ILNews

Suit claims marriage statute unconstitutional

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A secular group and three of its members are suing the Marion County prosecutor and clerk, claiming an Indiana statute is unconstitutional because it says that religions are the only groups with rights to have their beliefs recognized in marriage ceremonies.

The ACLU of Indiana filed the lawsuit Wednesday on behalf of The Center for Inquiry; its executive director of the Indiana branch, Reba Boyd Wooden; and two members of the Indiana branch who want to marry in Indiana. The Center for Inquiry – Indiana wants to be able to have its secular celebrants perform weddings but claims no members of the organization are allowed to solemnize marriages under Indiana Code 31-11-6-1.

John Kiel and Michelle Landrum, who recently moved to Kentucky, belong to the Center for Inquiry – Indiana and want to have their wedding conducted by a secular celebrant from the Center for Inquiry. They plan on marrying in Marion County, and they claim that Wooden, whom they want to perform the ceremony, can’t legally solemnize the marriage.

The statute lists what groups can solemnize marriages, including judges, mayors, clerks and a member of specified religious organizations.

According to the suit, someone who attempts to solemnize a marriage who is not authorized to do so commits a Class B misdemeanor.

The suit seeks to allow Boyd to perform the ceremony and prevent the Marion County prosecutor from prosecuting any Center for Inquiry secular celebrant who solemnizes an Indiana marriage.

“This case is more than just an issue of fairness," said ACLU of Indiana Interim Executive Director Frank Young. "It's about respecting the rights of all who value marriage in Indiana. All who wish to have their marriage commitments solemnized should be able to do so in accordance with their beliefs, whether those beliefs are religious or not."

Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller will defend the Marion County prosecutor and Marion Circuit Court clerk since a state statute is being challenged and the prosecutor’s office is involved in the civil suit.

“My office will defend the authority of the people’s elected representatives in the Legislature to determine who may solemnize legal marriages in this state. This statute was first enacted in 1997 and amended in 1999, and this constitutional challenge is a test of the authority of the state. My office will seek to defend this statute from the legal challenge as we have defended the Voter ID law, the Choice Scholarships law and other statutes that have been challenged by private plaintiffs,” Zoeller said.

 

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
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