Judge overturns Indiana marriage law; same-sex couples marry in Marion County

Keywords Gay Marriage

A federal judge on Wednesday overturned the state’s ban on same sex marriage – effective immediately – and couples across the state rushed to get hitched in case an appeals court stepped in to stop them.

“These couples, when gender and sexual orientation are taken away, are in all respects like the family down the street,” U.S. District Judge Richard Young wrote. “The Constitution demands that we treat them as such.”

Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller filed a request for an emergency stay Wednesday in federal court in Indianapolis that would ban marriages until a higher court can consider the issue.

The Marion County Clerk’s office started performing marriages right away and there was a line out the door of couples waiting for the service. Clerk Beth White offered “simple civil ceremonies for couples for $50 voluntary contribution to Indiana Youth Group today,” a tweet from her office said.

Shortly thereafter, Craig Bowen and Jake Miller became the first same-sex couple to marry in the county when they got a license and had their ceremony in the clerk’s office.

By the time it closed at 11 p.m., the office had conducted more than 186 same-sex wedding ceremonies.
Clerks in St. Joseph, Boone, Hamilton, Vanderburgh, Brown and other counties also began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

But other counties weren’t moving so quickly, in part because the forms they use for marriage licenses do not reflect a same-sex relationship status.

Lake County officials said they planned to wait at least a day until they received direction from state officials. Zoeller’s office said it “will communicate with county clerks on proper marriage license procedures they should follow in order to avoid chaos during the appeal.”

In Monroe County, a clerk’s employee said the office is not currently issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Attorneys there are still reading over the judges ruling but are expecting to allow it sometime later on Wednesday or Thursday, she said.

Ken Falk, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana, which filed the suit, said it’s unclear whether the new marriages would stand should an appeals court issue a stay. But he advised same-sex couples who desire to get married to do so quickly.

In the ruling, U.S. District Judge Richard Young said Indiana's state law banning gay marriage is unconstitutional and violates the due process and equal protection clause. Young was nominated to the court by President Bill Clinton in 1997.

The ruling states that same-sex couples cannot be prosecuted or denied a marriage license.

“It’s a historical day because people have been waiting a long time to have their love recognized,” said Kyle Megrath, the marriage coordinator for Hoosiers United for Marriage. “There will be a lot of celebrating today.”

Megrath said the group is waiting for more details about how the ruling will be enforced.

Already, 19 states allow same-sex marriage. In 11 of those, voters or state legislatures made the call. In eight others, judges ordered marriage open to same-sex couples.

In another 12 states, judges have issued rulings in favor of gay marriages but the decisions were stayed as they were appealed, according to the national group Freedom to Marry.

Indiana Senate President Pro Tem David Long, R-Fort Wayne, said he hopes the federal court will respect Indiana law by “granting a stay to Judge Young’s ruling until the Supreme Court takes up this case and all the others like it around the country.”

“It is clear that the U.S. Supreme Court is going to have to rule on this issue, and the sooner the better,” Long said. “The current chaos over state marriage laws that is being created by these lower federal court rulings needs to stop, and only the Supreme Court can make that happen and bring clarity to this issue once and for all.”

Last summer, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a federal law defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman and left it up to each state to make its own decision regarding the definition of a legal marriage. But since then, federal judges across the nation have been striking down state bans on same-sex marriage.

In the Indiana case, Zoeller’s office had argued the marriage-definition law should remain intact. State attorneys noted that the legislature has the legal authority to determine how marriage should be defined within Indiana’s borders and decided it should be in the traditional way – between one man and one woman. The legislature also decided not to legally recognize same-sex unions granted in other states.

But Young said in his decision that “excluding same-sex couples from marriage has absolutely no affect on opposite-sex couples, whether they will procreate, and whether such couples will stay together if they do procreate.” Those were among other reasons the state had given for restricting marriage to heterosexual couples.

Indiana has only banned same-sex marriage in state law, not its constitution.

Lawmakers have passed a constitutional marriage ban several times, but never during consecutive, separately elected legislative sessions. That’s necessary to send the measure to the ballot for ratification for voters.

This year, lawmakers could have done so but opted instead to remove a second sentence that would have also banned civil unions in Indiana. The decision to alter the language meant that the multi-year process for amending the constitution started over.

Indiana House Minority Leader Scott Pelath, D-Michigan City, has been fighting efforts in Indiana to put a ban on same sex marriage into the Indiana Constitution. He said Wednesday that “for years now, the people of this state have been dragged through what is turning out to be a completely unnecessary debate on matters that should be left to personal choice.

“The tide is changing across our country, as more judges and legislatures decide that we do not need to be involved with this issue,” Pelath said. “In Indiana, we need to take heed of this change. We need to stop this debate now. It is pointless to continue.”

Please enable JavaScript to view this content.

Editor's note: You can comment on IBJ stories by signing in to your IBJ account. If you have not registered, please sign up for a free account now. Please note our updated comment policy that will govern how comments are moderated.

{{ articles_remaining }}
Free {{ article_text }} Remaining
{{ articles_remaining }}
Free {{ article_text }} Remaining Article limit resets in {{ count_down }} days.