Tuesday, April 22, 2014
Ind. Decisions - The status of the five Indiana same-sex marriage cases
In the 11-page order issued Friday, Young said he granted the request partly because the couple is likely to succeed in having Indiana's gay marriage ban declared unconstitutional. He also said that Quasney's terminal illness required urgent action.Jill Disis of the Indianapolis Star did a story March 14th that included a helpful side-bar distinguishing the five lawsuits, which are now all consolidated under Judge Young:
"The Equal Protection Clause requires states to treat people equally under the law," wrote Young, who was appointed in 1998 by then-President Bill Clinton. "If the state wishes to differentiate between people and make them unequal, then it must have at least a legitimate purpose."
He also said his decision was due in part to a wave of similar rulings in other states, including two that dealt with terminally ill partners. * * *
Attorneys are due to present arguments May 2 over the couple's request for a preliminary injunction that would permanently bar Indiana from enforcing its gay marriage ban against their union, Castillo said.
The attorney general's office said in a statement Monday that it would continue to defend Indiana's gay marriage ban at the next stage in court.
"County clerks are still prohibited by law from issuing marriage licenses to other same-sex couples," spokesman Bryan Corbin said.
Indiana Solicitor General Thomas Fisher argued at the April 10 hearing in Evansville that the state has an interest in limiting marriage to couples who can have children. But Young noted in the order that the state routinely recognizes the marriages of couples who are too old to reproduce, and gay couples can form families in other ways.
He also wrote that the state's decision to not recognize gay marriages performed out of state didn't hold up because Indiana recognizes other marriages that take place outside of the state and violate Indiana laws, such as marriages between first cousins.
- Bowling, Bowling and Bruner v. Pence, et al: In this lawsuit filed by a private law firm Friday, two of the plaintiffs, who were married in Iowa but live in Indianapolis, want state recognition of their marriage.
- Lee, et al. v. Pence, et al: Filed by
Freedom Indiana, a pro-LGBT coalitionIndiana Equality Action (correction per Jill Disis), on Friday, this suit seeks marriage rights and benefits for public employees.
- Fujii, et al. v. Pence, et al.: Filed by the ACLU of Indiana on Friday, plaintiffs include a widow who claims she was forced to pay inheritance tax on her dead wife’s property because they were not legally married in Indiana.
- Baskin, et al. v. Bogan, et al.: Filed by Lambda Legal, a pro-LGBT organization, on Monday, this suit names three couples, including two women, one of whom is 78, who claim the state’s same-sex marriage ban creates a challenge for their end-of-life health care plans.
- Love, et al. v. Pence, et al.: Filed by a private firm on March 7, this names four Indiana same-sex couples as plaintiffs, who either want to be married in Indiana or who want their marriages performed elsewhere legally recognized here.
- In a phone conference involving counsel in all five pending cases, Judge Young yesterday, Arpil 22nd, scheduled a hearing on May 2 at 9:30 Evansville time in Evansville with respect to the respective motions for summary judgment and for a preliminary injunction filed by the Lambda Legal plaintiffs (Baskin)and the Love plaintiffs. Those are the last two cases on the above list. Note that Niki Quasney and Amy Sandler, who received the temporary restraining order, are part of the Baskin lawsuit.
- The ACLU-represented plaintiffs (Fujii) last week filed their motion for summary judgment but their case is not going to be heard on May 2 because the AG's office says it needs more time. That is the 3rd case on the above list. (I'm told: "The ACLU wanted its motions heard on May 2 also, but the AG’s office said it needed more time to review the ACLU’s papers and prepare but left the door open agree to include that case as well in the May 2 hearing. They’re supposed to let the ACLU and the Court know today.")
- The plaintiffs represented by Richard Mann (Bowling) and the plaintiffs in Lee v. Pence yesterday filed motions for summary judgment and for a preliminary injunction hearing, along with supporting briefs. No hearing dates have yet been set in those two cases either. These are the 1st and 2nd cases in the above list.
Posted by Marcia Oddi on April 22, 2014 10:06 AM
Posted to Ind Fed D.Ct. Decisions