Ruling may hint at future of Indiana's marriage law

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Although the plaintiffs’ attorneys and the Indiana attorney general both emphasize a federal judge’s temporary order that the state recognize the marriage of one same-sex couple is short-term and limited, the ruling has given gay marriage proponents hope that Indiana’s marriage statute will ultimately be ruled unconstitutional.

Richard Young, chief judge for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, granted a temporary restraining order April 10 which instructs the state to recognize the Massachusetts marriage of Nikole Quasney and Amy Sandler.

castillo-paul.jpg Castillo

Lambda Legal filed a motion March 31 asking for emergency relief because Quasney is terminally ill with stage IV ovarian cancer and she wants to ensure Sandler and their two children will be acknowledged as her family and be eligible to receive survivor benefits.

The attorneys will have to return to court before May 8 to argue for a preliminary injunction, and the current order does not impact any of the other gay and lesbian couples fighting Indiana’s marriage ban. However, many see the ruling as an indication that Young thinks the proponents’ arguments have merit and will likely be successful.

“This is the first couple within the state whose marriage is recognized and certainly it really demonstrates there are harms” caused by Indiana’s ban on same-sex marriage, said Paul Castillo, Lambda Legal attorney. He noted this could be “a big first step” in deciding the ban is unconstitutional.

Quasney and Sandler are parties in Baskin, et al. v. Bogan, et al., 1:14-CV-00355, the Indiana same-sex marriage lawsuit that Lambda Legal filed in mid-March. This is one of five challenges to the marriage law in Indiana and the first to get a significant ruling.

The cases were all filed in the Southern District of Indiana and have been consolidated onto Young’s docket. All dispositive motions for summary judgment were due to be filed with the court April 21 and the state is expected to answer the five complaints by May 8.

Castillo and other attorneys quickly point out nothing is guaranteed. Young will not make a decision on the request to grant a preliminary injunction for Quasney and Sandler or enter any further judgments until he fully reviews the briefs and hears arguments.

Still, some say the temporary restraining order does open the door, and Young appears to be leaning, toward granting marriage equality.

“It makes me cautiously optimistic, but we take nothing for granted,” said Karen Celestino-Horseman, one of the attorneys working on the same-sex marriage lawsuit Lee, et al. v. Pence, et al., 1:14-CV-00404.

Also pushing on Young may be the growing momentum of marriage rulings nationwide in favor of same-sex couples and the weakness of the state’s arguments, said Steve Sanders, associate professor of law at Indiana University Maurer School of Law.

To date, 10 federal judges have found bans on same-sex marriage violate the U.S. Constitution. These are diverse judges who preside in different states – including those surrounding Indiana – and have been nominated by different political parties. Even though Young will make an independent decision, the analysis of the constitutional arguments on due process and equal protection grounds done by the other District Court judges could be persuasive.

sanders-steve.jpg Sanders

As for the Indiana attorney general’s arguments against same-sex marriage, Sanders said they have not worked in other states.

“The attorney general is not going to dream up a new argument for Indiana’s law that has not already been tried and rejected by other federal judges,” Sanders said.

Attorney General Greg Zoeller has not presented his arguments for upholding Indiana’s ban, but in amicus briefs he has recently written in support of marriage laws in other states. He argued the government has an interest in limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples because that fosters responsible procreation.

Sanders described that reasoning as laughable and silly. “The responsible procreation argument was dreamed up by social conservatives because it’s a kinder gentler way of saying we don’t think same-sex couples should marry,” he said.

bill groth Groth

In fact, he noted in Hollingsworth v. Perry, the dispute over California’s Proposition 8 banning same-sex marriage that was argued before the Supreme Court of the United States, the justices appeared to dismiss the procreation reasoning. It was presented during oral arguments but the bench did not ask any questions about that argument, largely ignoring it.

The attorney general has filed a motion to dismiss Love v. Pence, 4:14-CV-00015. The state asserts this lawsuit should be tossed because Gov. Mike Pence is the only named defendant and, since the governor does not perform marriages or issue marriage licenses, he cannot provide any relief.

Daniel Canon, one of the attorneys representing the plaintiffs in Love v. Pence, described the motion as a waste of time. The governor has executive power and he can order the county clerks to issue marriage licenses, Canon said. The buck stops with the governor.

If Young dismisses Love v. Pence, the decision will likely have little ramifications for the other four lawsuits since they do not all name the governor as a defendant, and those that do also list other public officials.

The most significant event in the challenges to Indiana’s ban on same-sex marriage so far remains the grant of the temporary restraining order. Given the emotional appeal of Quasney and Sandler for relief, attorneys were not surprised Young issued the order.

Castillo said Lambda Legal’s brief in support of the temporary restraining order was meant to show that the state’s narrow definition of marriage causes irreparable harm to the couple’s dignity. The harm extends beyond the tangible effect of not being able to list a same-sex spouse on the death certificate.

Attorney William Groth, a member of the legal team in Lee v. Pence, said Young’s ruling was encouraging and a small indication of how the court feels about the legal issues.

In Lee v. Pence, the plaintiffs, like Quasney and Sandler, were legally married in other states and are asking the court require Indiana recognize their unions. They share another key similarity with Quasney and Sandler in that they are all public safety first responders who, as Celestino-Horseman said, face injury and death everyday.

celestino-horseman-karen.jpg Celestino-Horseman

“Indiana made a promise (to these plaintiffs),” Celestino-Horseman said, “that if you make a commitment to serve and protect, we’ll promise to take care of you and your family, unless you are married to a person of the same-sex.”

The move to limit Lee v. Pence to push only for recognition of marriages rather than try to get the entire law overturned was partly a strategic decision in light of Indiana’s traditionally conservative slant, Groth said.

The decision to mount a challenge was made late in 2013, but he said his team held off filing a complaint until after the 2014 legislative session ended. Groth was surprised that five separate lawsuits were filed, but he said that is an indication of the strength of the legal claims being made by all the plaintiffs.

Whatever Young finally decides about Indiana’s marriage law, Groth noted the obvious, that the lawsuits will not end. The decision will be appealed to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.•


Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  2. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  3. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  4. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  5. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?