ILNews

Same-sex couple facing terminal illness files emergency motion with 7th Circuit

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The couple who won an initial battle to have their same-sex marriage recognized – a case that foreshadowed the overturning of Indiana’s marriage law last week – is now fighting the emergency stay granted June 27 by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Lambda Legal, a national gay-rights organization, has filed an emergency motion with the 7th Circuit to keep in place an earlier order that recognized the marriage of Indiana residents Niki Quasney and Amy Sandler. This couple turned to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana for an emergency order in April because Quasney is terminally ill and wanted to be able to list Sandler as her spouse on a future death certificate.

The 7th Circuit’s order issued late last week, staying the June 25 ruling by the U.S. District Court that found Indiana’s marriage law unconstitutional, included preventing the state from recognizing Quasney and Sandler’s Massachusetts marriage.

Camilla Taylor, marriage project director for Lambda Legal, is asking Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller to not oppose this motion.

“This is one family in all of Indiana that is undergoing tremendous stress while they courageously fight Ms. Quasney’s stage four ovarian cancer,” Taylor said in a press release. “Their marriage doesn’t harm anyone in Indiana, it simply protects them and their children.”

Lamba Legal filed Baskin v. Bogan, 1:140-cv-0355 in March which was one of five challenges to Indiana’ ban on same-sex marriage. The organization later filed a motion seeking immediate relief for Quasney, Sandler and their two children because of Quasney’s serious health situation.

The state filed a motion to stay the recognition of Quasney and Sandler’s marriage, but Young never issued a ruling.

Meanwhile, other same-sex couples are wondering about the current status of their marriages. After Young struck down Indiana’s marriage law June 25, many gays and lesbians raced to their county clerks’ offices to get married, but the stay issued by the 7th Circuit has put those marriages in legal limbo.

“Our position is these are valid marriages,” said Ken Falk, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana. “It would be unprecedented for the state to take the position that even though these marriages were valid at the time they were entered into, they are no longer valid.”

Paul Castillo, Lambda Legal attorney, echoed Falk in saying the marriages performed during the window between Young’s decision and the 7th Circuit stay were still valid.

However, Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller’s Office said the question of validity has not been determined and might have to be decided by a court at a later time.

Castillo said the validity question has been answered in federal court. After a stay was granted in the ruling that found Utah’s marriage law violated the U.S. Constitution, the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah ruled in the separate case of Evans v. Utah that vows exchanged during the window in the beehive state were still valid.

Utah has filed a motion to stay that decision.

Despite questions at the state level, Indiana same-sex couples who were married after Young’s decision may get recognition from the federal government. Castillo pointed out when a marriage law has been overturned in other states, the U.S. government has considered those marriages as valid even while a stay is in place.  

 

 

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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Today, I want to use this opportunity to tell everyone about Dr agbuza of agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com, on how he help me reunited with my husband after 2 months of divorce.My husband divorce me because he saw another woman in his office and he said to me that he is no longer in love with me anymore and decide to divorce me.I seek help from the Net and i saw good talk about Dr agbuza and i contact him and explain my problem to him and he cast a spell for me which i use to get my husband back within 2 days.am totally happy because there is no reparations and side-effect. If you need his help Email him at agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com

  2. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  3. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  4. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  5. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

ADVERTISEMENT