Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed
×

Notice of appeal filed in Indiana same-sex marriage case

LGBT Legal Cases Marriage equality Marriage Equality Trials

Indiana officials have notified the district court of their intent to appeal Bowling v. Pence, challenging the state’s same-sex marriage ban, to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. A federal district court judge struck down the ban in a new ruling this week, in a follow-up case similar to the ones that are already on appeal.

The Seventh Circuit is set to hear arguments in marriage cases from Indiana and Wisconsin next week (briefs in those cases can be read here.) The new appeal isn’t likely to be discussed at the hearings, but since cases addressing the exact same issues will be heard, any decision will impact the new appeal.

Thanks to Equality Case Files for these filings

22 Comments

  • 1. debater7474  |  August 22, 2014 at 8:23 am

    I really hope that Posner ends up on the seventh circuit panel. He's kind of arrogant and presumptuous but also very outspoken and confident, so he'll waste no time in tearing the state defendants a new one during argument if he ends up on the panel.

  • 2. Zack12  |  August 22, 2014 at 8:29 am

    Plus, his writings have shown he has some amount of sympathy towards same sex couples and he is NOT a fan of Scalia.
    Diane Sykes (who is divorced by the way) is a guaranteed no vote, and Frank Easterbrook likely is as well.
    I haven't been able to find enough info on the other Republican judges to know how they would rule but here's hoping we get a majority Democrat panel on this one, a long shot due to the make up of the 7th circuit.

  • 3. debater7474  |  August 22, 2014 at 8:36 am

    Oh yeah, I think Posner's in the bag for marriage equality, and this combined with his other traits makes him my top choice to be on the panel.

  • 4. Zack12  |  August 22, 2014 at 8:41 am

    I feel the same way.
    Sykes on the other hand is a bigot and someone we don't want on the panel.
    Simply look at her interview with Clarence THomas (one of the worst justices ever IMO) to see how neither of them should be on the bench.

  • 5. debater7474  |  August 22, 2014 at 8:54 am

    Oh Sykes is horrific. It's funny that you mention the interview with Thomas, because I actually saw that too. I actually think that Thomas is a nice guy, personally, and I don't mind him, even though I don't ever agree with a single decision he makes. But putting aside Thomas, Sykes is an avowed member of the Federalist Society, wrote an opinion striking down Obamacare, and will be sure to rule against marriage equality in order to boost her cred among the conservative legal establishment. She is a guaranteed vote against us.

  • 6. Rkchicago  |  August 22, 2014 at 8:59 am

    Quick question, bit off topic.
    Let's say the Scotus takes any of the appeals cases and does not rule in our favor, stating that a state may enact a marriage ban.
    Would this mean that the non-appealed decisions in Oregon and Pennsylvania (and NM too?) are overturned and their bans re-instated?

  • 7. Zack12  |  August 22, 2014 at 9:13 am

    The only thing Federalist Society judges do (Thomas is a member as well) is overturn laws conservatives don't like, make elections easier for Republicans to win and stall any and all progress minority groups have made or will make.
    Next to the Iraq war, that is the worst part of Bush Jr's legacy, him being able to appoint way too many members of this evil group to the bench.
    As for Thomas, I don't care if he is a nice guy or not. The fact is he more right wing then Scalia and Alito are and had no place being appointed to the SUpreme Court.
    He should have been blocked just like Bork was.

  • 8. Margo Schulter  |  August 22, 2014 at 9:20 am

    Since New Mexico actually did not have any marriage ban, but rather a statute which the state Supreme Court ruled must be interpreted to favor marriage equality, there would be no effect there.

    With Oregon and Pennsylvania, those cases are final. What might happen there, I would guess, might be as much a political as a strictly legal question. Certainly in Oregon, where there was a plan to put a marriage equality measure on the ballot if the ban had not been struck down judicially, attempts to reinstate ban might run into lots of resistance.

  • 9. DoctorHeimlich  |  August 22, 2014 at 9:26 am

    I would think not immediately, because the cases in those states are already decided and would not be before SCOTUS. What would probably happen is a twisted inversion of what we saw over the last year, where marriage equality lawsuits spread state-by-state. In any state that still actually has a ban (either statutory or constitutional) on the books, you'd quickly see a county clerk object to issuing a marriage license to a same-sex couple. They'd point to the law, cite the SCOTUS ruling that said those laws are acceptable and enforceable, and quickly get a ruling in their favor.

    It seems to me that in such a scenario, we'd see around half a dozen states "roll back" their equality rights. But many states might thankfully be immune. New Mexico, for example, never had a ban on their books in the first place. And roughly a dozen other states achieved equality through legislative action (Maine by vote, others by state congresses). There wouldn't be a potentially enforceable ban for a clerk to point to.

    Regardless of how many states would be lost or losable, our side would begin the long process of going state by state, convincing voters to repeal their bans and replacing them with equality. We could also hope for a favorable change in the Supreme Court lineup, then try to get back there — just like when Lawrence v Texas overruled Bowers v. Hardwick.

    The whole thing gives me shivers. Let's not think about it anymore.

  • 10. Zack12  |  August 22, 2014 at 9:46 am

    The latter would happen before the former I'm afraid.
    The fact is in many states, it could be 2050 and there will still be bans if the Supreme Court doesn't step in.

  • 11. sfbob  |  August 22, 2014 at 9:49 am

    Before coming to a positive conclusion about Clarence Thomas you may want to Google Anita Hill. Nothing nice happened in that situation, that's for certain.

    I understand that Thomas is quite vindictive and can hold a grudge with the best of them.

  • 12. debater7474  |  August 22, 2014 at 9:52 am

    The fact of the matter is that Anita Hill comes down to he said, she said. No one should presume that they know that either of them was correct, and I certainly don't presume to know who was telling the truth. It's easy to assume the worst about those you disagree with politically, but I refuse to do so.

  • 13. Zack12  |  August 22, 2014 at 9:54 am

    Indeed, and that is why he is worse then Alito or Scalia.
    He has more or less admitted many of the rulings he's made over the years are to stick it to those who he feels wronged him or fail to acknowledge him for the genius he thinks is.
    It is a disgrace that a hero like Thurgood Marshall was replaced with a bitter right wing hack like Thomas, who could still plague us for another two decades.

  • 14. debater7474  |  August 22, 2014 at 9:56 am

    So if you don't agree with a justice's ideological views, you are entitled to block them? Were conservatives entitled to block Ginsburg's nomination?

  • 15. RLsfba  |  August 22, 2014 at 10:27 am

    I wonder what the 9 of them REALLY think of one another? Kagan and Scalia on hunting trips? What do they talk about? Thomas is a slacker. I think he asked a question once. They all stake out their own territories and agendas and play to groups who worship them now, and will beatify their legacy. Some think Scalia is perfect. Could it be an example of the "Peter Principle?" Rising to one's level of incompetence?

  • 16. sfbob  |  August 22, 2014 at 10:40 am

    Republicans regularly blocked Obama's nominees to the federal bench until the rules were changed to prevent it earlier this summer. If they had the capacity they'd most certainly continue doing so. And the rule change doesn't apply to Supreme Court nominees.

  • 17. Mike_Baltimore  |  August 22, 2014 at 10:45 am

    ". . . (Maine by vote, others by state congresses). . . ."

    In both Washington state and the state of Maryland, the legislature AND voting public voted for ME. In those states, it wasn't a decision by one or the other as it was in other states.

    For example, in Minnesota, the voting public voted down a state constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman, but it was the state legislature that voted FOR ME, not the voting public (although if asked, the voting public almost certainly would have voted in favor of ME).

  • 18. Zack12  |  August 22, 2014 at 10:58 am

    Since the Republicans have done it on a grand scale to even moderate nominees, have no qualms about Democrats doing the same to a far right one.

  • 19. TomPHL  |  August 22, 2014 at 11:57 am

    Most emphatically yes. The president does not have the right to have his nominees approved unless he appoints people who are acceptable to a majority of senators. The constitution sets no guidelines that a senator must consider when making this decision. The whole rationale of the appointment process is to avoid the appointment of judges who are ideological or partisan extremists. Now I do note that you said block not approve and I do believe that blocking appointments by other than majority vote is an abuse of the process. The democrats should not have blocked Thomas by filibuster but simply said no when the matter came to a vote. When Ginsburg's nomination came to a vote she was approved but those senators who found her record unsatisfactory should have voted no. The hideous process that the approval of presidential judicial appointees has become is a direct result of the idea that judicial appointees can only be rejected if you can find them morally repugnant. Thomas should have been rejected because he was not acceptable to 51 senators not because of anything to do with Anita Hill.

  • 20. TomPHL  |  August 22, 2014 at 12:04 pm

    In PA the state constitution could still save ME.

  • 21. SPQRobin  |  August 23, 2014 at 3:11 pm

    As a reply to http://equalityontrial.com/2014/08/12/read-final-… (where the thread is already closed): you can click on the "X hours/days ago" next to a username to link to a certain comment. That's easier :) I know e.g. Facebook also uses the time/date as permalink.

  • 22. F_Young  |  August 25, 2014 at 3:37 am

    Indiana Governor Mike Pence struggles on gay marriage continue
    http://www.news-sentinel.com/apps/pbcs.dll/articl

Having technical problems? Visit our support page to report an issue!