Same-sex couple’s bid for recognition expedited due to grave illness

10

by Dave Stafford, for www.theindianalawyer.com images-33

The chief federal judge in Indianapolis quickly summoned lawyers to address a same-sex couple’s emergency request that Indiana recognize their Massachusetts marriage because one of the women is gravely ill.

Nikole Rai Quasney and Amy Melissa Sandler of Munster on Mondayasked for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction that would enjoin the state from enforcing laws against same-sex marriage. The couple requested an expedited hearing because Quasney, mother of two young children, has stage IV ovarian cancer.

“Because of this aggressive cancer, Niki measures the rest of her life in weeks, not years,” a brief in support of the request says.

U.S. District Court Chief Judge Richard Young of the Southern District of Indiana on Tuesday summoned attorneys for a telephone conferenceset for 2 p.m. Friday. Young advised them to be prepared to address the request for an injunction and temporary restraining order.

Quasney and Sandler also seek a court order that, in the event of Quasney’s death, the Indiana Department of Health be required to complete a death certificate listing her as married, with Sandler recorded as the surviving spouse.

Continued enforcement of the ban, the supporting brief argues, “will cause grave harm to a loving couple confronted with an impending tragic loss. The public simply has no interest in denying Amy the rights she is entitled to as a surviving spouse upon Niki’s death.”

The couple is one three who sued the state March 10 backed by the national organization Lambda Legal. The case is Baskin et al. v. Bogan et al., 1:14-cv-00355, and names as defendants the clerks of Boone, Porter and Lake counties, along with Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller.

Zoeller has vowed to defend Indiana’s prohibition on same-sex marriage in at least four cases to date, including Baskin, that seek to overturn Indiana’s ban in federal court.

Young presides in all the cases. He has also set a phone conference on Friday for scheduling purposes in the related matters.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

10 COMMENTS

      • The avatar attached to this issue says a lot. It’s marriage equality, except it is not open to all with the same qualifications. The heart and rainbow indicates that this issue is more about authorizing homosexual love than equality.

        Delph’s was right in his article when he said the problem was when states used a marriage license for taxation considerations. Once again an important issue has become more of a political football than working for real solutions.

  2. POA =(Power Of Attorney)

    I do not feel that we should decide who loves whom. In reality, that is what same sex marriage is asking the state to do. But if two people of the same sex are in love, then I think it is valid that they can be together through the end.

    I suspect that a legal method already exist that would provide for them being together. When someone starts yelling bigot again, then I will know I am right.

    • Like Tina Turner crooned; what’s love got to do with it? Nothing. The issue is about Indiana not recognizing same sex marriages.

      • That’s been my argument from the get go. When we begin writing laws based on love and commitment alone, where does that end? Laws should be constructed on constitutional principles not emotion. but I also realize that many oppose homosexual marriage based on how they feel about it.

  3. If the judge grant a temporary restraining order on a statute, then would he not essentially be recreating a law? Would such an order result in a rush of homosexual marriages?

    It seems to me that they are asking a judge to do what a lawyer could do for them. If I am correct, then this request is more about activism than compassion.

    • You now grasp the meaning of judges legislating from the bench and why over the past two centuries in this country it has never been a good thing.

Comments are closed.