Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
7th Cir -IN Stay Request

7th Cir -IN Stay Request

Ratings: (0)|Views: 4,043|Likes:
Published by Chris Geidner
Indiana AG
Indiana AG

More info:

Published by: Chris Geidner on Jun 27, 2014
Copyright:Traditional Copyright: All rights reserved

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

07/11/2014

pdf

text

original

 
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT
 Nos. 14-2386, 14-2387, 14-2388 MARILYN RAE BASKIN,
et al
., Plaintiffs/Appellees, v. PENNY BOGAN, in her official capacity as Boone County Clerk,
et al.
, Defendants/Appellants. On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Nos. 1:14-cv-355-RLY-TAB, 1:14-cv-404-RLY-TAB, 1:14-cv-406-RLY-MJD The Honorable Richard L. Young, Chief Judge
EMERGENCY MOTION FOR STAY PENDING APPEAL
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 8(a)(2), Defendants-Appellants—Greg Zoeller, William C. VanNess II, M.D., Mike Alley, Brian Abbott, Chris Atkins, Ken Cochran, Steve Daniels, Jodi Golden, Michael Pinkham, Kyle Rosebrough, Bret Swanson, and Steve Russo—respectfully move this Court to stay the enforcement of the district court’s combined Entry on Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment (attached hereto as “Exhibit A”) and Final Judgment, in
 Baskin v. Bogan
, No. 1:14-cv-355-RLY-TAB,
Fujii v. Governor 
, No. 1:14-cv-404-RLY-TAB, and
 Lee v. Pence
, 1:14-cv-406-RLY-MJD, and all related declaratory relief, injunctions or other relief entered on June 25, 2014, during the pendency of this consolidated appeal. In short, the district court’s injunction requires Indiana to license and recognize same-sex marriages contrary to Indiana law. As numerous stays entered in similar cases around the
Case: 14-2386 Document: 11-1 Filed: 06/27/2014 Pages: 22
 
2 country confirm, until the United States Supreme Court determines that traditional marriage laws such as Indiana’s are unconstitutional, it is premature to require Indiana to change its definition of marriage and abide by the district court’s conception of marriage. Nonetheless, marriages in violation of Indiana’s existing law have taken place, are taking place, and will continue to take  place—including, apparently, over the weekend—pursuant to the district court’s order, unless it is stayed. Consequently, the State Defendants are seeking a stay here so that this Court may comprehensively stay the issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples and other consequences of the district court’s final judgment in Indiana during the pendency of this consolidated appeal. The Attorney General is filing this emergency motion as attorney not only for his office and the other State Defendants, but also in his broader capacity as the chief legal officer and attorney for the State of Indiana charged with the duties to defend the constitutionality of state laws and ensure the orderly administration of law in Indiana.
See
 Ind. Code § 4-6-2-1. Time is of the essence to stay the district court’s final judgment and all related declaratory orders and injunctions pending appeal in order to maintain the historic status quo of man-woman marriage that Indiana and its citizens have adopted. A final decision by the Supreme Court may ultimately nullify the district court’s decision, and the consequent nullification of same-sex marriage in Indiana may cause more harm to those who are currently rushing to obtain a same-sex marriage license than would result from a delay until there is legal certainty as to the validity of such licenses.
INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF DISTRICT COURT DISPOSITION
Indiana’s traditional definition of marriage provides that “[o]nly a female may marry a male [and o]nly a male may marry a female.” Ind. Code § 31-11-1-1(a). In addition, it provides
Case: 14-2386 Document: 11-1 Filed: 06/27/2014 Pages: 22
 
3 that “[a] marriage between persons of the same gender is void in Indiana even if the marriage is lawful in the place where it is solemnized.” Ind. Code § 31-11-1-1(b). Plaintiffs are same-sex couples (and, in some instances, their minor children) who have sued various state and local defendants claiming that Indiana’s traditional definition of marriage, Indiana Code § 31-11-1-1, violates the Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. On June 25, 2014, the district court granted Plaintiffs’ motions for summary judgment and entered a final judgment and permanent injunction in favor of them stating as follows in relevant part: Defendants and their officers, agents, servants, employees and attorneys, and those acting in concert with them are
PERMANENTLY ENJOINED
from enforcing Indiana Code Section 31-11-1-1 and other Indiana laws preventing the celebration or recognition of same-sex marriages. Additionally, Defendants and officers, agents, servants, employees and attorneys, and those acting in concert with them
,
are
PERMANENTLY ENJOINED
from enforcing or applying any other state or local law, rule, regulation or ordinance as the basis to deny marriage to same-sex couples otherwise qualified to marry in Indiana, or to deny married same-sex couples any of the rights, benefits, privileges, obligations, responsibilities, and immunities that accompany marriage in Indiana. Specifically, this permanent injunction requires the following, and the court
ORDERS
the following: 1.
 
The Defendant Clerks, their officers, agents, servants, employees and attorneys, and all those acting in concert with them, are
PERMANENTLY
 
ENJOINED
from denying a marriage license to a couple because both applicants for the license are the same sex. Thus they must act pursuant to their authority under Indiana Code Chapter 31-11-4 and issue marriage licenses to couples who, but for their sex, satisfy all the requirements to marry under Indiana law; 2.
 
The Attorney General, Greg Zoeller, his officers, agents, servants, employees and attorneys, and all those acting in concert with them, are
PERMANENTLY ENJOINED
from prosecuting or assisting in the  prosecution, using his authority from Indiana Code § 4-6-1-6, of the following:
Case: 14-2386 Document: 11-1 Filed: 06/27/2014 Pages: 22

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->