ILNews

Some Indiana clerks refuse to issue same-sex marriage licenses

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A federal judge’s ruling declaring Indiana’s ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional doesn’t trump a clerk’s religious convictions in one county. Elsewhere, county clerks are being instructed that it’s up to them whether they issue licenses to gay couples.

“Personally for me, I feel like our country was founded on the biblical principle of marriage between one man and one woman and I’m going to stand on that principle until I’m ordered otherwise,” Daviess County Clerk Sherri Healy said Thursday morning.  

Healy said at least a half-dozen people in same-sex relationships had called the courthouse in Washington inquiring about obtaining a license.

Young’s order Wednesday enjoined clerks in counties named in four lawsuits – Boone, Hamilton, Lake and Porter – from enforcing Indiana’s statute barring same-sex marriage.

It also forbid enforcement of laws that criminalize same-sex couples who fill out marriage license applications where spaces provide only for male and female applicants.

Before filing a motion to stay Young’s ruling late Wednesday, Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller’s office provided a letter of guidance to county clerks that said clerks in the named counties would be subject to contempt of court if they failed to issue licenses.

“Other county clerks are not under the direct jurisdiction of the court order but as an officer of the court, we me must encourage everyone to show respect for the judge and the orders that are issued,” the AG’s office advised.

Healy said the letter revealed a “gray area” that didn’t require issuance of licenses.

Daviess Circuit Judge Gregory Smith said he respected Healy’s decision, and that a letter from Zoeller “was really of no benefit.”

Clerks in counties such as Elkhart, Knox and Tippecanoe initially delayed issuing licenses after Young’s ruling Wednesday, but reported Thursday that they had begun to do so after receiving the AG’s letter.

Daviess County in southwestern Indiana isn’t alone in opting to continue to deny licenses for same-sex couples.

Cass County Clerk Beth Liming said despite several calls to the courthouse in Logansport, she opted not to issue licenses after consulting with county attorney John Hillis.

“I think we’re being advised by our county attorneys what to do, and that’s what we’re being told,” Liming said.

Hillis said Thursday, “If the clerk does not issue a marriage license, that's not a violation of Indiana law,” except in the four counties named in Young’s order.

Hillis said Zoeller’s request that other clerks around that state respect Young’s order was “pretty subjective,” and left the decision on whether to issue licenses up to each clerk.

“I don’t think it’s mandatory” that clerks grant licenses to same-sex couples under Young’s ruling, Hillis said. On the other hand, if Liming chose to issue licenses, Hillis said, “I think that’s fine. … She has a right to do that.

“Is that disrespectful of a judge? I don’t think so,” he said.

In issuing guidance to clerks, Zoeller’s office said it was doing so “to avoid the chaos that has ensued in other states when rulings such as today’s have been issued.”

Asked whether any additional direction may be coming from the AG’s office, spokesman Bryan Corbin said in an email, “We will notify county clerks (and the news media) when we are notified of any ruling from the U.S. District Court on the State’s motion for stay.”





 




 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • name calling
    Smith, you thought provoker, complacency shaker, wabble wouser. Not wishing you a happy fourth, Mr Blackstone. Or is it More?
  • Christus Regnat
    Maybe it is time for conservatives to pack it in and realize that the Framers themselves were in several obvious cases irreligious, in other instances simply ardent capitalists; and the union between secularism and greed that marked the birth of the Union, and the materialism that in one guise or another, has haunted it ever since, dooms the liberal experiment to failure, if we take the Platonic view of the role of the State. Of course, I doubt the Framers took the Platonic view, or they wouldn't have initiate the war of independence in the first place. Maybe it's time for American conservatives to just get up and repudiate the whole US Constitution and say it was a big mistake and we should have stayed under the Crown. Of course England is no better than we are now but maybe history would have turned out differently if the wild eyed revolutionary advocates of extreme anti-social individualism like Thomas Paine had not won out. Just speculating here. Cue the chorus of denunciations: "bigot, hater, Neanderthal, theocrat, etc."
  • Ideologies in conflict
    John Adams was concerned that our system of goverment could fail under present circumstances ... as it is about to do when the State orders these clerks to violate their consciences or be terminated: " Because we have no government, armed with power, capable of contending with human passions, unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge and licentiousness would break the strongest cords of our Constitution, as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
    • BRAVO
      Hold the line clerks. Hold the line.

      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. I have been on this program while on parole from 2011-2013. No person should be forced mentally to share private details of their personal life with total strangers. Also giving permission for a mental therapist to report to your parole agent that your not participating in group therapy because you don't have the financial mean to be in the group therapy. I was personally singled out and sent back three times for not having money and also sent back within the six month when you aren't to be sent according to state law. I will work to het this INSOMM's removed from this state. I also had twelve or thirteen parole agents with a fifteen month period. Thanks for your time.

      2. Our nation produces very few jurists of the caliber of Justice DOUGLAS and his peers these days. Here is that great civil libertarian, who recognized government as both a blessing and, when corrupted by ideological interests, a curse: "Once the investigator has only the conscience of government as a guide, the conscience can become ‘ravenous,’ as Cromwell, bent on destroying Thomas More, said in Bolt, A Man For All Seasons (1960), p. 120. The First Amendment mirrors many episodes where men, harried and harassed by government, sought refuge in their conscience, as these lines of Thomas More show: ‘MORE: And when we stand before God, and you are sent to Paradise for doing according to your conscience, *575 and I am damned for not doing according to mine, will you come with me, for fellowship? ‘CRANMER: So those of us whose names are there are damned, Sir Thomas? ‘MORE: I don't know, Your Grace. I have no window to look into another man's conscience. I condemn no one. ‘CRANMER: Then the matter is capable of question? ‘MORE: Certainly. ‘CRANMER: But that you owe obedience to your King is not capable of question. So weigh a doubt against a certainty—and sign. ‘MORE: Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat; it is a matter capable of question. But if it is flat, will the King's command make it round? And if it is round, will the King's command flatten it? No, I will not sign.’ Id., pp. 132—133. DOUGLAS THEN WROTE: Where government is the Big Brother,11 privacy gives way to surveillance. **909 But our commitment is otherwise. *576 By the First Amendment we have staked our security on freedom to promote a multiplicity of ideas, to associate at will with kindred spirits, and to defy governmental intrusion into these precincts" Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Comm., 372 U.S. 539, 574-76, 83 S. Ct. 889, 908-09, 9 L. Ed. 2d 929 (1963) Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, concurring. I write: Happy Memorial Day to all -- God please bless our fallen who lived and died to preserve constitutional governance in our wonderful series of Republics. And God open the eyes of those government officials who denounce the constitutions of these Republics by arbitrary actions arising out capricious motives.

      3. From back in the day before secularism got a stranglehold on Hoosier jurists comes this great excerpt via Indiana federal court judge Allan Sharp, dedicated to those many Indiana government attorneys (with whom I have dealt) who count the law as a mere tool, an optional tool that is not to be used when political correctness compels a more acceptable result than merely following the path that the law directs: ALLEN SHARP, District Judge. I. In a scene following a visit by Henry VIII to the home of Sir Thomas More, playwriter Robert Bolt puts the following words into the mouths of his characters: Margaret: Father, that man's bad. MORE: There is no law against that. ROPER: There is! God's law! MORE: Then God can arrest him. ROPER: Sophistication upon sophistication! MORE: No, sheer simplicity. The law, Roper, the law. I know what's legal not what's right. And I'll stick to what's legal. ROPER: Then you set man's law above God's! MORE: No, far below; but let me draw your attention to a fact I'm not God. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain sailing, I can't navigate. I'm no voyager. But in the thickets of law, oh, there I'm a forester. I doubt if there's a man alive who could follow me there, thank God... ALICE: (Exasperated, pointing after Rich) While you talk, he's gone! MORE: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law! ROPER: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law! MORE: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? ROPER: I'd cut down every law in England to do that! MORE: (Roused and excited) Oh? (Advances on Roper) And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you where would you hide, Roper, the laws being flat? (He leaves *1257 him) This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast man's laws, not God's and if you cut them down and you're just the man to do it d'you really think you would stand upright in the winds that would blow then? (Quietly) Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake. ROPER: I have long suspected this; this is the golden calf; the law's your god. MORE: (Wearily) Oh, Roper, you're a fool, God's my god... (Rather bitterly) But I find him rather too (Very bitterly) subtle... I don't know where he is nor what he wants. ROPER: My God wants service, to the end and unremitting; nothing else! MORE: (Dryly) Are you sure that's God! He sounds like Moloch. But indeed it may be God And whoever hunts for me, Roper, God or Devil, will find me hiding in the thickets of the law! And I'll hide my daughter with me! Not hoist her up the mainmast of your seagoing principles! They put about too nimbly! (Exit More. They all look after him). Pgs. 65-67, A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS A Play in Two Acts, Robert Bolt, Random House, New York, 1960. Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen. of Indiana, Indianapolis, for defendants. Childs v. Duckworth, 509 F. Supp. 1254, 1256 (N.D. Ind. 1981) aff'd, 705 F.2d 915 (7th Cir. 1983)

      4. "Meanwhile small- and mid-size firms are getting squeezed and likely will not survive unless they become a boutique firm." I've been a business attorney in small, and now mid-size firm for over 30 years, and for over 30 years legal consultants have been preaching this exact same mantra of impending doom for small and mid-sized firms -- verbatim. This claim apparently helps them gin up merger opportunities from smaller firms who become convinced that they need to become larger overnight. The claim that large corporations are interested in cost-saving and efficiency has likewise been preached for decades, and is likewise bunk. If large corporations had any real interest in saving money they wouldn't use large law firms whose rates are substantially higher than those of high-quality mid-sized firms.

      5. The family is the foundation of all human government. That is the Grand Design. Modern governments throw off this Design and make bureaucratic war against the family, as does Hollywood and cultural elitists such as third wave feminists. Since WWII we have been on a ship of fools that way, with both the elite and government and their social engineering hacks relentlessly attacking the very foundation of social order. And their success? See it in the streets of Fergusson, on the food stamp doles (mostly broken families)and in the above article. Reject the Grand Design for true social function, enter the Glorious State to manage social dysfunction. Our Brave New World will be a prison camp, and we will welcome it as the only way to manage given the anarchy without it.

      ADVERTISEMENT