ILNews

1 same-sex marriage lawsuit remains in District Court

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

One challenge to Indiana’s same-sex marriage law remains in federal court and could, again, open a window for gay and lesbian couples in the state to get married, an attorney representing the plaintiffs in the case said.

The lawsuit, Bowling, Bowling and Bruner v. Pence et al., 1:14-cv-0405, was not included with the three other cases that Richard Young, chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, consolidated in his June 25 ruling overturning Indiana’s ban on same-sex marriage.

Richard Mann, attorney for the plaintiffs, said the Bowling case was moving more slowly than the other lawsuits because Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller’s office requested two extensions to file briefs. The plaintiffs have filed a response but have also argued the attorney general’s motion for summary judgment was filed after the deadline so the court should not consider it.

Mann contends that if Young finds Indiana’s marriage law unconstitutional and does not immediately issue a stay, same-sex marriage would become legal again in the state. However, Mann noted none of his clients are asking to be married but, rather, to have their out-of-state marriages recognized by Indiana. Therefore, the judge could write a narrow ruling that would only address the issue of recognizing same-sex marriages performed in other states.

On July 14, the attorney general filed a request for a stay of any decision the federal court makes in the Bowling case. The state maintained such action is warranted because of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals stayed the District Court’s ruling in the other three same-sex marriage lawsuits.

Robert Katz, professor at the Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law, would be surprised if Young issues an order and does not immediately grant the stay, especially since the 7th Circuit stopped the enforcement of his previous same-sex marriage ruling.  

Young risks squandering his prestige and reputation if he does not stay his decision in Bowling, Katz said.  

“There’re only so many times you can make a great bold gesture,” Katz said. “He did it, and he did it in a big way.”     

Katz is also a member of the legal team on Lee et al. v. Pence et al., 1:14-cv-0406.

Like the other lawsuits filed this year against Indiana’s marriage law, the Bowling complaint argues the state’s ban on same-sex marriage violates the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the 14th Amendment.

The case then raises the following additional arguments that the ban violates:

•    the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment  (the primary purpose of the marriage statute is to further the religious beliefs of the state which fosters an excessive government entanglement in religion);
•    the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the U.S. Constitution (by not recognizing the plaintiff’s out-of-state marriage, Indiana law is causing uncertainty, unpredictability and non-uniformity which the Full Faith and Credit Clause protects against);
•    the right to travel which has been afforded constitutional protection (Indiana’s refusal to recognize a same-sex marriage performed in another state places an unreasonable burden on the couples who are then forced to decide to continue living in Indiana or relocate).

In their motion for summary judgment, the plaintiffs strongly asserted Gov. Mike Pence is a proper defendant. Young dismissed the first same-sex marriage lawsuit filed this year, Love et al. v. Pence, 4:14-cv-00015, agreeing with the state that the governor did not cause the injuries and has no ability to offer a resolution.

The Bowling parties claim the governor should be a defendant because he does have the power to redress the injuries. Specifically, Pence has the authority over two of the other defendants in the case – the Indiana revenue and state personnel departments – and can order them to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions.

Separately, Mann filed an appeal July 14 with the Indiana Court of Appeals on behalf of Linda Bruner, one of the plaintiffs in the federal suit. Bruner is seeking a divorce from her wife and had filed in state court but was denied.

In the Court of Appeals filing, Bruner v. Roberts, 49A05-1407-DR-316, Mann makes the argument that Indiana’s marriage law is unconstitutional.

 
 

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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. 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?

ADVERTISEMENT