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. The ADA acts as a tax upon all for the benefit of a few. And, most importantly, the many have no individual say in whether they pay the tax. Those with handicaps suffered in military service should get a pass, but those who are handicapped by accident or birth do NOT deserve that pass. The drivel about "equal access" is spurious because the handicapped HAVE equal access, they just can't effectively use it. That is their problem, not society's. The burden to remediate should be that of those who seek the benefit of some social, constructional, or dimensional change, NOT society generally. Everybody wants to socialize the costs and concentrate the benefits of government intrusion so that they benefit and largely avoid the costs. This simply maintains the constant push to the slop trough, and explains, in part, why the nation is 20 trillion dollars in the hole.

  2. Hey 2 psychs is never enough, since it is statistically unlikely that three will ever agree on anything! New study admits this pseudo science is about as scientifically valid as astrology ... done by via fortune cookie ....John Ioannidis, professor of health research and policy at Stanford University, said the study was impressive and that its results had been eagerly awaited by the scientific community. “Sadly, the picture it paints - a 64% failure rate even among papers published in the best journals in the field - is not very nice about the current status of psychological science in general, and for fields like social psychology it is just devastating,” he said. http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/aug/27/study-delivers-bleak-verdict-on-validity-of-psychology-experiment-results

  3. Indianapolis Bar Association President John Trimble and I are on the same page, but it is a very large page with plenty of room for others to join us. As my final Res Gestae article will express in more detail in a few days, the Great Recession hastened a fundamental and permanent sea change for the global legal service profession. Every state bar is facing the same existential questions that thrust the medical profession into national healthcare reform debates. The bench, bar, and law schools must comprehensively reconsider how we define the practice of law and what it means to access justice. If the three principals of the legal service profession do not recast the vision of their roles and responsibilities soon, the marketplace will dictate those roles and responsibilities without regard for the public interests that the legal profession professes to serve.

  4. I have met some highly placed bureaucrats who vehemently disagree, Mr. Smith. This is not your father's time in America. Some ideas are just too politically incorrect too allow spoken, says those who watch over us for the good of their concept of order.

  5. Lets talk about this without forgetting that Lawyers, too, have FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND ASSOCIATION

ADVERTISEMENT