ILNews

Same-sex plaintiffs argue the governor enforces marriage statute

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Plaintiffs in Love v. Pence, the first lawsuit filed in March challenging Indiana’s ban on same-sex marriage, filed their response to the state’s motion to dismiss their complaint, arguing the governor has the power to order county clerks to issue marriage licenses.  

Represented by Louisville attorneys at Clay Daniel Walton & Adams PLC and Fauver Law Office PLLC, the plaintiffs filed their opposition to the state’s motion in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana.

Indiana is seeking to have Love dismissed on the grounds that the sole named defendant, Gov. Mike Pence, cannot provide relief. The Indiana attorney general contends the governor does not issue marriage licenses nor does he perform any other function that would recognize marriages solemnized in other states.

The four couples counter that as a “basic matter of civics,” laws are enforced through the executive branch. Therefore, since the governor is the head of the executive branch, he is the proper defendant.

Moreover, granting the state’s motion to dismiss would, in the extreme, mean employees in every county clerk’s office who actually take the marriage application would have to be named individually as a defendant, the plaintiffs argue.   

“Under Defendant’s theory, if the entity is not included as a defendant in the suit, the citizens of the state are just stuck with unconstitutional policy, and the Governor is powerless to intervene,” the plaintiffs’ assert. “There is no need for such complicated musings, because there is one entity, one person, who has the authority to direct change in all of these avenues. That person is the Governor.”

Love v. Pence, 4:14-cv-00015, is one of five lawsuits seeking to have Indiana’s statute defining marriage as between one man and one woman declared unconstitutional. All the cases are being argued before Chief Judge Richard Young.

 

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. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. 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!!!

  3. 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?

  4. 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?

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT