By Jacob Rund
TheStatehouseFile.com
INDIANAPOLIS – U.S. District Court Judge Richard Young ruled Thursday that a same-sex couple’s marriage is legal – at least temporarily.
The case, Baskin v. Bogan, addressed end-of-life issues facing a lesbian couple from southern Indiana.
Plaintiffs Nikole Quasney and Amy Sandler, represented by the law firm Lambda Legal, requested the case be heard on an emergency basis due to Quasney’s battle with terminal ovarian cancer.
Thursday’s ruling provides the couple with a 28-day restraining order, instructing the state to temporarily recognize their out-of-state marriage.
In 2013, Quasney and Sandler were legally married in the state of Massachusetts. However, Indiana law does not currently recognize same-sex marriages and withholds from those couples certain rights given to married heterosexual couples.
Under the law, Sandler would have limited visitation rights if Quasney were to be hospitalized. Also, if Quasney were to pass away, Sandler would not be recognized as her primary beneficiary – creating financial complications for Sandler and the couple’s two children.
“They’re married, they love each other and they are doing their best to protect their family,†Paul Castillo, staff attorney for Lambda Legal, said in a statement. “The local hospital defers to state law to determine whether a couple is validly married, and Niki worries that she won’t be able to be with Amy when it counts. Niki also wants to make sure Amy has the protections of a surviving spouse under Indiana law.â€
Due to their newly obtained restraining order, the couple would be granted – during the 28-day period – the same end-of-life privileges given to heterosexual couples in Indiana.
According to the Evansville Courier & Press, Young also questioned the constitutionality of Indiana’s marriage law.
“The courts finds, as applied to (Quasney and Sandler), Indiana’s law, which prohibits the recognition of same-sex marriages even if the marriage is lawful in the place where it is solemnized, likely violates the United States Constitution’s equal protection clause and due process clause,†Young said.
A written order had not been issued by late Thursday afternoon.
According to the Attorney General’s office, five legal challenges to the marriage statute are assigned to Young.
Young’s ruling Thursday only applies to Quasney and Sandler and does not affect the marriage status of any other same-sex Hoosier couple.
“County clerks in Indiana will be notified that there is no change in legal requirements for granting marriage licenses as a result of this TRO. County clerks still are prohibited by law from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples,†the Attorney General’s office said in a statement.
The office also stated that the “temporary restraining order is in effect only until May 8 and the court will schedule a preliminary injunction hearing soon on the plaintiffs’ request to extend the order indefinitely.â€
“We are so relieved. We are so thankful that we can move forward and concentrate on being with each other,†Quasney said in a statement released by Lambda Legal. “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.â€
Jacob Rund is a reporter for TheStatehouseFile.com, a news website powered by Franklin College journalism students.
Good compassionate ruling by Rick Young the Just.
I completely agree Bandana.. In fact if I were anyone else about to read the following comments, I wouldn’t bother. It is the same old crap from Indianaenoch which we have all heard before ad nauseum. I wish these women much love and caring in the time they have left together with their children. And that is what we all should be thinking about. Absolutely all.
….
Indiana State current law on same-sex marriage violates the US Constitution’s equal protection clause. It is unconstitutional.
Even the bigoted in Indiana are starting to accept that.
(That being said: They will gripe, and whine, and say “it’s the end of the world” type stuff….but those are the wailings of losers.)
Yeah, yeah Weinz, “BIGOTS” Give it up Lugar Republican. You have no credibility with your double standards.
This decision was made on emotions not the constitution. We should not make rulings based on emotions, especially when there are other legal vehicles available. It is not equality when a law is temporally restrained for only two people.
Reversing parts of DOMA citing equal protection for same-sex couples in the US Supreme Court was NOT emotion I-E.
Perhaps for you it was emotion.
But it was argued in SCOTUS, and the Court ruled.
Look, it’s a free speech country. You can say SCOTUS ruled on emotion. I get that. But that was a judicial, Constitutional procedure and ruling.
Wouldn’t a POA have accomplished the same ends?
….
IE,
Not sure if it would solve the spousal survivor issues.
I am sure it would not solve the laws problems with violating the equal protection clause of the Constitution.
Then do like married heterosexuals and get a will.
There are issues that NEED to be resolved in ALL marriage laws, but they are not facing anymore issues than a couple who chooses to co-habitate. Why should the law be restricted just for these two? Because they are gay? That’s not equality.
The judge used a nuclear option to resolve an issue that required a match, and right at tax time. I see a snow ball changing into a avalanche.
Their Constitutional equal protection rights as a married couple were being restricted.
Nothing more to say, legally.
I expect you’ll gripe about this ’til you can’t anymore. And you’ll never accept the law when it is finally passed.
But it won’t mean anything ‘cept you’re right to express a legally invalidated…..opinion.
They why leave it restricted for all but these two? That’s not equality and you have a double standard.
….
It’s a good question.
The answer is…I’m guessing….he knows it’s another brick in the wall for the final authority to leverage while overturning this abomination of the Constitution.
Weinz, it’s not a brick in the wall sort of thing. If the judge is doing as you guess, then he is using his position to legislate. That behavior has consequences far beyond this issue and is what i have spoken against from the beginning.
Exactly as you say, legislating from the bench. These dunderheads are clueless or refuse to understand.
Judge Young is legislating from the bench.
It is clear that he is not following case law in this matter; he is ANTICIPATING what higher courts wlll do or say based upon what other courts have done. This is not thinking.
I believe Young is ignoring the existence of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the Constitution, as many judges have done in the past. In ignoring these two amendments, He is violating the constitution he has sworn to uphold.
They didn’t choose to simply “cohabitate.” They chose to marry in a state where it is legal for them to do so.
And? They chose to live in a state where it’s not recognized. Now one judge changes the law for two with no real identifiable reason.
No. A POA will not entitle the surviving spouse and children to some pensions, nor will it necessarily stand in matters of custody of the children, if a “legal” family member chooses to contest it. If they lived in a state where their marriage is recognized, there should be no problem, but they don’t.
Does Quasney have a pension? Is Sandler wanting it? And who is the father of the children? They both can’t be parents of the children can they? A “legal” family would have claim to custody unless the children were legally adopted.
Most importantly, why change a law for two people?
I have no idea of their personal business concerning pensions, but spouses usually expect to get their partner’s pensions in such cases. Why shouldn’t they?
More than likely the “father” of the children is a sperm bank, but that won’t keep blood relatives of the parents from possibly trying to interfere in custody matters.
Nobody is changing a law for two people. It is process of being applied to a class of citizens who have traditionally been discriminated against. This is merely an injunction to protect this couple, because death is likely going to occur before the law that already exists is correctly applied.
Exactly, you have no idea of their concerns but that didn’t prevent you from speculating. Just ike you speculate that they used a sperm bank.
Stick with what we know, that one judge changed a law for the benefit of two people alone, no class of citizens, and no ruling on the law, just speculation.
“They both can’t be parents of the children can they? ”
They absolutely can be and are, in states where the marriage is recognized. DNA is not an important factor in a parent loving and caring for a child.
Now your just being obtuse. I already said unless they were legally adopted. Of course if they were adopted, then there was no need to change the law for them. If the children are not adopted, then changing the law does not strip a legal parent from a right to his child.
The extent you guys will carry your passion to force this issue on others is unbelievable. Bring law suits against bakers, drive CEOs out of corporations, and strip legal parent of his rights to his child.
I don’t know why we aren’t more accepting of the diversity of other cultures. My friend Mustafa want’s to bring his six wives over from Kuwait and our bigoted, racist government won’t allow him his freedom. This is shameful to all Americans and I encourage everyone to stop this hateful discrimination.
The judge issued a very narrow and well reasoned ruling. It was designed to address a problem, not make the bigots happy.
So in other words, the bigoted judge denied the rights to others with the same qualifications.
…that’s hilarious. Classic example of inversion (that the Judge is a bigot…).
The overturning of the DOMA section in the Supreme Court SEALED the fate on this. And now….same-sex couples don’t have to try to make the point that bans and failure to recognize their marriages are plainly wrong……they have the US CONSTITUTION and the SUPREME COURT to back them up.
I-E, you’re arguments no longer hold any water…in the only way that matters: constitutionally.
Weinz, Your double standard “I am a Lugar Republican” doesn’t hold water.
To single out two people for special rights is not constitutional, NO MATTER HOW OFTEN YOU SHOUT.
No they only have the interpretation of the Supreme Court. The Constitution is mute about marriage.
+1
No. Rick Young is not bigoted. He issued a compassionate but narrow ruling.
The days of legal discrimination against gay folks (even in Indiana) are winding down fast. Indiana can expect, despite Zoeller’s best efforts, the full weight of the federal judiciary to bring us into compliance with common decency and the 14th amendment.
+1
Rick Young used his office to cut a law from mew cloth. You and I both know there was a myriad of other legal solutions.
So glad this has been granted. Love is love! Praise goes out to this family and Judge Young! Thank you for being riteous!
Love is love, and law is law. At least your honest enough to admit that the issue is about the state sanctioning of homosexual love.
Has this article been up twice? I remarked very early this morning that Rick Young continues to show himself to be a good and decent man. These women are in a sad situation, and compassion should prevail. In a matter of a short time, what they are asking for will be available to everyone.
I agree with elkaybee. This will be available to all soon and should be. Lgbt are not any different than the next person. They are your friends neighbors kids and most of the time they are in a more long term committed relationship than heterosexuals. I am not sure what Weinzwestside is so worried about. Does this compromise the sanctity of your marriage? Will this harm you in any way? Why you have such negative feelings is beyond me!
Joyce, being lgbt is most certainly different, but being lgbt does not mean you should be “denied rights” nor given “special rights” based on your sexuality. That is exactly what this ruling has done, and that affects all of us. Equality in marriage would mean all with the same qualifications would have the same access to marriage. Same sex marriage does not provide access to all who qualify.
Further more, a right to marriage has morphed into a right to a wedding. Bakers, dress makers,and church organizations have been sued, and a CEO has been forced to resign because they did not agree with same sex marriage.
So yes, people have been harmed by this issue. When the government, through the power only it possesses, declares that a right to a wedding trumps the constitutional right to religious freedom and forces people to celebrate or officiate a wedding that they do not recognize as marriage, our Constitution is harmed.
You living with your partner no more affects me than the couple next door living together affects me. However, demanding rights based on your consent and commitment that is not granted to the couple living together unless they register their love with the state does affect me and others.
How that is beyond you to understand is beyond me to understand. Do you think these lawsuits and this ruling causing positive changes in how others feel?
A line will be drawn at what we define as marriage; and at some point someone is going to demand access to marriage that rightfully crosses even your line as to what qualifies as marriage. There is already men who want the right to marry boys. Underage heterosexuals can marry, two people of the same gender can marry, so when consent and commitment is how we define marriage, how will you tell a man he can not marry a boy?
And why only two? Why should a bisexual be denied the right to marry her male and female lover even if they are married to others? Pretty soon the sanctity of marriage will mean nothing.
So if a so called “gay” marriage is legal, let me see that is going to harm men marrying boys and other relationships. Seriously, it is ok for girls right now to get married if the parent consents,or emancipates the child, but if gays would like to marry or have rights, they to will be held to the same regulations as what being married can offer, rights, benefits, commitment and stability. I think you are confused by what already happens with other religions. Their are religions that allow one or more marriages. Their are places that religions allow children to marry and also religions that have no age. Before you are placed to judge one that loves and is committed, you may want to may want to ask yourself, is this separation for freedom or religion.
Huh? I think you are the one confused.
I never said it was “right” for an underage girl to marry, I said it is the law. A man cannot marry a boy. But if that becomes a reality, then should they have a right to a wedding? Should wedding services and officiants be forced under the weight of to provide services to these man boy unions? If your answer is yes, then I choose to not engage you on this issue.
I think if we are going to issue gays a marriage license based on consent and commitment alone, love, then it should be issued to all with the same qualifications.
I really don’t care what some church decides to call a marriage or if they provide a wedding. But when they are forced to provide a wedding, or people are forced from jobs because of their views on same sex marriage, it violates their constitutional rights.
Gays have the same rights as everyone. What you are asking for is a new right based on consent and commitment alone that will not be open to others with the same qualifications.
I am not asking to judge one that “loves and is committed.” It is you that is asking the state to judge who is “in love and committed” while denying it to others. I am saying that when we begin writing laws based on love and commitment rather than legal principles, we are opening up a lot of problems.
The best solution is for the state to keep traditional marriage because it has eons of acceptance, then provide for domestic unions that would be fair and open to all, married or unmarried. That way no one can be sued or be driven from a job because of their views on marriage. Let churches and organizations decide what they call a wedding.
You might be the one asking yourself what you really want from marriage.
The judge thinks Indiana’s marriage law is unconstitutional and I do too. He gets to rule on at least 4 more cases similar to this one if he elects to keep them. I’ll bet he didn’t like reading someone who disagrees with his ruling call him a bigot.
The hatred for gay marriage still runs deep in a few people around here. You’d almost think that with Ms. Quasney suffering from terminal cancer they’d have left this one alone. Nope. Same convoluted, flawed, biased spite. Their ‘argument’ doesn’t even rise to the level of argument. It is now reduced to hollow pronouncements with no basis in fact. They mean nothing. These folks only appeal is to something some bronze-ager stuck in their Bible. Gay folks being easy targets for a shaman to coalesce his flock against, It survived numerous rewrites of that book. They somehow expect everyone to be mindlessly governed by it.
It should be clear to all but the most blinkered that America is in the process of shedding its disgraceful laws against granting full rights of citizenship to homosexuals. It will take a generational die-off before real equality prevails, it will not take that long for the laws to change.
What??? You don’t considered strawmen and ludicrous far fetched hypotheticals an argument?
You don’t think gay marriage will “destroy the country”
(Read: End white middle age christian male rule)
Should I repost the list of everything that conners said would “destroy the country” over the decades?
That’s always an oldie but goodie.
The 14th Amendment…. protecting Americans against hateful bigotry and prejudice since 1868.
People being sued and a CEO being forced from his job because of his views on same sex marriage are not straw men. Neither is people wanting polygamous marriage recognized by the state or men wanting to marry the boys they claim to love. But love is love and who are you to judge it?
And the same old talk about the person rather than the issue. You can’t atone for all of those gay jokes you made in your youth by confessing bigotry in others.
Comments are closed.