World Library  
Flag as Inappropriate
Email this Article

Recognition of same-sex unions in Indiana

Article Id: WHEBN0027798093
Reproduction Date:

Title: Recognition of same-sex unions in Indiana  
Author: World Heritage Encyclopedia
Language: English
Subject: Same-sex marriage in the United States, Same-sex marriage in Arizona, Same-sex marriage in Colorado, Same-sex marriage in Alabama, Same-sex marriage in Utah
Publisher: World Heritage Encyclopedia

Recognition of same-sex unions in Indiana

Legal status of
same-sex relationships
Previously performed and not invalidated
  1. Can be registered also in Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten
  2. Licensed in some counties in Kansas but same-sex marriage is not recognized by the state
  3. Currently legal in St. Louis, Missouri
  4. When performed in Mexican states that have legalized same-sex marriage

*Not yet in effect

LGBT portal

Same-sex marriage in Indiana has been legal since October 7, 2014. The state had previously restricted marriage to male-female couples by statute in 1986. By legislation passed in 1997, it denied recognition to same-sex relationships established in other jurisdictions. A lawsuit challenging the state's refusal to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples, Baskin v. Bogan, won a favorable ruling from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana on June 25, 2014. Until the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit granted an emergency stay of the district court's ruling on June 27, most Indiana counties issued marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's ruling in Baskin on September 4. A ruling in Bowling v. Pence stated that the state must recognize same-sex marriages performed out-of-state and the decision was stayed until the Circuit ruled on the merits in similar cases. It also stated that the ruling would remain stayed if the circuit court stayed its decision in the related cases.[1]

The U.S. Supreme Court declined to consider an appeal in Baskin v. Bogan on October 6, which allows the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals to implement its decision requiring Indiana to license and recognize same-sex marriages.


A law enacted in 1997 forbids the recognition of same-sex marriages established in jurisdictions outside Indiana.[2]

A lawsuit brought in 2002 by the ACLU on behalf of 3 same-sex couples seeking marriage rights and challenging a 1986 law that limited marriages to male-female couples failed in Marion County superior court in May 2003. The judge ruled that restricting marriage to different-sex couples "promotes the state's interest in encouraging procreation to occur in a context where both biological parents are present to raise the child." Two of the couples had formed civil unions in Vermont in 2000.[2] After that ruling was upheld by the court of appeals in January 2005,[3] when the third couple had formed a Vermont civil union and one couple had married in Canada as well, the plaintiffs decided not to appeal to the state Supreme Court to avoid a negative outcome there that might influence other state courts.[4]

On November 26, 2012, Indiana Equality Action published a study researched by law students from the LGBT Project at the Indiana University Maurer School of Law titled "More Than Just a Couple: 614 Reasons Why Marriage Equality Matters in Indiana."[5] The study detailed the rights and responsibilities of civil marriage found in 614 laws in the Indiana Code. It said that these laws show that marriage discrimination in the state not only denies many legal rights to same-sex couples but also denies the public protection from conflicts of interest from activities that are prohibited for opposite-sex married couples but not for same-sex couples.[6]

On December 23, 2013, the state Court of Appeals ruled that Indiana's law banning same-sex marriage cannot be used to invalidate a marriage if one spouse later changes his or her gender identity.[7]

On September 9, 2014 Wisconsin (joint by Indiana) asked the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold their respective bans on gay marriage. The move comes after the Chicago-based 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last week that both state bans were invalid.The new petitions mean there are now gay marriage cases concerning five states pending at the high court. The others are Virginia, Utah and Oklahoma. [8]

Soon thereafter, the US Appeals court put same-sex marriages on hold in Indiana while the state appealed its ruling overturning a ban on gay marriages to the U.S. Supreme Court[9] which it declined to consider.


Five same-sex marriage lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana in March 2014: Love v. Pence, Baskin v. Bogan, Fujii v. Pence, Bowling v. Pence, and Lee v. Pence.

Baskin v. Bogan

Baskin v. Bogan was filed in the Southern District of Indiana on March 14, 2014,[10] by Lambda Legal on behalf on three same-sex couples, all women. Defendants are Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller and three county clerks, with one of the county clerks, Penny Bogan, in her official capacity, as the first-named defendant.[11] It took precedence over the other Indiana marriage cases, because one of the plaintiffs was terminally ill with ovarian cancer, though the case of her and her partner was soon separated from that of the other plaintiffs.[12]

On June 25, 2014, Richard L. Young ruled with respect to the remaining plaintiffs in Baskin, as well as the cases of Fujii and Lee. He found in favor of the plaintiff couples, granted them summary judgment and striking down Indiana's ban on same-sex marriage. He also removed Indiana Governor Mike Pence from the lawsuit.[13] He issued no stay and Indiana clerks began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples the day of the ruling.[14] The Seventh Circuit brought license issuance to a halt on June 27.[15]

The Seventh Circuit consolidated Baskin and its companion cases with a similar Wisconsin case, Wolf v. Walker. It heard oral arguments on August 26.[16] On September 4, the Seventh Circuit, in a unanimous opinion authored by Judge Richard Posner, upheld the district court's decision.[17] On September 15, the Seventh Circuit granted a motion for a stay of ruling, to be in effect until the case is resolved at the Supreme Court.[18]

The U.S. Supreme Court declined to consider an appeal in Baskin v. Bogan on October 6, which allows the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals to implement its decision requiring Indiana to license and recognize same-sex marriages.[19]

Love v. Pence

Love v. Pence was filed on March 7, 2014.[20] Judge Young dismissed Love v. Pence for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction on June 25, 2014, because the only named defendant was Indiana Governor Mike Pence, who cannot, he wrote, "issue executive decrees telling other elected officials how to do their jobs when it comes to laws affecting marriage."[21] Judge Young reinstated that part of the suit concerned with the recognition of marriages from other jurisdictions on September 16, citing the governor's memos directing state officials how to respond to other court decisions on the issue of same-sex marriage.[22]

Bowling v. Pence

The plaintiffs in Bowling v. Pence raised only the question of Indiana's recognition of same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions, not the state's refusal to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples. One plaintiff couple was married in Iowa in 2011. A third plaintiff sought to dissolve her marriage established elsewhere.[23] Judge Young issued his ruling in Bowling v. Pence on August 19, repeating the logic of his earlier decision in finding that the state's refusal to recognize same-sex marriages unconstitutional. Though he had previously dismissed Love v. Pence after accepting the arguments of Governor Pence that the governor of Indiana lacks authority over the enforcement of the state's ban, Young reversed himself, citing actions Pence took following the decision to Baskin. Young noted that the governor, contrary to his earlier claims, had issued memos to state agencies instructing them to disregard the July 25 decision in Baskin. Pence had written on July 7 that Indiana's ban "is in full force and effect and executive branch agencies are to execute their functions as though the U.S. District Court Order of June 25, 2014 had not been issued." [24] In his Bowling decision, Young wrote: "The memoranda issued by the Governor clearly contradict his prior representations to the court". He called the governor's earlier statements a "bold misrepresentation". He wrote that his acceptance of Pence as defendant "is not based on the governor's general duty to enforce the laws. It is based on his specific ability to command the executive branch regarding the law." He commented: "The court, after witnessing the Governor do what he claimed he could not do, reverses course and finds him to be a proper party to such lawsuits. The court wishes to reiterate that it finds the Governor's prior representations contradicting such authority to be, at a minimum, troubling." Young stayed enforcement of his decision and the state announced plans to appeal.[25]

The ruling was stayed until the Seventh Circuit ruled on the merits in similar cases. It also stated that the ruling would remain stayed if the Circuit Court stayed its decision in the related cases.[26]

Constitutional amendment proposals

Since 2004, there has been an annual effort on behalf of a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage in Indiana.[27] In 2010, the proposal passed the Senate 38-10,[28] but the House of Representatives, which had a Democratic majority, took no action, failing even to schedule a hearing on the legislation.[29]

In 2011, the proposal passed the House 70-26 and the Senate 40-10.[30][31] The text adopted was:[32]

Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Indiana. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized.

The approval of an identical amendment by both houses during the 2013-2014 legislative session is required to place the amendment on the state ballot in November 2014. In December 2012, Gov. Mitch Daniels, without taking a position on the proposed amendment, said that business leaders had expressed concern that it would restrict their policies toward same-sex couples. He said: "They wouldn't want their ability to offer benefits and that sort of thing limited. They think it's fair. They think it's important at least in case of some of their employees."[33] On October 28, 2013, Indiana University announced its opposition to the proposed amendment.[34] In November 2013, legislative leaders announced that the legislature would address the amendment in its next session. House Speaker Brian Bosma, a proponent of the measure, said that "This is not the most important issue facing us by far. We have to deal with the issue with dignity and respect...and bring this 12-year discussion to a conclusion."[35] On December 4, the six Catholic bishops of Indiana issued a statement that, without referencing the legislation, reiterated their position that marriage is "the intimate communion of life and love between one man and one woman."[36]

The language of the joint resolution was introduced in the 2014 legislature as HJR3 on January 9. A companion bill was also introduced that provided clarifying language directing that the proposed constitutional amendment would ban same-sex marriages and civil unions but not domestic partnerships. Bosma said it was aimed at reassuring universities and localities that the benefits they provide employees under the designation domestic partners would not be affected by the adoption of the constitutional amendment, though others in the legislature disputed whether the language of the bill, if adopted, could control the interpretation of the constitutional amendment.[37] The House Judiciary Committee held a hearing on the proposed amendment on January 13 but took no vote. On January 21 Bosma moved the proposed amendment to the Elections and Apportionment Committee.[38] On January 22, that committee approved the proposed amendment by a vote of 9 to 3 with one absence.[39] On January 27, the Indiana House voted 52-43, with 29 Democrats and 23 Republicans in favor, to remove the second sentence from the legislation[40] and on January 28, the House approved the shortened version in a 57-40 vote.[41] On February 10, the Senate Rules Committee approved the identical one-sentence version in an 8-4 vote,[42] and the Senate approved that version in a 32-17 vote on February 17.[43] The text adopted was:

Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Indiana.

If approved by both houses of the legislature in another session, that language can be presented to the voters no sooner than November 2016.[44]

Public opinion

Public opinion for same-sex marriage in Indiana
Poll source Date(s)
Margin of
% support % opposition % no opinion
New York Times/CBS News/YouGov September 20-October 1, 2014 1,405 likely voters ± 3.1% 43% 45% 12%
Princeton Survey Research International October 8-21, 2013 600 interviews ± 4.8% 48% 46% 6%
? likely voters ± ?% 44% 48% -
Bowen Center for Public Affairs November 12-24, 2012 602 adults ± 4.5% 45% 45% 10%

See also



  1. ^
  2. ^ a b "Indiana defends state's ban on gay marriage". The Advocate. October 4, 2003. Retrieved August 20, 2013. 
  3. ^ "Court rejects challenge to Indiana's gay marriage ban". The Advocate. January 21, 2005. Retrieved August 20, 2013. 
  4. ^ "Couples won't seek appeal in Indiana gay marriage case". The Advocate. February 19, 2005. Retrieved August 20, 2013. 
  5. ^ Schneider, Mary Beth (November 26, 2012). "Ban on same-sex marriage in Indiana could open Pandora's box of legal challenges". Indiana Star. Retrieved December 14, 2012. 
  6. ^ Smith, Brandon (November 26, 2012). "Report: Marriage Amendment Impacts 600 Legal Provisions". Indiana Public Media. Retrieved December 14, 2012. 
  7. ^ "Court: Ind. gay marriage ban cannot invalidate marriages of transgender spouses". LGBTQ Nation. December 23, 2013. 
  8. ^ Lawrence, Hurley. "Wisconsin, Indiana ask U.S. justices to hear gay marriage cases". Reuters. Retrieved 13 September 2014. 
  9. ^ Rossi, Max. "U.S. appeals court puts gay marriages on hold in Indiana". Reuters. Retrieved 14 September 2014. 
  10. ^ Odendahl, Marilyn. "5 lawsuits keep marriage debate alive in Indiana". Evansville (Ind.) City-County Observer. Retrieved June 14, 2014. 
  11. ^ "Lambda Legal Files Federal Suit". Lambda Legal (Press release). March 12, 2014. Retrieved March 13, 2014. 
  12. ^ Disis, Jill (April 10, 2014). "Judge grants request to force Indiana to recognize same-sex marriage". Indy Star. Retrieved April 10, 2014. 
  13. ^ Young, Richard L., U.S. District Judge (June 25, 2014). , No. 1:14-cv-00355-RLY"Baskin v. Bogan"Entry on Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment, .  
  14. ^ Healy, Jack (June 25, 2014). "Utah Gay Marriage Ban Struck Down by Federal Appeals Court". New York Times. Retrieved June 25, 2014. 
  15. ^ Geidner, Chris and Merevick, Tony (July 1, 2014). "Federal Appeals Court Says Indiana Must Recognize Terminally Ill Woman's Same-Sex Marriage: An emergency order protecting Amy Sandler and Niki Quasney". Buzzfeed. Retrieved July 2, 2014. 
  16. ^ Marley, Patrick (July 11, 2014). "Appeals court to fast track state's gay marriage case with Indiana's". Milwaukee Wisconsin Journal-Sentinel. Retrieved July 14, 2014. 
  17. ^ Johnson, Chris (September 4, 2014). "7th Circuit rules against marriage bans in Wisconsin, Indiana". Washington Blade. Retrieved September 4, 2015. 
  18. ^ Posner, Richard., U.S. Seventh Circuit Judge (September 15, 2014). , No. 14-2526"Baskin v. Bogan"Order (grant of stay), .  
  19. ^ Liptak, Adam (October 6, 2014). "Supreme Court Hands Gay Marriage a Tacit Victory". New York Times. Retrieved October 6, 2014. 
  20. ^ Gullo, Karen (March 7, 2014). "Indiana Gay-Marriage Ban Challenged by Couples in Federal Court". Bloomberg BusinessWeek. Retrieved March 7, 2014. 
  21. ^ Young, Richard, Chief  
  22. ^ Young, Richard, Chief  
  23. ^ Johnson, Chris (August 20, 2014). "Court: Indiana must recognize out-of-state same-sex marriages". Washington Blade. Retrieved August 20, 2014. 
  24. ^ Young, Richard (August 20, 2014). "Entry on Cross Motions for Summary Judgment".  
  25. ^ Disis, Jill (August 19, 2014). "Latest ruling overturning same-sex marriage ban makes Indiana governor a party to suit". Indianapolis Star. Retrieved August 20, 2014. 
  26. ^
  27. ^ Browning, Bil (January 15, 2010). "Indiana State Senate to take action on marriage amendment". Bilerico Project. Retrieved December 14, 2012. 
  28. ^ Shella, Jim (January 28, 2010). "Gay marriage ban goes to Indiana House once again". WISH TV. Retrieved December 14, 2012. 
  29. ^ "Marriage Discrimination Amendment Dies in State Legislature". Indiana Equality. Retrieved December 14, 2012. 
  30. ^ "Indiana News Indiana House Endorses Gay Marriage Ban". WIBC. February 15, 2011. Retrieved January 4, 2014. 
  31. ^ Carden, Dan (March 29, 2011). "Senate OKs constitutional ban on gay marriage, civil unions". NWI Times. Retrieved January 4, 2014. 
  32. ^ Bangert, Dave (December 31, 2013). "Bracing for the flyover view of Indiana on marriage amendment". Journal Courier (Lafayette). Retrieved January 4, 2014. 
  33. ^ "Daniels says businesses talking gay marriage". Herald Bulletin. December 12, 2012. Retrieved December 14, 2012. 
  34. ^ Stokes, Kyle (October 28, 2013). "IU Opposes Amending Constitution To Ban Same-Sex Marriage". Indiana Public Media. Retrieved December 5, 2013. 
  35. ^ "Indiana legislative leaders break silence on same-sex marriage ban". Courier-Journal. November 18, 2013. Retrieved December 5, 2013. 
  36. ^ Cook, Tony (December 12, 2013). "Indiana Catholic bishops issue statement on gay marriage ban". Indy Star. Retrieved December 18, 2013. 
  37. ^ Smith, Brandon (January 9, 2014). "Proposed Marriage Amendment Clarified, Renamed". Indiana Public Media. Retrieved January 9, 2014. 
  38. ^ Cook, Tony (January 21, 2014). "Bosma moves gay marriage ban to new committee". Indianapolis Star. Retrieved January 21, 2014. 
  39. ^ Cook, Tony (January 22, 2014). "Elections committee advances HJR-3 on to full House". Indianapolis Star. Retrieved January 22, 2014. 
  40. ^ Rund, Jacob (January 27, 2014). "Indiana House votes to amend gay-marriage amendment". Indianapolis Business Journal. Retrieved February 10, 2014. 
  41. ^ Shabazz, Abdul-Hakim (January 28, 2014). "Indiana vote on constitutional ban on gay marriage faces hurdle". Chicago Tribune. Retrieved February 10, 2014. 
  42. ^ Cook, Tony; Berggoetz, Barb (February 10, 2014). "Committee votes 8-4 to send HJR-3 to full Senate". Indianapolis Star. Retrieved February 10, 2014. 
  43. ^ Schneider, Chelsea (February 17, 2014). "Indiana Senate approves marriage amendment". Evansville Courier & Press. Retrieved February 17, 2014. 
  44. ^ Cook, Tony; Berggoetz, Bard (February 14, 2014). "Same-sex marriage ban won't be on November ballot". Indy Star. Retrieved February 17, 2014. 

External links

  • IEA/IU Maurer School of Law Report"More Than Just a Couple",
This article was sourced from Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. World Heritage Encyclopedia content is assembled from numerous content providers, Open Access Publishing, and in compliance with The Fair Access to Science and Technology Research Act (FASTR), Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., Public Library of Science, The Encyclopedia of Life, Open Book Publishers (OBP), PubMed, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health (NIH), U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, and, which sources content from all federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial government publication portals (.gov, .mil, .edu). Funding for and content contributors is made possible from the U.S. Congress, E-Government Act of 2002.
Crowd sourced content that is contributed to World Heritage Encyclopedia is peer reviewed and edited by our editorial staff to ensure quality scholarly research articles.
By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. World Heritage Encyclopedia™ is a registered trademark of the World Public Library Association, a non-profit organization.

Copyright © World Library Foundation. All rights reserved. eBooks from Project Gutenberg are sponsored by the World Library Foundation,
a 501c(4) Member's Support Non-Profit Organization, and is NOT affiliated with any governmental agency or department.