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

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. 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?

  2. 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?

  3. 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.

  4. 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?

  5. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

ADVERTISEMENT