ILNews

7th Circuit grants motion recognizing marriage of same-sex couple in Indiana

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has issued an order compelling the state of Indiana to recognize the marriage of one same-sex couple.

Lambda Legal filed a motion on June 30 for an emergency stay to require Indiana to recognize the marriage of Niki Quasney and Amy Sandler. The motion asked the Circuit Court to lift for this one couple only a June 27 order that stayed the decision by a federal court which overturned Indiana’s ban on same-sex marriage.

The Indiana attorney general’s office had filed a response to the motion, arguing the marriage should not be legalized because Indiana law did not allow for hardship exceptions.

Quasney is terminally ill and has been pushing for Indiana to recognize her marriage so Sandler is considered her legal spouse, making her entitled to all of Quasney’s benefits. The U.S. District Court issued an order in May compelling the state to recognize their marriage. When the 7th Circuit issued a stay June 27 in Baskin v. Bogan, their marriage was no longer recognized.

The 7th Circuit issued an order Tuesday that the state recognize the marriage of Quasney and Sandler on an emergency basis.

Lamdba Legal, again, declared victory.  

“It is time for the State of Indiana to leave Niki and Amy in peace and not subject them and their marriage to any more stress and uncertainty as this case proceeds,” said Lambda Legal attorney Paul Castillo. “We’re thrilled that the court ruled in favor of this family as Niki battles stage four ovarian cancer.”



 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • should they move out of State anyway?
    One of them is dying of cancer and probably should move to Colorado anyway to use canabis oil in an attempt to destroy the cancer. Check out Rick Simpson oil website for more information.

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. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

  2. wow is this a bunch of bs! i know the facts!

  3. MCBA .... time for a new release about your entire membership (or is it just the alter ego) being "saddened and disappointed" in the failure to lynch a police officer protecting himself in the line of duty. But this time against Eric Holder and the Federal Bureau of Investigation: "WASHINGTON — Justice Department lawyers will recommend that no civil rights charges be brought against the police officer who fatally shot an unarmed teenager in Ferguson, Mo., after an F.B.I. investigation found no evidence to support charges, law enforcement officials said Wednesday." http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/22/us/justice-department-ferguson-civil-rights-darren-wilson.html?ref=us&_r=0

  4. Dr wail asfour lives 3 hours from the hospital,where if he gets an emergency at least he needs three hours,while even if he is on call he should be in a location where it gives him max 10 minutes to be beside the patient,they get paid double on their on call days ,where look how they handle it,so if the death of the patient occurs on weekend and these doctors still repeat same pattern such issue should be raised,they should be closer to the patient.on other hand if all the death occured on the absence of the Dr and the nurses handle it,the nurses should get trained how to function appearntly they not that good,if the Dr lives 3 hours far from the hospital on his call days he should sleep in the hospital

  5. It's a capital offense...one for you Latin scholars..

ADVERTISEMENT