On August 26, state officials from Wisconsin and Indiana faced blistering scrutiny from a panel of Seventh Circuit judges as they argued in favor of reinstating laws in each state banning gay marriage. Judges Posner, Hamilton and Williams pushed them to their limits and asked a number of pointed questions regarding their arguments. Judge Posner took the attorneys to task regarding the interests of children, quickly interrupting Indiana’s Solicitor General Thomas Fisher and asking if children wouldn’t want their parents to be married and prompting Fisher to recall what it was like to be a child and to confront the reality of being different than classmates. Attorneys from both states argued that the gay marriage ban should stand because marriage was designed primarily to promote responsible child rearing and to avoid unintended pregnancies – pregnancies that do not occur in homosexual marriages, pointed out Fisher. Judge Hamilton retorted, “I assume you’re familiar with how that’s been working out in practice over the past 20 to 30 years.” Judge Hamilton continued that the concept of marriage as a function of curbing out-of-wedlock pregnancies was a “very narrow, artificial rationale” for preventing homosexuals from marrying and pointed out that births to single women had risen 53 percent in Wisconsin and 68 percent in Indiana between 1990 and 2009. When Wisconsin Assistant Attorney General Timothy Samuelson used tradition as a rationale for banning gay marriage, he too was met with sharp questioning. Judge Posner reminded Samuelson that “it was a tradition to not allow blacks and whites to marry” at one time, and that prohibition of homosexual marriage was rooted in a “tradition of hate.” The judges’ sharp lines of questioning are not wholly indicative of how the Court will rule, as appellate judges frequently interrogate attorneys with little mercy. However, the judges’ tough questions may give hope to those seeking to uphold the legalization of gay marriage. Employers should pay special attention to the Court’s eventual ruling, as well as rulings steadily arising out of other states, and consult their attorneys to ensure that they are providing appropriate benefits and complying with the rights of employees and their spouses as defined by the quickly-changing law.
RELATED ARTICLES
Indiana Enacts Liability Shield for COVID-19 Related Lawsuits Against Businesses
February 22, 2021 | Currents - Employment Law
Indiana Counties Enact and Extend Face Covering Requirements
July 1, 2020 | Currents - Employment Law, Employee Health Issues
St. Joseph County, Indiana, Issues Requirements For Restarting Business
May 6, 2020 | Currents - Employment Law
Reopening in Indiana—The Governor Says You’ll Need A Safety Plan
May 5, 2020 | Currents - Employment Law, Employee Health Issues
Are COVID-19 Claims Compensable Under Indiana’s Occupational Disease Act?
March 23, 2020 | Currents - Employment Law, Employee Health Issues
Indiana Enacts Liability Shield for COVID-19 Related Lawsuits Against Businesses
February 22, 2021 | Currents - Employment Law
Indiana Counties Enact and Extend Face Covering Requirements
July 1, 2020 | Currents - Employment Law, Employee Health Issues
St. Joseph County, Indiana, Issues Requirements For Restarting Business
May 6, 2020 | Currents - Employment Law
Reopening in Indiana—The Governor Says You’ll Need A Safety Plan
May 5, 2020 | Currents - Employment Law, Employee Health Issues
Are COVID-19 Claims Compensable Under Indiana’s Occupational Disease Act?
March 23, 2020 | Currents - Employment Law, Employee Health Issues
Indiana Considers New Restrictions on Non-Compete Covenants for Physicians
February 5, 2020 | Currents - Employment Law, Non-competes and Trade Secrets
Indiana Raises Penalties To Over $132K For Knowing Violations Resulting In Death
April 30, 2019 | Currents - Employment Law, Employment Lessons
ICE Raids on 7-Eleven Franchise Stores Result in 21 Arrests
January 12, 2018 | Employment Lessons, High Stakes Employment Issues, Currents - Employment Law
Pro-Enforcement Noncompete Decision from Wisconsin Supreme Court
May 18, 2015 | High Stakes Employment Issues, Non-competes and Trade Secrets, Currents - Employment Law
FMLA Final Rule: 'Spouse' Means Same-Sex Spouse (Even in Alabama)
February 24, 2015 | Employee Health Issues, Employment Discrimination, Currents - Employment Law
Supreme Court Lets Gay Marriage Stand In Five States
October 7, 2014 | Employment Discrimination, Currents - Employment Law
Indiana Follows Illinois in Key Noncompete Decisions from the Heartland
September 5, 2014 | Letter of the Law, Non-competes and Trade Secrets, Currents - Employment Law
U.S. District Court Strikes Down Indiana’s Ban On Same-Sex Marriage
June 27, 2014 | Employee Health Issues, Currents - Employment Law
Have You Double-Checked The Language Of Your Non-Compete Lately? If Not, You Need To...
March 26, 2014 | Non-competes and Trade Secrets, Currents - Employment Law
Untimeliness, Hearsay, and Failure to Link Alleged Negative References and Third-Party Job Rescissions to Protected Activity Doom Employee’s Retaliation Claim
November 1, 2013 | Employment Discrimination, Currents - Employment Law
Indiana Court of Appeals Upholds the Enforcement of a Five-Year Non-compete Agreement
July 26, 2013 | Non-competes and Trade Secrets, Currents - Employment Law
Unverified EEOC Filing Not Good Enough, Says Northern District of Indiana
September 12, 2012 | EEOC, Employment Discrimination, Pregnancy, Currents - Employment Law
Indiana Plaintiff Defeats Legitimate Nondiscriminatory Reason Defense
August 16, 2012 | Employment Discrimination, Currents - Employment Law
What Does the Supreme Court’s Ruling Mean to Indiana Employers?
July 10, 2012 | Traditional Labor, Currents - Employment Law
Indiana Ranks 13th In EEOC Charges Received by State
May 22, 2012 | EEOC, Employment Discrimination, Currents - Employment Law
RELATED PRACTICE AREAS
Subscribe
Do you want to receive more valuable insights directly in your inbox? Visit our subscription center and let us know what you're interested in learning more about.
View Subscription Center