Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed

District court strikes down Indiana same-sex marriage ban in new ruling

LGBT Legal Cases Marriage equality Marriage Equality Trials

Indiana state sealThe federal district court judge who issued the ruling in the Indiana cases that are set to be argued next week has issued a decision in the remaining challenge to the ban. As he did in the other cases, the judge has ruled the ban is unconstitutional.

The decision is stayed “until the Seventh Circuit rules on the merits of this case or one of the related cases of Baskin v. Bogan, Lee v. Pence, and Fujii v. Pence,” and the stay will remain in place if the Seventh Circuit issues a stay in those cases.

The case is Bowling v. Pence.

Bilerico has more. The formal judgment is here.

Thanks to Equality Case Files and John Becker at Bilerico for these filings


  • 1. hopalongcassidy  |  August 19, 2014 at 4:53 pm

    Gay means stay. Same old shit.

  • 2. Zack12  |  August 19, 2014 at 5:31 pm

    If the judge didn't stay the ruling, the 7th circuit would simply do it for him.
    I like how he called out Mike Pence for the bigot he is.

  • 3. hopalongcassidy  |  August 20, 2014 at 7:11 am

    I know…not blaming the judge, blaming the ethos.

  • 4. Eric  |  August 20, 2014 at 10:27 am

    I'll blame the judge. If the higher court wants to issue a stay, it can issue the stay. The district judges are undermining their credibility when they issue stays that contradict their rulings.

  • 5. Zack12  |  August 20, 2014 at 10:43 am

    They already did that to this judge in his prior ruling.
    They would do it again in a heart beat.

  • 6. SeattleRobin  |  August 20, 2014 at 5:34 pm

    Yeah, the judge would just be running up unnecessary legal costs when he already knows the outcome. He's being responsible, not undermining credibility.

  • 7. robbyinflorida  |  August 19, 2014 at 5:28 pm

    Seems to me that Gov. Pence didn't want to get his hands dirty.

  • 8. F_Young  |  August 20, 2014 at 2:55 am

    "Tomorrow (8/20) is decision day for Virginia. Clock is ticking, John Roberts…"

    No, if I recall correctly Ragavendran posted in another thread that the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals clarified that its mandate would issue Thursday the 21st at 8 AM.

  • 9. brooklyn11217  |  August 20, 2014 at 4:35 am

    The mandate is set to issue Thursday morning. So, if SCOTUS wants to prevent it, they are likely to do something by late today. It would just be odd for them to wait until after the mandate issues, as then marriages will have started.

  • 10. Corey_from_MD  |  August 19, 2014 at 7:59 pm

    Tomorrow (8/20) is decision day for Virginia. Clock is ticking, John Roberts…

  • 11. Jen_in_MI  |  August 19, 2014 at 11:11 pm

    Thursday is the MI hearing about state recognition of marriages that occurred during the "marriage window" on March 22, 2014. It's interesting that UT AG Reyes has already asked for more time to stall his own state's same issue, even though his brief isn't due until 9/22. It makes me feel even more confident in the validity of my MI marriage, since he is obviously grasping desperately at straws and is still coming up empty. Perhaps Schuette should just give up while he's behind? LOL (I wish!)

  • 12. haydenarwen  |  August 20, 2014 at 5:52 am

    Quickest route to Me in MI is getting Schauer and Totten elected several political people I know in Mid-Mi said when they are elected don't be shocked if Snyder and Schuette drop the appeal in November as as way to politicize it for the GOP and say look at waht we did for the LGBT community.

  • 13. JayJonson  |  August 20, 2014 at 6:19 am

    This doesn't make sense to me. Can you explain it more fully? Why would Snyder and Schuette drop the appeal in November after they have been re-elected, if as you say the quickest route to ME in Michigan is electing Schauer and Totten?

  • 14. haydenarwen  |  August 21, 2014 at 4:47 am

    Snyder and Schuette will know full well that the dems will drop the appeal so to score future political party points with young voters and independents etc…. it has been suggested to me by several politicians that Synder and Schuette would drop the appeal….

  • 15. MichaelGrabow  |  August 20, 2014 at 6:43 am

    Is there a place I can look on the Supreme Court's website for updates instead of refreshing four different sites?

  • 16. DaveM_OH  |  August 20, 2014 at 7:07 am

    The official source is:

    However – this will lag by several hours. is probably your best site, though they will probably still lag Reuters/AP/Washington Post/NYT by 30-60 minutes.

  • 17. MichaelGrabow  |  August 20, 2014 at 7:08 am

    Thank you!

  • 18. DaveM_OH  |  August 20, 2014 at 7:54 am

    You're welcome! And, now that I think about it…
    Probably the #1 Fastest Source would be…

    …No guarantees that it's correct, no refunds.

  • 19. DaveM_OH  |  August 20, 2014 at 7:18 am

    Prospective VA marriage application (assuming no stay granted):

  • 20. JayJonson  |  August 20, 2014 at 7:29 am

    Love how Judge Young called out Pence for lying to the court.

  • 21. sfbob  |  August 20, 2014 at 9:00 am

    That one will leave a mark.

  • 22. brandall  |  August 20, 2014 at 7:33 am

    Today is the 2nd most important day in Act II of our ME quest. I'm thinking of the AZ couple plaintiff's where one of them has pancreatic cancer and they just want to be married now. After months of reading every possible detail about gay stays, I believe justice will be delayed, but I am quietly hoping for a game changing surprise.

  • 23. brandall  |  August 20, 2014 at 11:44 am

    Hey Brandall, it's a really quiet time on EoT.

  • 24. brandall  |  August 20, 2014 at 11:45 am

    Yeah. I think everyone is on pins and cushions waiting for the decision and see if Rob gets married tomorrow.

  • 25. brandall  |  August 20, 2014 at 11:46 am

    Brandall, maybe SCOTUS is decided to write something besides DENY or GRANTED.

  • 26. brandall  |  August 20, 2014 at 11:48 am

    That would be great! Maybe they can provide the ingredients for the baker, or provide a link to travelocity for a stay, or the floor plans for kitchen.

  • 27. brandall  |  August 20, 2014 at 11:48 am

    Brandall, you need to find a new occupation.

  • 28. brandall  |  August 20, 2014 at 11:51 am

    Yes, and I need to proof my comments for better grammar before hitting enter. Rose is going to spot these.

  • 29. Eric  |  August 20, 2014 at 12:02 pm

    Maybe Thomas is writing it and that is why it is taking so long.

  • 30. brandall  |  August 20, 2014 at 12:06 pm

    Or Scalia is writing it on a 1902 Underwood typewriter.

  • 31. daveinasheville  |  August 20, 2014 at 12:05 pm

    Might you have meant "pins and needles"? (AKA "formication", and the Wikipedia page for *that* is good for a laugh)

  • 32. brandall  |  August 20, 2014 at 1:08 pm

    "Pin cushions" v "Pins and Needles"….urgh. Thanks for finding some humor in it. I would really like to stick it (pins and needles) to a certain few court justices right now.

  • 33. brandall  |  August 20, 2014 at 8:11 am

    NY's LGBT Discrimination Law has some real teeth.

    Christian farm owners in upstate New York who declined a lesbian couple’s request to hold a wedding ceremony on their property have been fined $10,000 and ordered to pay the women $1,500 each.

  • 34. JayJonson  |  August 20, 2014 at 8:17 am

    Informative article at the Washington Post about Baker:

  • 35. Ragavendran  |  August 20, 2014 at 8:22 am

    Yep. Great article! (EoT posted it two days ago, here.)

  • 36. andrewofca  |  August 20, 2014 at 8:43 am

    +1 This was a good read.

    I read another news article on Baker recently which downplayed the weight of the "doctrinal developments" theory & Hicks, calling it nothing more than a "loophole". I'll see if I can find it on google & share it.

    Wondering if anyone had any thoughts on this?

  • 37. StraightDave  |  August 20, 2014 at 9:01 am

    I hope you can find it, but I'd take a close look at the author/sponsor. There's no shortage of "authoritative" BS out there, so having a personal political/religious/financial axe to grind can be a factor.

  • 38. andrewofca  |  August 20, 2014 at 11:43 am

    Found it!

    It was related to the 6th Circuit Mega-case… "Every district court that has since struck down these bans worked around Baker by citing a somewhat ambiguous loophole: A summary affirmance might not be controlling precedent when it has since been undermined by “doctrinal developments.”

  • 39. DrPatrick1  |  August 20, 2014 at 2:44 pm

    I think what the author meant by ambiguous was ill-defined. Baker is an enigma. For some reason, SCOTUS has thus far refused to address it, though RGB did so in court last year as an individual at oral arguments, but the majority opinion did not address Baker.

    HOWEVER, the ill-defined bar of doctrinal developments most clearly has been surpassed with respect to Baker. But what makes a doctrinal development? This is open to interpretation, which is why there is so discussion about this seemingly useless 1 line case from the early 70's.

  • 40. Eric  |  August 20, 2014 at 10:32 am

    Most claiming that Baker applies also claim that it applies beyond the scope of the original case. Summary dismissals don't work that way and there is a reason these legal opinions are not offered in a way that would open the opiner to a malpractice claim.

  • 41. Margo Schulter  |  August 20, 2014 at 9:17 am

    At least some of the circuits have cases going back at least to the 1980’s which applied the “doctrinal developments” language of Hicks, so it seems to be at minimum a recognized “loophole.”

    One fascinating case to read on this topic, with a number of relevant cites, is Hardwick v. Bowers, 760 F.2d 1202, 1208-1210 (CA11, 1985), the Eleventh Circuit overturning Georgia’s sodomy statute that was reversed in Bowers v. Hardwick (1986), later overruled in Lawrence v. Texas (2003).

  • 42. ragefirewolf  |  August 20, 2014 at 9:38 am

    In Bowling v. Pence ruling:

    "VII. Other Claims

    Plaintiffs set forth several other arguments that Section 31-11-1-1(b) is unconstitutional. Specifically, Plaintiffs assert that this Section violates their due process rights to marry, access to courts, and right to travel; the Establishment Clause, and the Full Faith and Credit Clause. As a matter of judicial restraint, the court will not consider these additional arguments because it has already found the law unconstitutional.

    See Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Ass’n, 485 U.S. 439, 445 (1988) (“A
    fundamental and longstanding principle of judicial restraint requires that courts avoid reaching constitutional questions in advance of the necessity of deciding them.”)."


  • 43. brandall  |  August 20, 2014 at 11:04 am

    He had multiple decisions over the past few months. Maybe he's tired of the whole thing or pissed at the governor for having to reverse and scold him. Do you remember if he took the same shortcut in those earlier rulings?

  • 44. brandall  |  August 20, 2014 at 11:56 am

    I never tried the Intense Debate "reply by email"….yuck. That doesn't work very cleanly. Thanks for the reply. And caution, it posted your personal info from your e-mail footer.

  • 45. ragefirewolf  |  August 21, 2014 at 5:45 am

    Thank you for the heads up. I deleted the comment. Stupid IntenseDebate.

  • 46. brandall  |  August 20, 2014 at 9:48 am

    Premier of Luxembourg – Says "Yes" to Marrying His Partner

    "In the [United] States, you have very strong forces that are still longing for the old times. Our old times were not very good. Our old times were the Middle Ages, when everybody was poor and ill." Roby Antony of Luxembourg's Gay and Lesbian Information Center.

    Parliament approved the same-sex marriage measure in June on a 56-4 vote, with virtually no public opposition. The law takes effect in January.

  • 47. brandall  |  August 20, 2014 at 10:04 am

    Tweet from @ChrisJohnson2: "I want to get lunch, but I just know SCOTUS will issue its stay decision on Virginia marriage as soon as I leave my desk."

    I haven't even had breakfast yet while hitting refresh, jumping every time a tweet arrives on my iPhone and watching the news crawl on MSNBC.

  • 48. rob2017  |  August 20, 2014 at 10:10 am

    My partner and I plan to line up tomorrow at the courthouse in Arlington, VA to get married! I am so hoping that SCOTUS does what's right and let us marry – finally.

  • 49. hopalongcassidy  |  August 20, 2014 at 10:15 am

    Crossing my fingers for you!

  • 50. weaverbear  |  August 20, 2014 at 11:11 am

    Please Rob, not your partner – your fiance!

  • 51. rob2017  |  August 20, 2014 at 11:24 am

    Yes, of course, my fiancé…and soon to be husband!

  • 52. DaveM_OH  |  August 20, 2014 at 11:14 am

    The Wash Blade wants to hear from you!

  • 53. andrewofca  |  August 20, 2014 at 11:44 am

    Fingers crossed too. we'll be looking for you guys in the pictures tomorrow!

  • 54. brandall  |  August 20, 2014 at 12:52 pm

    A very sincere sorry to you and your finance. It HAS to be very disappointing even though you knew this might happen. Hope overcomes logic when you are really excited about the potential of getting married. When we were married in 2008 in CA, I worried someone was going to file something new, in some court somewhere to stop the CA marriage window. So, I have some small insight into how it feels.

  • 55. Ragavendran  |  August 20, 2014 at 10:26 am

    Chief Justice Roberts says courts and lawyers must try to lift themselves above partisan passions. The question is, will he?

  • 56. brandall  |  August 20, 2014 at 10:43 am

    If he is a vote to grant the stay, then he will be putting partisan politics above justice (and will need to redefine the meaning and purpose of a fundamental rights stay).

  • 57. brandall  |  August 20, 2014 at 10:56 am

    Ironic considering the decision we are all waiting for today… BYU removes same-sex marriage greeting cards from student store….just saw a blast of about 500 RSS posts, so the media is having fun with this one. I guess it is a Mormon sin to send a card to your friend or relative in a same-sex marriage.


  • 58. sfbob  |  August 20, 2014 at 11:42 am

    Apparently the BYU "honor code" extends to not being allowed to send good wishes to gay (presumably) non-Mormon friends who aren't marrying on campus.

  • 59. Steve  |  August 20, 2014 at 11:44 am

    There is nothing about Mormonism that isn't about exclusion and control. It's a sick, hateful cult.

  • 60. Eric  |  August 20, 2014 at 12:01 pm

    Exclusion and control is common to all fundamentalists regardless of superstition. The LDS just seem to be the most naive about it.

  • 61. Bruno71  |  August 20, 2014 at 12:03 pm

    The LDS thrives on its organizational hierarchy and its ability to control some of the actions of its faithful. It excels at this beyond most any other religious institution. It leaves very little room for anyone in its ranks to be considered separate from its fundamentalist leaders.

  • 62. Fortguy  |  August 20, 2014 at 11:55 am

    BYU sorely needs someone to come out and force the university to confront the issue like Brittney Griner did at Baylor.

  • 63. brandall  |  August 20, 2014 at 12:03 pm

    Some of you know and others may not…I went to BYU. I was a Mormon by my own doing. I came out the last week of the semester. I left BYU, I left the Mormon church. I thrived after that and am still having an amazing and blessed life.

  • 64. Samiscat1  |  August 20, 2014 at 12:07 pm

    Not surprising, but it illustrates how nothing is monolithicand they cannot exercise complete control, as does their "It Gets Better" project:

    There are also strong groups called Mormons for Marriage and individual Mormons who see no problem with supporting equality and going to church.

    The ridiculous poll posted in the SL Trib was commissioned by the Mormon owned/run bank, Zion's, and another Mormon group. It was undoubtedly skewed to give them that new story.

    I'm no apologist for them, however, and can verify that if you were to live here, your eyes would be stuck on non-stop roll. But when we got married in December, there wasn't a wild-eyed zealot on site, just a ton of helpful folks, including some who showed up with iced cup cakes so that everyone would have some wedding cake. Tis a strange place.

  • 65. Eric  |  August 20, 2014 at 12:11 pm

    Did Hallmark replace the cards with Mr. and Mrs. and Mrs. and Mrs. and Mrs. marriage greeting cards?

  • 66. brandall  |  August 20, 2014 at 12:00 pm

    Tweet update from @ChrisJohnson2 (accredited WH reporter with the Washington Blade)

    "If we don't hear from #SCOTUS on stay request by 5 pm today, same-sex marriages are happening in Virginia tomorrow, @LambdaLegal tells me."

  • 67. Bruno71  |  August 20, 2014 at 12:01 pm

    Is there some rule that says they can't publish after 5 PM?

  • 68. brooklyn11217  |  August 20, 2014 at 12:12 pm

    Not that I am aware of…don't they often do death penalty stay decisions at all hours?

    It's just frustrating that the docket doesn't get updated until the next day…would be nice if SCOTUS could join the electronic age like the other courts!

  • 69. DaveM_OH  |  August 20, 2014 at 12:10 pm

    Twitter reports stay granted after referral to full court.

  • 70. Bruno71  |  August 20, 2014 at 12:12 pm

  • 71. MichaelGrabow  |  August 20, 2014 at 12:12 pm

    Joemygod said it was granted…

  • 72. DaveM_OH  |  August 20, 2014 at 12:12 pm

    Notably, SCOTUS did not treat the grant of the stay as a petition for cert, and only reiterated that the cert petition is pending. If cert is denied, the stay is immediately terminated.

  • 73. brandall  |  August 20, 2014 at 12:18 pm

    Stay is GRANTED….Sorry everyone. Referred to the entire court. No instructions or comments. [replaces my deleted comment above]. I was reading the tweet "marriages denied" and forgot to inverse the stay decision.

  • 74. brandall  |  August 20, 2014 at 12:14 pm

    Stay is GRANTED….Sorry everyone. Referred to the entire court. No instructions or comments. (I am really off the mark today.)

  • 75. brooklyn11217  |  August 20, 2014 at 12:14 pm


  • 76. Eric  |  August 20, 2014 at 12:17 pm

    It's a court of law, not a court of justice. Harvey was right when he reminded us that straights will sell out our rights when expedient.

  • 77. ragefirewolf  |  August 20, 2014 at 12:22 pm

    I really don't like how you've worded that. There are straight people who have been sincere allies for us. Your statement paints all heterosexuals as turncoats and I genuinely don't appreciate that.

  • 78. DaveM_OH  |  August 20, 2014 at 12:26 pm

    Not cool, says this overly privileged heterosexual cisgender upper middle class married white male living in the suburbs with 2 kids.

    Seriously, we're on your side. Alienating us doesn't help you.

  • 79. ragefirewolf  |  August 20, 2014 at 12:31 pm

    Exactly. Condemning all straight men and women isn't any better than the reverse. There's no justice or victory in becoming bigots ourselves.

  • 80. brandall  |  August 20, 2014 at 12:37 pm

    Agree. I always try to be very careful to say "some religious organizations" or "certain older straight white males"….In Harvey's time, there were few non-gay allies. Some groups have "evolved."

  • 81. Eric  |  August 20, 2014 at 12:46 pm

    So, the "us" is on "our" side as long as we placate the "us"? We should express gratitude that you follow the Constitution's concepts of equal protection under the law and due process and if we don't express that gratitude we will alienate you?

    If you truly support our rights, you would support us regardless of what we say. I have no love of the superstitious, but there is nothing that they can say, do, or have done that would compel me to stop supporting their freedom of religion.

  • 82. ragefirewolf  |  August 20, 2014 at 12:53 pm

    If you think that the way you said that is simply "not showing gratitude," then none of us are going to reach you on this.

    No one would or frankly should support you if you spit on them. Not a straight person, no one.

  • 83. DaveM_OH  |  August 20, 2014 at 12:56 pm

    I support your struggle. I donate to EoT and to HRC; I share information freely, and spar verbally with my neighbors and colleagues who oppose equality.

    I do not support your tarring with a broad brush all heterosexuals as enemies to your cause, and I call you out for it as not helpful – but I freely recognize your right to say it, even as I chastise you for doing so.

  • 84. CowboyPhD  |  August 21, 2014 at 6:23 am

    Dave, Thank you for your support. I deeply appreciate you, and other supporters of equality, regardless of orientation.

  • 85. StraightDave  |  August 20, 2014 at 1:22 pm

    What they said.

    I get your frustration when things that are so simple and right don't just happen, and for not very good reasons. But it is not tied to being straight. The people who sell you out do so for their own petty and greedy reasons, and because they lack sufficiently strong principles, not because they are straight. There are more than enough LGBT sellouts to take it out on – Exhibit A) Ken Mehlman, B) Jo Jordan (Hawaii).

    I'm not going to stop supporting you just because of one brief intemperate remark. My reasons go well beyond that. Just please try to yell at the right people.

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