Same-sex marriages returned to Kosciusko County as of about 10:30 a.m. today. Ann Torpy, clerk of Kosciusko Circuit and Superior Courts, said they were reinstated after she received notification from the Indiana Attorney General’s office. The notification came today in response to a mandate from the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals requiring county clerks to issue same-sex marriage licenses. The United States Supreme Court Monday declined to accept the cases of Indiana and four other states that had appealed legal challenges to their marriage statutes. The denial of the five states’ cases meant the federal appeals court ruling invalidating Indiana’s same-sex marriage ban could take effect, and a stay order that had blocked implementation of that ruling was lifted by the 7th Circuit today. As lawyer for the state government defendants, the Indiana Attorney General’s Office defended the Indiana marriage statute in the consolidated lawsuit Baskin et al. v. Bogan et al. that plaintiffs’ lawyers filed against the state in March, a press release from the IAG’s office issued Monday stated. For more information from the IAG’s office, visit its website at www.in.gov/attorneygeneral/ In Evansville June 25, U.S. District Court Chief Judge Richard L. Young ruled unconstitutional Indiana’s gay marriage ban, but the state appealed and Young’s ruling was stayed by the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals June 27. The 7th Circuit affirmed Young’s ruling but postponed implementation of its own ruling until the U.S. Supreme Court announced whether it would accept the Indiana appeal. From June 25 to 27, hundreds of same-sex couples wed in Indiana, including Christina Evansky and Christina Evansky-Blackshire. Since Young’s ruling was stayed, the Warsaw couple kept a close eye on the news, waiting to see what the courts would do and how it would affect their union. Both were shocked but elated Monday when they heard about the Supreme Court declining Indiana’s case, making gay marriage legal again. “Actually, I heard it from a 95-year-old lady at the place I work at. She asked if I had heard the news. She told me,” Evansky said. At first, Evansky thought the woman was mistaken or didn’t hear it correctly. Then at her second job, she saw it on the news and knew it was true. She immediately texted her wife. Evansky-Blackshire was at work until 5 p.m. before she found out. “I was elated, but surprised,” she said. “We had been keeping up on the news. We thought it would be a few years.” She said they’ve talked about getting powers of attorney and other legal documents for each other. Now, since they’ll be legally married, they don’t have to. “All the legal part of it is there now,” Evansky-Blackshire said. Evansky said they can go on and just live their lives like any other married couple, “knowing we’re protected as human beings, as people – that we matter. We pay our taxes, we live here.” “We already had our reception and honeymoon. It’s just that last step, it makes it more real,” Evansky-Blackshire said. Evansky said they never wanted any trouble, but “we are going to stand up for our rights. It is a civil rights movement.” In a press release, American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana Legal Director Ken Falk said, “I am ecstatic that the long-promised goal of marriage equality has been fully realized. This case is over, and same-sex marriage is a reality in Indiana. This is good for Indiana. It is a great day not only for our plaintiffs and their children, but for all those who want to get married in Indiana.” Indiana State Rep. Dave Wolkins said he was surprised the Supreme Court didn’t take up the issue this session. “In essence, their decision not to take it up is a decision in itself,” he said. During the 2014 legislative session, the Indiana Legislature considered an amendment in the state constitution banning same-sex marriage. After much debate, the Senate voted 32-17 in favor of a weakened constitutional ban (House Joint Resolution 3), according to the Indianapolis Star. Some conservatives who had fought for the constitutional ban for years weren't happy with its passage because it didn't include original language that also would have banned civil unions, the Star indicated. The House removed the civil unions provision in January. The earliest HJR-3 could have been voted on in an election would be 2016. Wolkins said HJR-3 “probably will not happen” now. By the Supreme Court not taking up Indiana’s appeal, it is a decision on their part, “clearly” giving a signal to the federal judges to let them rule on the issue, he said. The nine justices of the U.S. Supreme Court held a private conference Sept. 29 to determine which cases they would hear this term, including several same-sex marriage cases. Virginia, Oklahoma, Utah, Wisconsin and Indiana each had appealed lower court rulings that struck down their gay marriage bans. The Supreme Court had the choice of accepting the appeals of all, some or none of the five states in a total of seven cases, or of holding over its decision to a later date, the IAG’s press release states. Wolkins said he wouldn’t be surprised if there was a movement focusing on something like the Religious Freedom Restoration Act to protect businesses from having to serve people they don’t want to.
