Some good items at the Indiana Law Blog and Advance Indiana on the aftermath of Judge Young’s ruling on same sex marriage:
– The Indiana Law Blog on Gov. Pence’s General Counsel, Mike Ahearn’s memo to executive branch offices directing them to take necessary measures to change their processes to abide by Judge Young’s order.
– The Indiana Law Blog on the Daviess County Clerk’s refusal to issue licenses reportedly based in part on her religious beliefs.
– Advance Indiana pointing out the obvious flaw in Eric Miller / Advance America’s contention that amending the Indiana Constitution to prevent marriage equality would have done anything to alter Judge Young’s rationale. Based as it was on the United States Constitution, the Supremacy Clause dictates that state constitutional provisions would have to give way where they violate the federal constitution.
Oh, and also not so incidentally, the news has lots of stories out there about happy couples getting married. Which, I suppose, was the point of the exercise in the first place.
Update Late Friday afternoon, the 7th Circuit granted the Attorney General’s request for a stay of Judge Young’s order pending appeal.
Thanks for the shout out. Believe it or not, the Daviess County Clerk has a gay brother who is in a same-sex relationship.
I believe it. After all, Mike Delph has a gay brother, too.
It’s really ripping him up too.
Miller’s got to keep the donations coming in somehow. You expect him to worry about being accurate now?
As much as I give Eric Miller grief, I have to give him a small amount of credit. He’s done a bang-up job at making sure churches can offer day cares that don’t have to follow the rules that other day cares have to follow in the name of religious liberty. Maybe next those churches that have coffee shops in them can be exempt from the health code that Starbucks has to follow…
But outside of that, looking at the other results, giving to Eric Miller would appear to be around as effective than setting your money on fire.
What? His family makes tons of money off the nursing home monopoly they are trying to build.
Also, if you set your money on fire, how would that bigoted grifter be able to spend on himself?
I think you’re thinking of Eric Turner, not Eric Miller.
I get hose two con men confused all the time. I saw Miller speak at a megachurch one time and he was as slimy as he was wrong.
I’ll stick with paragraph two, though, Joe.
hose = those
Doug – some Clerks are alleging that since the form cannot be updated immediately, they are then unable to issue a certificate until the form properly reflects a same-sex option. What are your thoughts on this?
It’s not an unfounded concern. I can see where a Clerk would be understandably hesitant to change a state form without permission from the state. But with the governor’s counsel having instructed the executive branch to do what they need to do in order to change their processes to accommodate the order, I think the concern should be diminished.
Healy said later she told Colvin “our country was founded on the biblical principle of one man and one woman in marriage, and until I hear otherwise, that is what I will follow.”
Uh, you just heard otherwise, Daviess County clerk.
You heard our country was founded on another principle? Were you at a seance where you summoned the spectre of George Mason? Did you read what she said? ??????????????????????????
Um, he was talking about the governor and the head of her political party, I believe.
Shows how crazy Freedom is that he didn’t pick Madison or Franklin or Washington, he picked Mason, who refused to sign the Constitution. More fine “patriotism” from Freedom
Wow. Did you not know our country was founded well before the Constitution was ratified?
Refusing to accept reality does not, in fact, change it. Reading the comments under the Advance Indiana column proves that many more people like the Daviess County Clerk are going to hurl themselves against that wall before they realize it. is not going to be moved. (And btw a judicial stay, when it comes, is but a speed bump in this road.)
She can cite the gray area all day long and get away with it.
But if your religious beliefs are what’s standing in your way, your best course of action is to quit if you feel so convicted.
Not so convicted there.
Joe, this is a huge point. Folks need to have a better sense of boundaries in these situations. Expecting the legislature to pass laws that will conform to one’s religious point of view leads to a bad end for the person who is doing the expecting, and is also unconstitutional. I think people are better off and happier if they can separate their religious sensibilities and what is legal. If we take out the gayness issue and put the boundary issue in another place, many people have religious sensibilities about gambling, but lots of people like to gamble, and the legislature has allowed them to do that. If I don’t like to gamble, the fact that you gamble doesn’t necessarily affect me and whether I do it. If people make the boundary line bright and clear, they will probably experience less angst about this issue. On the other hand, if a person’s religious sensibilities seriously impact their ability to function in public office, then they had better quit one of them.
Well, if you don’t believe gambling is right, don’t take a job as a dealer. If you don’t want the ethical dilemma of dispensing Plan B, don’t be a pharmacist. If you think the Second Amendment should have limits, don’t take a job at Don’s Guns.
“Refusing to accept reality does not, in fact, change it. ”
Is this an original quote? I am soooo re-posting it.
Doug, I’ve got a question – what were the laws on marriage in the state of Indiana before they were revised in 1997? Don’t see any such way to find them online…
Not sure if there is an easy way to figure that out. If you can find a copy of the Indiana Code from 1997, that would be the best way. I know the Legislative Services Agency has copies of all the historical publications of the Code. If you can find the Acts of 1997, that would have copies of sections of the code amended that year with the existing law in plain roman type with proposed deletions stricken and proposed additions in bold.
Now that the stay has been issued, those same sex couples who got licenses and whose marriages were solemnized (present company and his spouse included), what’s our status? Unfortunately when the media asked those questions yesterday the answer was simply that if SCOTUS ultimately reversed Young’s decision, the marriages were (retroactively) void. But in the interim? During the window duly authorized officials issued licenses, and solemnizing ceremonies by duly authroized people took place. Hopefully somebody has some answers.
Congrats, Don!
I don’t have answers, just speculation. My guess is that the feds will recognize the marriages and that Indiana’s obligation to recognize those marriages will be the same as its obligation (or lack thereof) to recognize out of state same sex marriages.