Federal Court Rules Indiana Must Recognize Same-Sex Marriage

27

By: Dave Stafford, www.indianalawyer.com

same-sex-marriage

Indiana must recognize the same-sex marriage of two women wed in Massachusetts, one of whom is gravely ill, a federal judge ruled Thursday. The state said it will appeal the narrow but historic ruling.

Niki Quasney and Amy Sandler are the first same-sex couple granted legal recognition by the state of Indiana under the order issued by Chief Judge Richard Young of the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana.

“The court finds that the Plaintiffs, Amy, Niki, (and children) A.Q-S., and M.Q.-S., have satisfied their burden for a preliminary injunction. They have shown a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm with no adequate remedy at law, that the public interest is in favor of the relief, and the balance of harm weighs in their favor,” Young wrote.

“Therefore, the court grants Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. … Defendants and all those acting in concert are enjoined from enforcing Indiana statute § 31-11-1-1(b) against recognition of Plaintiffs’, Niki Quasney’s and Amy Sandler’s, valid out-of-state marriage; the State of Indiana must recognize their marriage,” the order states.

The opinion also orders the Indiana Department of Health to record Quasney as married and Sandler as surviving spouse on a death certificate if Quasney dies in Indiana. Quasney has been diagnosed with Stage IV ovarian cancer, according to the record.

“We are relieved and happy to send our congratulations and best wishes to Amy, Niki and their family. We applaud their courage and commitment to each other and to equality as they fight Niki’s illness,” said Paul Castillo, staff attorney for Lambda Legal, which represents the couple.

“While this family is experiencing urgent, life-threatening medical circumstances, they’re just one of the thousands of same-sex couples in Indiana enduring real financial and dignitary harm due to the state’s discriminatory marriage ban. Our work in Indiana is not done.  All same-sex couples in Indiana need the security only marriage provides,” Castillo said in a statement.

Quasney and Sandler previously won a temporary restraining order that would have expired Friday. Young concluded his 14-page opinion by stressing its narrowness but also acknowledging the growing recognition of same-sex marriage after the Supreme Court of the United States opinion last year in United States v. Windsor, 134 S.Ct. 2675 (2013).

“(T)he court recognizes that the issues with which it is confronted are highly contentious and provoke strong emotions both in favor and against same-sex marriages. The court’s ruling today is not a final resolution of the merits of the case – it is a preliminary look, or in other words, a best guess by the court as to what the outcome will be,” Young wrote.

“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.

The state will appeal Thursday’s ruling, according to a statement from the office of Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller.

“The Indiana Attorney General’s Office is notifying county clerks that the federal court’s decision today is limited and applies to one couple in this case only,” spokesman Bryan Corbin said. “County clerks still are prohibited from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples in Indiana.”

The state argues Indiana’s statute defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman is constitutional and should remain intact.

“The state’s legal defense of the statute notes that the Legislature has the legal authority to determine how marriage shall be defined within Indiana’s borders; and Indiana’s Legislature has chosen in statute to define marriage in the traditional way – between one man and one woman – and to not legally recognize same-sex unions granted in other states,” Corbin said. Windsor, he said, “continues to leave this state policy decision-making authority with states and their legislatures. The judge has the motions under advisement and will rule later.”

Likewise, plaintiffs in this case have moved for summary judgment.

This case, Baskin, et al. v. Bogan, et al., 1:14-CV-00355, is one of several federal lawsuits challenging Indiana’s marriage statute. The suits were filed this year after the Legislature passed House Joint Resolution 3, a proposed amendment to the Indiana Constitution that would ban same-sex marriage.

In the statement provided by Lambda Legal, Quasney said she and her wife were relieved. “We are so thankful that we can move forward and concentrate on being with each other. Our time together and with our daughters is the most important thing in the world to me. I look forward to the day when all couples in Indiana have the freedom to marry,” Quasney said.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

27 COMMENTS

  1. This headline probably caused a lot of righties to choke on their Wheaties, you jokesters!! I expect this narrow ruling will be expanded very soon, though.

  2. So sad about the slow, agonizing death of the United States’ Constitution at the hands of a citizenry unwilling to defend it or abide by it.
    All those patriot deaths in the 18th and 19th centuries for nothing. So sad.

    • ….disaffected,

      Nope. You are wrong.

      IN FACT….the citizenry is patriotically defending and abiding same-sex marriage rulings from equal opportunity law held in the US Constitution. Windsor is a ruling from United States of America Supreme Court, the final authority of Constitutional Law.

      That makes YOU and your opinion, UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

      That YOU, DISAFFECTED, want to deny and fail to abide by the US Constitution makes YOU nothing even close to a Patriot. Every single bit of the same-sex marriage recognitions are following the due process of the US Constitution.

      Live with that.

      (Or join your Tea Party Ranchers in Nevada and join their law-breaking sovereign unconstitutional fake-country.)

      • Your ignorance of the Constitution is an embarrassment to yourself. The “final authority on Constitutional Law”? From your posts, I can only surmise you have never read the Constitution, the Federalist Papers, or Madison’s “Notes on the Constitutional Convention”.

        If you can force yourself to read only one part of the Constitution, try the 10th Amendment.

        My 8 year-old grandson liked caps until I explained to him that’s how people yell to conceal their ignorance online.

      • Weinz “Windsor is a ruling from United States of America Supreme Court, the final authority of Constitutional Law.”

        If they are the final word, then how is it that later courts will change a former court’s ruling?

        We must live by their rulings, but does that mean we must agree and change our opinions?

        You appear so angry at the Christian Right and Tea-Party that you have lost your objectivity.

    • Yeah who cares about the plutocracy robbing us all blind.

      Who cares about the SCOTUS handing our democracy over to the highest bidder and making our elections a complete joke or the SCOTUS giving a green light to the most extreme theocratic maniacs and Chaurcerian frauds and this country if full of them.

      Two gay people getting married is one of the great crimes against humanity of all-time is what you’re saying, which is disgusting, absurd and outrageous.

  3. The states can indeed make their marriage laws, as long as they don’t run afoul of our federal constitution. Rick Young is making measured, reasonable rulings on the Quasney case. More bricks in the wall. Marriage equality will eventually be the law in Indiana.

    The very political Zoeller will now waste more of your hard earned and reluctantly given tax money with another round of his grandstanding. Some state attorneys general aren’t fighting these things. He doesn’t speak for me.

    • …you are right in so many ways.

      BUT, Zoeller IS doing his duty.

      And to his credit….Zoeller is doing it in a way that HE KNOWS creates a wide and inevitable path to Indiana formal recognition of same-sex marriage.

      The idiots on the extreme far right who don’t realize that are fools.

    • I-E,

      It’s not Massachusetts law that is the issue here. We both know the Judge’s ruling would apply to ANY State where the marriage originated. It just happens to have been Mass. on this case.

      But I am glad to see you have moved on re: Indiana same-sex marriage. I see acknowledgment on your part same-sex marriage IS coming to Indiana. And I don’t see you as one of those who can’t see the Indiana AG is merely executing his rote responsibility while acknowledging the eventual nullification of Indiana’s Federally unconstitutional marriage definition.

      • No where in the Constitution does it say the federal government has reign over marriage.

        • It doesn’t say the Federal government doesn’t either.

          Disillusioned, err I mean disaffected

          The constitution DOES say you can’t grant rights or privileges to one class or group of people and then deny them to others.

          It’s all there in the equal protection clause and the equal privileges and immunities clause, but of course you don’t give a toss about this. Further the 14th amendments says states can’t violate any of the above so your precious 10th amendment is patoooee and the courts have consistently said so.

          So put that in your Madsion pipe and smoke it.

      • Weinz, I have long seen the trend towards same sex marriage. My concern (for which has been mocked and called a bigot) has always been and still is how we are changing the law.

        I have said it will result in lawsuits forcing people and organizations to provide services for same sex weddings. Now, a right to marriage is morphing into a right to a wedding and people are being sued and forced out of jobs because they do not recognize same sex marriage and are against it.

        I have also said that if we change the definition marriage to consent and commitment, then we are not going to be able to deny other non traditional unions that would cross even your line of reasonable. Well, from Massachusetts, we now have the same sex married threesome.

        http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/colette-browne/dont-worry-legalising-samesex-marriage-wont-create-a-world-of-lesbian-throuples-30250462.html

        While it’s not a sanctioned marriage, how long do you think it will take them to demand “marriage equality.”

        BTW, the also recorded another word’s first. It’s the first time ever two women made one pregnant. At least the must have because all three claim to be a parent of the child. So will MA allow more than two adoptive parents? Their foolishness is already making a mockery of this child’s life. Does a state really need to sign on to this mockery?

        Maybe they can relocate to Indiana and make a special pleading to judge young.

        http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2611020/Meet-worlds-married-lesbian-threesome-baby-make-four-July.html

        The only shift in my views has been that Indiana should either keep traditional marriage and provide for domestic partnerships, or get out of the marriage business altogether.

        It is your attitude that has evolved since I pointed out to you that my views are basically the same as Lugar’s. I have not seen you call anyone a bigot lately. That’s a good thing, but you better begin evolving quicker because there are some crazy ideas on the horizon.

  5. Of course there are more reasonable voices than the extremes the yell either “burn” or “bigot” at each other.

    http://vimeo.com/93079367

    Agree or not, I found this video to be very enlightening as to the real issues man homosexuals face when trying to live a God honoring life. It even encouraged me as a heterosexual. One thing the church needs to apologize for was the idea of “fixing’ them.

  6. It appears that the Christian left is going to be the final blow to the Christian right in the matter of same-sex marriage. I’m referring to the North Carolina suit in which a United Church of Christ minister is suing the state for interfering in his religious freedom to perform same sex marriages. The suit is being backed by the General Synod of the UCC, which is based in Ohio.
    I also see that the magnanimous State of Indiana is asking for a stay to this order, yet again.

    • That law suit will go nowhere because no such law exist in NC. They extrapolated a law that says it is illegal to solemnize(make legal) a same sex marriage into claiming they can no officiate a same sex marriage ceremony.

      Sorry about your Wheaties, but that’s what happens when you read only the headlines.

  7. One thing I have learned is that when I vote I need to pay much closer attention to retaining judges. The judicial branch is increasing its influence on legislation.

    • Federal judges are appointed and don’t face the voters, unless they go real bad and there are some voters on their jury.

      They are appointed for life. It is supposed to insulate them from temptation and prevent their rulings from being influenced by the pitchfork and torchers.

      • Can’t I nix them at the local level before they are appointed to their highest level of incompetence and acquire eternal life?

        It’s like trying to fight a yard full of dandelions, stomp out one, the wind blows, and there’s fifty more.

        • That would be about the best shot but they don’t always get appointed from the ranks of local judges. Could be any lawyer, you’d have to figure a way to get them bunched for a good nixin’. I’d suggest staging an auto accident with two or three nice cars.

Comments are closed.