IBJNews

Court to hear gay marriage arguments in August

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A federal appeals court in Chicago will hear arguments in challenges of gay marriage bans in Wisconsin and Indiana's on Aug. 13.

Federal judges in both states have struck down the bans as unconstitutional. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals consolidated the Wisconsin and Indiana cases on Friday and put them on the fast track.

The court separately rejected a request by Wisconsin Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen to have five extra days to submit arguments.

Both states have asked that all 10 judges on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals hear the cases, but it has not yet ruled on those requests.

Usually the 7th Circuit uses three-judge panels to decide cases.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Daniel, et al
    How is it that the same old arguments that have been laughed out of many court rooms keep coming up in these forums? Do these people read only one book?
  • Daniel
    Daniel, we can see that you are very upset with all aspects of the US government and may not fully understand how the judicial system works. Most of your arguments here are not related to the decision that will be made on August 13. I'm not going to take the time to explain the meaning of the 1st amendment to the US constitution. If you are looking for something very literal, how about article 1 section 4 of the Indiana constitution? "Section 4. No preference shall be given, by law, to any creed, religious society, or mode of worship; and no person shall be compelled to attend, erect, or support, any place of worship, or to maintain any ministry, against his consent." Your only reason for banning same sex marriage that I have read is that it is in the bible. If we continue that ban, we are violating the above article. Do you have other reasons the state should keep discriminating against citizens that would like to marry a person of the same sex?
    • Civil vs. Religious
      Daniel, in the U.S., a marriage is only legal with the signing of a civil marriage license. Many couples get married by a judge, or a justice of the peace. They need not go to a place of worship in order to marry. While many people choose to participate in a religious rite, that ceremony does not constitute a civil contract. Clergy and congregations choose whom they marry. They are not required to accept the government's definition of marriage. Some faiths reject remarriages after divorce. That does not mean those marriages are not legally recognized by the government. I'm not asserting that marriage is solely a civil institution. For those who believe, it may also be a religious contract. However, the religious component is not what grants married couples the legal rights same-sex couples deserve as equal citizens under the Constitution.
    • representative republic
      Jim has a representative in his government. That is the way laws are chnaged ... the legislative process. Authoritarian dictatorships force laws on people (majority) without any due process. I guess we are no longer a government of laws ... we are a government of decrees and directives ... Great!
    • exactly
      Sue ... when exactly did Marriage change from a religious institution to being a civil institution ...who made it so?
      • seperation or elimination
        Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances where exactly does the first amendment stipulate there is a separation of church and state.
      • Nice try
        Daniel, feel free to abdicate all of the legal protections the state affords married opposite sex couples if you think marriage is solely a religious institution. I'm an atheist and did not marry in a church, yet the state recognizes my marriage. Now that marriage is a civil institution and not just a religious one, those subscribing to a particular belief system shouldn't get to decide who is allowed to join the club. No one is going to make you engage in "disordered" behavior if same-sex couples are given equal protection under constitution. It has zero impact on your bible-defined marriage. Under your logic, I supposed couples married in non-Christian religious ceremonies are also not really married? Somehow, I think the IRS is allowing Buddhists, Sikhs, and *gasp* even non-believers to file as Married on their tax returns.
        • Sins
          Bob, it is a sin in your religion. The first amendment of the US constitution says there is a separation of church and state. This means that your religious beliefs are yours and have no basis in law. If the judge declares the same sex marriage ban unconstitutional, you can still believe in the same god you currently do and follow the practices you have come up with to worship that god. Your life does not change one bit. Declaring the ban unconstitutional will help those that do not believe in the tenants of your religion to have other rights that the state has granted to married people. I'm sure you don't want to judge these people. Doesn't your bible say you should not judge them?
          • Bingo
            Daniel gets it!!! Homosexuality and beastuality--it's all sin.
          • To Daniel
            Daniel, Jim is (probably) not part of the government so can't legislate things without the support of many others. That's the way our government works. Marriage is a state issue. If two people are not married there are legal issues involved with health care and dependent support. If you do not want marriage to be a state issue, work with your senator and state representatives to change these laws. Right now there are people in Indiana who have less rights than others. This needs to be fixed and we are hopeful that the panel of judges will fix it so all citizens have the same rights. This is not a religious issue at all. There is a separation of church and state. It sounds like you have a problem with this constitutional amendment. Again, contact your senators and representatives and let them know that you are against the separation of church and state.
            • legislate laws ... don't dictate them
              Jim … I’m not certain why you don’t just legislate all the demands you have. Legal benefits … just give them to everyone … regardless of marital status. Marriage is not mentioned in the US / IN Constitution, Bill of Rights, or Declaration of Independence … but is clearly defined in the Bible. So … why is it that your side continues to refer to it as a legal right … it’s a religious rite. Incidentally … the first amendment of the US Constitution protects citizens free exercise of religion and free speech … you can’t make balanced people agree with your opinion regarding disordered homosexual behavior and relationships …
              • What happened
                I don't know where people get the idea that the judge will change the law to add 3 people to get married or people to marry dogs. If you are concerned about that, you can contact your state senator or representative and let them know that you are concerned about polygamy and about interspecies marriage. I'm sure they will love to talk to you about these issues. On August 13, a judge will decide if the current law prohibiting same sex marriage is constitutional or not. They will say yes it is or no it isn't. If it is constitutional, citizens of Indiana will continue to be denied the right to marry the person they choose. If it isn't constitutional, they will be free to marry the person they love. That's all that is going to happen. If you do not want to marry someone of the same sex, please don't. It is up to you to decide if you want to marry someone of the same sex or not. The state won't make this decision for you. Well....now....they do make this decision for you. Let's hope after August 13th, they won't.
              • And out they come
                Such hilarious banter...dogs are citizens of course...and whether a law violates the Constitution and equal rights for all as promised in the Bill and Declaration, plus the separation of powers established by said document shouldn't be a consideration, let's just ignore all that...no...only those white mostly male citizens I personally agree with who worship in my church should have rights...white people were here when God created this country some 4,000 years ago, well they were sort of white but more red, but I know that all of the commenters here were never immigrants but all native here, or maybe it was that they were all immigrants? Boy, after you read a few comments here you can really get confused...I just don't know what to think anymore except that in Indiana, a lot of the people who used to be in the closet aren't anymore, and a lot of people who weren't in the closet should be (locked in)...
                • Benefits
                  If it is all about benefits, my cousin should get to marry her dog. It needs a liver transplant which is very expensive. Equal rights for all...right!!!
                • open all the doors
                  Has already been done. In the 19th century. Which is where right-wing nutcases want to drag the people.
                • legislature
                  Great idea ... whoever heard of having the elected representatives create the laws ... unaccountable judges should create and determine all laws ... by the way ... I can't wait until 3 lesbians can get legally married ... it shouldn't take too long to force that on the general population ...
                • Hum
                  Does this mean immigrants should not be allowed to marry? All foreigners cannot marry either?
                • Open all the doors
                  Next we can go for unlimited spouses! Then we will be in the 21st century.
                  • Equality on Aug 13?
                    Let's hope that Indiana will finally have marriage equality on August 13. All citizens should be able to marry. The state shouldn't be discriminating.
                    • About time
                      perhaps the courts will force Indiana into the 21st century..

                    Post a comment to this story

                    COMMENTS POLICY
                    We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
                     
                    You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
                     
                    Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
                     
                    No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
                     
                    We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
                     

                    Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

                    Sponsored by
                    ADVERTISEMENT

                    facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

                    Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
                    Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
                     
                    Subscribe to IBJ
                    1. How can any company that has the cash and other assets be allowed to simply foreclose and not pay the debt? Simon, pay the debt and sell the property yourself. Don't just stiff the bank with the loan and require them to find a buyer.

                    2. If you only knew....

                    3. The proposal is structured in such a way that a private company (who has competitors in the marketplace) has struck a deal to get "financing" through utility ratepayers via IPL. Competitors to BlueIndy are at disadvantage now. The story isn't "how green can we be" but how creative "financing" through captive ratepayers benefits a company whose proposal should sink or float in the competitive marketplace without customer funding. If it was a great idea there would be financing available. IBJ needs to be doing a story on the utility ratemaking piece of this (which is pretty complicated) but instead it suggests that folks are whining about paying for being green.

                    4. The facts contained in your post make your position so much more credible than those based on sheer emotion. Thanks for enlightening us.

                    5. Please consider a couple of economic realities: First, retail is more consolidated now than it was when malls like this were built. There used to be many department stores. Now, in essence, there is one--Macy's. Right off, you've eliminated the need for multiple anchor stores in malls. And in-line retailers have consolidated or folded or have stopped building new stores because so much of their business is now online. The Limited, for example, Next, malls are closing all over the country, even some of the former gems are now derelict.Times change. And finally, as the income level of any particular area declines, so do the retail offerings. Sad, but true.

                    ADVERTISEMENT