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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  2. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  3. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  4. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT