruling that Indiana’s Solemnization Statute is constitutional.

CFI filed a complaint in U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, seeking permanent injunctive relief to stop the clerk and the prosecutor from enforcing the Solemnization Statute, Indiana Code 31-11-6-1.

In a ruling issued Nov. 30, in Center For Inquiry, Inc., Reba Boyd Wooden, John Kiel, and Michelle Landrum v. Clerk, Marion Circuit Court, and Prosecutor, Marion County, Indiana, 1:12-CV-00623-SEB-DML, the court denied the plaintiffs’ request for permanent injunctive relief.

“Quite frankly, I think we were optimistic about how this particular case was going to turn out,” said Paul Fidalgo, spokesman for CFI. “We were surprised by the court’s ruling. We felt our case was extremely strong and explained very clearly to the court the institutional privilege of religion in the law as it stands.”

John Kiel and Michelle Landrum wanted to be married in Indianapolis by Reba Boyd Wooden, executive director of CFI-Indiana and a secular celebrant. Indiana requires marriages be solemnized and grants the authority to solemnize to religious and certain government officials. It does not recognize secular celebrants.

The plaintiffs filed a lawsuit to challenge the constitutionality of the Indiana Solemnization Statue, Indiana Code 31-11-6-1, and to secure a judicial declaration that the Solemnization Statute violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. They contend the statute creates a preference for religion over non-religion.

The plaintiffs also sought a declaration that the Solemnization Statute does not comport with the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.  

The court rejected those arguments, finding the statute does not significantly impede a couple from getting married. Also, it agreed with the defendants’ assertion that since marriage has religious roots, it is both natural and logical that when the state government regulates entry into marriage, it accommodates those deep religious traditions.

Writing for the court, Judge Sarah Evans Barker stated, “In addition, Plaintiffs’ proffered evidence and statement at oral arguments give us no pause regarding the Solemnization Statute’s validity. We therefore will not disturb the presumption that this statute is a valid, nondiscriminatory exercise of the State’s power. Defendants have supplied adequate rational justifications for the statute: accommodating various faith traditions, maintaining official record-keeping systems, and ensuring that marriage ceremonies are meaningful, inter alia.”




 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • the law is ok
    No bruce the whole point of the first amendment was to prohibit the establishment of a state church by the federal government by Congress. Not to prohibit anything by the states apparently from its literal text. not that this have ever stopped the courts from using it however they pleased. here the courts just let the legislature do what they are there for-- to Legislate. Democracy and all that jive!
  • Religious privilege IS unconstitutional
    Providing specific privilege to religious institutions that cannot be obtained by secular organizations or non-theistic citizens is, by definition, unconstitutional. That is the whole point of the establishment clause and the first amendment. While the authority of the constitution in this country seems to be eroding due to opportunism by our politicians and apathy by the populace, it does not change the content of the constitution nor the legal precedent.

    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
    2015 Distinguished Barrister &
    Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

    Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
    Learn More


    ADVERTISEMENT
    Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
    1. The $320,000 is the amount the school spent in litigating two lawsuits: One to release the report involving John Trimble (as noted in the story above) and one defending the discrimination lawsuit. The story above does not mention the amount spent to defend the discrimination suit, that's why the numbers don't match. Thanks for reading.

    2. $160k? Yesterday the figure was $320k. Which is it Indiana Lawyer. And even more interesting, which well connected law firm got the (I am guessing) $320k, six time was the fired chancellor received. LOL. (From yesterday's story, which I guess we were expected to forget overnight ... "According to records obtained by the Journal & Courier, Purdue spent $161,812, beginning in July 2012, in a state open records lawsuit and $168,312, beginning in April 2013, for defense in a federal lawsuit. Much of those fees were spent battling court orders to release an independent investigation by attorney John Trimble that found Purdue could have handled the forced retirement better")

    3. The numbers are harsh; 66 - 24 in the House, 40 - 10 in the Senate. And it is an idea pushed by the Democrats. Dead end? Ummm not necessarily. Just need to go big rather than go home. Nuclear option. Give it to the federal courts, the federal courts will ram this down our throats. Like that other invented right of the modern age, feticide. Rights too precious to be held up by 2000 years of civilization hang in the balance. Onward!

    4. I'm currently seeing someone who has a charge of child pornography possession, he didn't know he had it because it was attached to a music video file he downloaded when he was 19/20 yrs old and fought it for years until he couldn't handle it and plead guilty of possession. He's been convicted in Illinois and now lives in Indiana. Wouldn't it be better to give them a chance to prove to the community and their families that they pose no threat? He's so young and now because he was being a kid and downloaded music at a younger age, he has to pay for it the rest of his life? It's unfair, he can't live a normal life, and has to live in fear of what people can say and do to him because of something that happened 10 years ago? No one deserves that, and no one deserves to be labeled for one mistake, he got labeled even though there was no intent to obtain and use the said content. It makes me so sad to see someone I love go through this and it makes me holds me back a lot because I don't know how people around me will accept him...second chances should be given to those under the age of 21 at least so they can be given a chance to live a normal life as a productive member of society.

    5. It's just an ill considered remark. The Sup Ct is inherently political, as it is a core part of government, and Marbury V Madison guaranteed that it would become ever more so Supremely thus. So her remark is meaningless and she just should have not made it.... what she could have said is that Congress is a bunch of lazys and cowards who wont do their jobs so the hard work of making laws clear, oftentimes stops with the Sups sorting things out that could have been resolved by more competent legislation. That would have been a more worthwhile remark and maybe would have had some relevance to what voters do, since voters cant affect who gets appointed to the supremely un-democratic art III courts.

    ADVERTISEMENT