Yesterday was the oral argument before the Indiana Court of Appeals in the case of Ruth Morrison, et al., v. Doris Ann Sadler, et al., challenging Indiana's prohibition against same sex marriage, found at IC 31-11-1-1. You may listen to the argument online here via the Indiana Judiciary site. Earlier Indiana Law Blog coverage may be found here and here.
Front page coverage today may be found here in the Indianapolis Star. Some quotes:
The debate over same-sex marriage has been heating up since summer, when Canada began allowing gays and lesbians to marry. It intensified in November, after the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that state's ban on same-sex marriages was unconstitutional.In an interesting juxtaposition, the Star today is running this opinion piece by Ellen Goodman (that we linked to on Saturday via the Washington Post) where she begins with the line "Who would have believed that Britney Spears would end up striking a blow for gay marriage? and continues:In New Jersey, where a legal challenge similar to the one in Indiana is pending, legislators on Monday recognized same-sex partnerships, giving domestic partners access to medical benefits, insurance and other legal rights. Gay-rights activists said they would continue to push for the right to marry. * * *
The case before the Court of Appeals stems from a suit filed by three same-sex couples -- Ruth Morrison and Teresa Stephens, David Wene and David Squire, and Charlotte and Dawn Egler. The Eglers traveled to Canada in July to wed legally there, and before that had gone to Vermont to form a civil union. But all three couples were denied marriage licenses in 2002 by clerks in Hendricks and Marion counties.
Marion Superior Judge S.K. Reid, who ruled the state is justified in allowing only opposite-sex couples to marry, dismissed the original suit. The law, she wrote, "promotes the state's interest in encouraging procreation to occur in a context where both biological parents are present to raise the child."
In arguments before James S. Kirsch and Michael P. Barnes and Friedlander, Deputy Attorney General Thomas Fisher said the union of a man and a woman is the basic building block of society. He also said allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry would lead to the downfall of traditional marriage. * * *
But Ken Falk, legal director for the ICLU, said the notion of family has evolved to the point that the sex of those involved should not be a factor. "I challenge you to look at Dawn and Charlotte Egler and their son and say that's not a family," he said. "This is change. This is difficult. This is something the founders weren't thinking about in the 1850s," Falk said. "But they also weren't thinking about women being attorneys or blacks marrying whites. The Constitution evolves from a common understanding that the state is not to intrude on fundamental life choices."
After 55 hours, the "I dos" became "I don'ts," the vows were annulled and assorted folks chimed in with the same thought: Hey, a man and woman can get married on a lark, but when a committed gay couple wants to make it legal, they're accused of wrecking the institution?Posted by Marcia Oddi at January 13, 2004 07:45 AM