ILNews

Same-sex couples tell 7th Circuit Indiana’s marriage ban is discriminatory

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Plaintiffs challenging Indiana’s ban on same-sex marriage filed their appellate brief with the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals July 29, making their argument that the state’s marriage law violates their constitutional rights.

As ordered by the court, the plaintiffs from the three separate lawsuits that overturned Indiana’s marriage statute in the District Court worked together and filed one brief. They asserted prohibiting gay and lesbian couples from marrying violates the 14th Amendment’s Due Process and Equal Protection clauses.

The brief states that Indiana’s marriage ban “deprives same-sex couples of equal dignity and autonomy in the most intimate sphere of their lives and brands them as inferior to other married couples in Indiana, denying them state and federal protections, responsibilities, and benefits, and inviting ongoing discrimination from third parties.

“This deprivation violates due process by infringing upon the fundamental right to marry, and it violates equal protection by treating same-sex and different-sex couples differently for no reason other than to impose second-class citizenship on a targeted group.”

The brief was filed on behalf of the plaintiffs in Marilyn Rae Baskin, et al. v. Greg Zoeller, et al., the suit brought by the national gay rights organization Lambda Legal; Midori Fujii, et al. v. Commissioner of the Indiana State Department of Revenue, et al., filed by the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana; and Pamela Lee, et al. v. Brian Abbott, et al., brought by a legal team led by William Groth of Fillenwarth Dennerline Groth & Towe LLP.

National organizations and individuals supporting freedom to marry are expected to file amicus briefs in the coming days.

Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller’s office has already filed its brief with the 7th Circuit.

Plaintiffs argued against the Indiana’s contention that states have the authority to define and regulate marriage. Describing the states’ rights argument as a “sleight-of-hand,” the plaintiffs maintained state laws cannot contravene constitutional rights.

Also, same-sex couples scoffed at the state’s procreation argument.

“While the State argues that marriage is a mere ‘regulation’ and ‘a means of enticing individuals whose sexual intercourse may produce children to enter voluntarily into a relationship that the government recognizes and regulates,’ this narrow definition cannot be reconciled with the autonomy protected by the State for those who choose to marry,” plaintiffs stated in their brief. “Married couples may have children, but they need not and often do not. Spouses need not pass a fertility test, intend to procreate, be of childbearing age, have any parenting skills, or account for any history of childbearing or support.”

Last week, the 7th Circuit set Aug. 26 as the date it will hear oral arguments for the case challenging Indiana’s marriage law and for the lawsuit against Wisconsin’s marriage ban.

Marilyn Rae Baskin, lead plaintiff in the Lambda Legal lawsuit, said the lawsuit has been a rollercoaster ride. She is impatient for a final decision and, describing supporters of same-sex marriage as being on the right side of history, said she is confused why Indiana is continuing to fight against same-sex marriage.

“Fill the potholes,” she admonished the state. “Take care of the budget, solve crime, work on education. This should be a non-issue. It’s discriminatory and that’s its only reason for existence.”




 

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. I grew up on a farm and live in the county and it's interesting that the big industrial farmers like Jeff Shoaf don't live next to their industrial operations...

  2. So that none are misinformed by my posting wihtout a non de plume here, please allow me to state that I am NOT an Indiana licensed attorney, although I am an Indiana resident approved to practice law and represent clients in Indiana's fed court of Nth Dist and before the 7th circuit. I remain licensed in KS, since 1996, no discipline. This must be clarified since the IN court records will reveal that I did sit for and pass the Indiana bar last February. Yet be not confused by the fact that I was so allowed to be tested .... I am not, to be clear in the service of my duty to be absolutely candid about this, I AM NOT a member of the Indiana bar, and might never be so licensed given my unrepented from errors of thought documented in this opinion, at fn2, which likely supports Mr Smith's initial post in this thread: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1592921.html

  3. When I served the State of Kansas as Deputy AG over Consumer Protection & Antitrust for four years, supervising 20 special agents and assistant attorneys general (back before the IBLE denied me the right to practice law in Indiana for not having the right stuff and pretty much crushed my legal career) we had a saying around the office: Resist the lure of the ring!!! It was a take off on Tolkiem, the idea that absolute power (I signed investigative subpoenas as a judge would in many other contexts, no need to show probable cause)could corrupt absolutely. We feared that we would overreach constitutional limits if not reminded, over and over, to be mindful to not do so. Our approach in so challenging one another was Madisonian, as the following quotes from the Father of our Constitution reveal: The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse. We are right to take alarm at the first experiment upon our liberties. I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. Liberty may be endangered by the abuse of liberty, but also by the abuse of power. All men having power ought to be mistrusted. -- James Madison, Federalist Papers and other sources: http://www.constitution.org/jm/jm_quotes.htm RESIST THE LURE OF THE RING ALL YE WITH POLITICAL OR JUDICIAL POWER!

  4. My dear Mr Smith, I respect your opinions and much enjoy your posts here. We do differ on our view of the benefits and viability of the American Experiment in Ordered Liberty. While I do agree that it could be better, and that your points in criticism are well taken, Utopia does indeed mean nowhere. I think Madison, Jefferson, Adams and company got it about as good as it gets in a fallen post-Enlightenment social order. That said, a constitution only protects the citizens if it is followed. We currently have a bevy of public officials and judicial agents who believe that their subjectivism, their personal ideology, their elitist fears and concerns and cause celebs trump the constitutions of our forefathers. This is most troubling. More to follow in the next post on that subject.

  5. Yep I am not Bryan Brown. Bryan you appear to be a bigger believer in the Constitution than I am. Were I still a big believer then I might be using my real name like you. Personally, I am no longer a fan of secularism. I favor the confessional state. In religious mattes, it seems to me that social diversity is chaos and conflict, while uniformity is order and peace.... secularism has been imposed by America on other nations now by force and that has not exactly worked out very well.... I think the American historical experiment with disestablishmentarianism is withering on the vine before our eyes..... Since I do not know if that is OK for an officially licensed lawyer to say, I keep the nom de plume.

ADVERTISEMENT