Federal Judge To Hear Same-Sex Marriage Case Friday

Five same-sex couples are challenging Indiana's marriage laws, saying they violate their right to equal protection under the constitution.

Chief Judge Richard L. Young ruled in Evansville that Indiana must recognize the marriage of one lesbian couple.

Photo: Jashin Lin / WTIU

Chief Judge Richard L. Young ruled in Evansville earlier this month that Indiana must recognize the marriage of one lesbian couple.

A federal court in Evansville will hear oral arguments Friday in a same-sex marriage case.

Attorneys will ask the court to compel Indiana to continue to recognize the marriage of a lesbian couple from Munster, as well as to extend the freedom to marry to all Indiana same-sex couples.

Friday’s arguments are the latest chapter in a federal lawsuit filed by Lambda Legal in March in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana on behalf of five Indiana same-sex couples seeking to overturn Indiana’s gay marriage ban.

Judge Richard Young ordered Indiana earlier this month to recognize the out-of-state marriage of Niki Quasney and Amy Sandler. He said not doing so could cause the couple irreparable harm because Quasney has ovarian cancer and doctors do not know how much longer she will live.

The judge’s order expired after 28 days, so attorneys are asking Young to now extend the ruling.

Lambda Legal attorneys said they were optimistic about the outcome of the other case after reading the judge’s order regarding Quasney and Sandler ,which rejected the state’s argument that it wants “to attract and then regulate couples that may unintentionally procreate for the sake of the children.”

“Therefore, on this record, the court finds there will likely be insufficient evidence of a legitimate state interest to justify the singling out of same-sex married couples for non-recognition,” the order reads.

The attorney general has reiterated on multiple occasions that the order only applies to the one case and does not affect Indiana’s marriage laws on a broader scale.

Network Indiana contributed to this report.

Gretchen Frazee

Gretchen Frazee is a reporter/producer for WFIU and WTIU news. Prior to her current role, Frazee worked as the associate online content coordinator for WFIU/WTIU. She graduated from the University of Missouri-Columbia where she studied multimedia journalism and anthropology. You can follow her on Twitter @gretchenfrazee.

View all posts by this author »

  • http://www.facebook.com/chuck.anziulewicz PolishBear

    The morality of Gay marriage is comparable to the morality of Straight marriage: It is morally and ethically preferable to encourage people toward monogamy and commitment, rather than relegating them to lives of loneliness and possibly promiscuity. So YES: Supporting marriage equality is the true conservative position.

    Studies have repeatedly shown that the benefits are substantial:
    1: Married couples typically contribute more and take less from society.
    2: Married couples support and care for each other financially, physically and emotionally and often contribute more to the economy and savings.
    3: Individuals who are married are less likely to receive government entitlements.
    4: Individuals who are married statistically consume less health care services, and often give more to churches and charities.
    5: Married couples are better able to provide care and security for children.

    So what sense does it make to exclude law-abiding, taxpaying Gay couples from this place at the table? Why is it, for example, that Straight couples are encouraged to date, get engaged, marry and build lives together in the context of monogamy and commitment, and that this is a GOOD thing … yet for Gay couples to do exactly the same is somehow a BAD thing? To me this seems like a very poor value judgment.

    Couples do not need to marry to have children, nor is the ability or even desire to have children a prerequisite for obtaining a marriage license. There are also countless Gay individuals and couples who are raising adopting children into healthy, well-adjusted adulthood.

    As Judge Vaughn Walker said in the decision on California’s Prop. 8 Case: “Permitting same-sex couples to marry will not affect the number of opposite-sex couples who marry, divorce, cohabit, have children outside of marriage or otherwise affect the stability of opposite-sex marriages.” It was a view shared by the courts in the Golinski case against DOMA, where a Bush appointee in the Northern District of California concurred: “The exclusion of same-sex couples from the federal definition of marriage does nothing to encourage or strengthen opposite-sex marriages.”

  • Pingback: INDIANA: Marriage Case Begins Tomorrow ‹ Pridelive.tv

  • Inis_Magrath

    According to a statement released by the Attorney General’s spokesman Bryan
    Corbin, he said, “the United States Supreme Court’s decision last year in the U.S. v. Windsor case
    continues to leave this state policy decision-making authority with
    states and their legislatures.”

    You hear that argument a lot from
    marriage equality opponents. The problem is, that is not what U.S. v.
    Windsor said. It is a half-truth.

    This is what the Windsor court
    decision says: “State laws defining and regulating marriage, of course,
    must respect the constitutional rights of persons, see, e.g., Loving v.
    Virginia, 388 U. S. 1 (1967); but, subject to those guarantees,
    “regulation of domestic relations” is“an area that has long been
    regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States.”

    That’s
    rather different, as anyone can see. State’s don’t have unfettered
    control of marriage regulation. Rather, state laws must respect the
    Federal Constitution’s guarantees of equal protection of the laws and
    due process. Fortunately, Federal judges are usually not so easily
    fooled.

  • Pingback: INDIANA: Marriage Case Begins Tomorrow | Dj Matioka Blog

What is RSS? RSS makes it possible to subscribe to a website's updates instead of visiting it by delivering new posts to your RSS reader automatically. Choose to receive some or all of the updates from Indiana Public Media News:

Support For Indiana Public Media Comes From

Search News

Stay Connected

RSS e-mail itunes Facebook Twitter Flickr YouTube

Follow us on Twitter

What is RSS? RSS makes it possible to subscribe to a website's updates instead of visiting it by delivering new posts to your RSS reader automatically. Choose to receive some or all of the updates from Indiana Public Media News:

Recent Politics Stories

Recent Videos

Find Us on Facebook