ILNews

State appeals ruling recognizing single same-sex marriage

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller has asked the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals to reverse an Indianapolis federal judge’s ruling requiring the state to recognize the same-sex marriage of two women, one of whom is gravely ill.

Chief Judge Richard Young of the U.S. Court for the Southern District of Indiana on May 8 granted a preliminary injunction preventing the state from enforcing a law barring same-sex marriage, but only for Niki Quasney and Amy Sandler. Young ruled their Massachusetts marriage must be recognized, and ordered that Sandler be recognized as Quasney’s surviving spouse on a death certificate if Quasney dies in Indiana. She has been diagnosed with Stage IV ovarian cancer.

The state has moved for a stay of that order, but Young has yet to rule. The case, Baskin, et al. v. Bogan, et al., 1:14-CV-00355, involves numerous couples and is one of at least five cases pending before Young that challenge Indiana’s ban on same-sex marriage.

In its brief to the 7th Circuit filed Wednesday, the state argues there is no constitutional right for individuals to have other types of state licenses recognized by other states, according to Bryan Corbin, spokesman for the AG’s office.

The filing argues there is no right “to have a license issued in one state – whether for professional, weapons, driving or marriage purposes – treated as valid by government and courts in another … Otherwise, States would have to recognize and treat as valid one another’s law licenses, medical licenses, concealed-carry gun permits, driver’s licenses, and notary public commissions, just to name a few.”

Numerous states have rejected laws banning same-sex marriage since the Supreme Court of the United States' decision last year in U.S. v. Windsor, but the AG’s office notes, “the Supreme Court has not ruled that states are required to legally recognize same-sex marriages granted in other states.”

In granting the injunction Young wrote of the contentious nature of the issues and cautioned his ruling wasn’t a resolution on the merits of the case but rather “a preliminary look, or in other words, a best guess by the court as to what the outcome will be.

“Currently, all federal district court cases decided post-Windsor indicate that Plaintiffs are likely to prevail. Nevertheless, the strength or weakness of Plaintiffs’ case at the time of final dissolution will inevitably be impacted as more courts are presented with this issue,” he wrote.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Straights vs Gays
    You do realize that straight people make gay babies. So that means we are ALL THE SAME. Let me get married and let this law stay.

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. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  2. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  3. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  4. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  5. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

ADVERTISEMENT