Plaintiffs in this federal marriage equality lawsuit are four same-sex Indiana couples -- two male, two female, one of each gender seeking to get married, and one of each gender seeking to have their out-of-state marriage recognized. They filed the lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the ...
read more >
Plaintiffs in this federal marriage equality lawsuit are four same-sex Indiana couples -- two male, two female, one of each gender seeking to get married, and one of each gender seeking to have their out-of-state marriage recognized. They filed the lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana on March 7, 2014, to challenge the constitutionality of Indiana's ban on same-sex marriage. Indiana's statute banning same-sex marriages and "void[ing]" out-of-state same-sex marriages is IC 31-11-1-1, Indiana's Defense of Marriage Act, which provides: "(a) Only a female may marry a male. Only a male may marry a female. (b) A marriage between persons of the same gender is void in Indiana even if the marriage is lawful in the place where it is solemnized."
Plaintiffs alleged that the Indiana law violates the federal Constitution. And, to the extent it is purportedly authorized by the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), they claimed that the federal statute is also unconstitutional. (Section 2 of DOMA provides: "No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship."). They brought claims under the Equal Protection Clause (alleging both sex and sexual orientation discrimination), the Due Process Clause (arguing that marriage is a fundamental right), the First Amendment (arguing that the marriage ban violated their freedom of association), the Full Faith and Credit Clause, the right to travel, and the Establishment Clause.
On June 25, 2014, the court (Judge Richard Young) granted the defendant's motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration, and on September 16, 2014, the court (Judge Young) reinstated the married plaintiffs' claims. According to the court, the unmarried plaintiffs' claims remained dismissed, "because the Governor cannot remedy the harms alleged by them."
As of November 24, 2014, the parties were submitting pre-trial motions related to the reopened case.Margo Schlanger - 03/14/2014
Priyah Kaul - 11/27/2014