One same-sex couple in Indiana asks federal court to recognize their marriage immediately
April 1, 2014
LGBT Legal Cases Marriage equality Marriage Equality Trials
One couple in Indiana is asking a federal judge to immediately require the state to recognize their marriage as legal. Nikole Rai Quasney and Amy Melissa Sandler have been together for 13 years, and Quasney has Stage IV ovarian cancer. The couple is raising two young girls, and they filed the request in order to ensure their family is protected when Quasney passes away.
They were married in Massachusetts, and they obtained a civil union in Illinois, but Indiana won’t recognize either of those. The filing in support of the request notes that:
Niki is “terrified that the hospital may not let” her family “be together in an emergency or permit Amy to make medical decisions on [her] behalf.” (Id.) As a result, Niki travels to Chicago for chemotherapy appointments and even emergency medical care because Illinois recognizes the legal status of their relationship.
The motion for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction was filed by Lambda Legal. The lawsuit, Baskin v. Bogan, was filed in March along with at least four other lawsuits filed by different organizations and at least one out-of-state attorney.
The couple also wants to hold a quick hearing on this issue:
Plaintiffs request an expedited hearing and an expedited ruling on the merits.
Lambda Legal’s request notes that the couples in the lawsuit have a strong likelihood of success in the case.
Thanks to Kathleen Perrin for these filings
For more information on Baskin v. Bogan from The Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse, click here.
12 Comments
1.
davep | April 1, 2014 at 9:37 am
This is pretty clear evidence of the types of harm caused by denial of civil marriage rights (or denial of recognizing an existing civil marriage).
2.
Rick O. | April 1, 2014 at 10:12 am
Ordinarily anecdotal, touchy-feely examples don't weigh much, but the entire experience of the ME campaign has been personal stories are what sway reluctant minds; even judicial ones. I loved Judge Friedman's rejoinder to the State of Michigan that they had lost sight of the fact that the issue was about people.
3.
weaverbear | April 1, 2014 at 10:49 am
They say all politics are local. For me & for all of us, this battle is personal.
4.
Fr. Bill | April 1, 2014 at 11:39 am
Rick, I join you in your appreciation of Judge Friedman's reminder to not lose sight of the fact that underneath all the legal arguments and religious rhetoric the issue is about people and real lives. People would like to think that the fears of this couple are as hypothetical as the arguments being made against ME. They are not and it is our job to keep that reality in the forefront this conversation.
5.
Ragavendran | April 3, 2014 at 3:46 pm
Today, the other Plaintiffs in this case, Baskin v. Bogan, joined the Quasney-Sandler couple in filing their motion for a preliminary injunction. In addition, all Plaintiffs have also filed a motion to expedite proceedings on this case by consolidating the preliminary injunction hearing with the final trial on merits. Judge Young has scheduled a telephonic conference for tomorrow afternoon, during which all these issues will be discussed, a briefing schedule agreed upon, and a date likely set for the preliminary injunction hearing (assuming, of course, the Judge doesn't simply dismiss that motion – it is unlikely that he would do so given the health of one of the Plaintiffs).
And in other news, Florida Family Policy Council, the original group that successfully pushed Florida’s constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, will seek to intervene in two lawsuits (one state, one federal) filed by gay couples challenging the law: http://miami.cbslocal.com/2014/04/03/group-seeks-…
6.
Ragavendran | April 3, 2014 at 6:46 pm
Tomorrow is also when oral arguments are scheduled in Henry v. Wymyslo, the Ohio case where recognition of out-of-state same-sex marriages on birth certificates is the issue. Judge Black, who ruled for us in the death certificate case which is now being appealed at the 6th Circuit, will also hear this case. Honestly, I can't think of how the argument and reasoning for this case is going to be any different! There could well be a ruling from the bench tomorrow on the permanent injunction motion.
7.
Ragavendran | April 4, 2014 at 8:58 pm
Update: In today's telephonic conference, Judge Young set an immediate hearing date of April 10 to hear the Quasney-Sandler couple's motion for a temporary restraining order.
8.
mla | April 9, 2014 at 7:25 am
If we were making states better, the farce they call gay marriage would be illegal in all states!
9.
Guest | April 9, 2014 at 7:44 am
That's how I feel about the Christian industry, but I would go further than you. I would bar-b-q the plump, juicy, Christian bigots. They would be tasty snacks for cannibals.
10.
sfbob | April 9, 2014 at 8:58 am
If you do not wish to marry someone of your own gender, nobody's forcing you to do so. Other than that, why is it any of your concern?
11.
Rose | April 9, 2014 at 9:08 am
Glad to inform you of this but there is NO such thing as "GAY" or "SAME-SEX" marriage……it is just a Civil marriage either between an opposite-sex couple or a Same-Sex Couple……to bad you CAN'T figure that out!!!
12.
Cherry | April 9, 2014 at 9:11 pm
With havin so much written cennott do you ever run into any issues of plagorism or copyright infringement? My site has a lot of unique cennott I’ve either authored myself or outsourced but it seems a lot of it is popping it up all over the internet without my agreement. Do you know any ways to help reduce cennott from being stolen? I’d really appreciate it.