D6 – Cat. 01
For newlyweds, possible stay of ruling clouds the horizon
Tim Evans and Jill Disis
The Indianapolis Star
A federal judge struck down Indiana’s ban on same-sex marriages Wednesday, leaving state officials, lawmakers, social conservatives, gay rights supporters and legal experts scrambling to sort out exactly what the decision means – and what will happen next. But for the hundreds of gay and lesbian couples who rushed to courthouses across the state for impromptu weddings, the judge’s words meant something simple, yet significant:
They could finally be married in Indiana. The monumental ruling by U.S. District Judge Richard Young said Indiana’s law that limits marriage to one man and one woman, and that denies recognition of same-sex marriages legally performed in other states, is unconstitutional. It mirrored more than a dozen recent federal court opinions that have struck down same-sex marriage bans in other states.
“In less than a year,” Young wrote in his opinion, “every federal district court to consider the issue has reached the same conclusion in thoughtful and thorough opinions – laws prohibiting the celebration and recognition of same-sex marriages are unconstitutional.”
Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller’s staff quickly filed a notice of appeal and an emergency request for a stay of Young’s order, which could halt same-sex marriages pending outcome of an appeal. The motion for a stay, according to spokesman Bryan Corbin, which has been granted in other jurisdictions, “is intended to prevent confusion and inconsistency between county clerk’s offices regarding license issuance, while the appeal is pending.”
“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 this court’s conception of marriage,” the attorney general wrote in the request for stay. “Nonetheless, marriages in violation of Indiana’s existing law have taken place, are taking place, and will continue to take place pursuant to this court’s order.” Supporters of gay rights saw the ruling as a historic victory in their long struggle for equality in Indiana.
City-County Councilman Zach Adamson, who married his longtime partner in Washington, D.C., last year, said the ruling is “absolutely a big deal.”
“Now the state represents you, too, instead of segregating you out for discrimination,” he said. “They have to treat me like my neighbor. It’s long overdue.” But opponents of same-sex marriage viewed the ruling as yet another attack on traditional marriage. “It’s a disappointing but not unexpected ruling,” said Curt Smith, president of the Indiana Family Institute. “We are deeply disappointed at the lack of respect for Indiana statute and our legislature. ... It is very distressing to see that marriage licenses are being issued and that presumably marriages will be performed in the near future on couples that are not authorized under state law.”
Minutes after Young’s ruling was released, Marion County Clerk Beth White began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples and conducted what was likely the state’s first such wedding – the spur-of-the-moment union of Craig Bowen and Jake Miller of Indianapolis. The news came out around noon. There was a party atmosphere inside the clerk’s office Wednesday afternoon, where hundreds of people waited in line for a marriage license as White kept the doors open until 8 p.m. to accommodate the crush.
The office said in a news release that as of 9:45 p.m., it had processed 219 marriage licenses and conducted more than 150 wedding ceremonies. It said marriage license services would resume at 8 a.m. today, and it would continue to offer civil ceremonies.
“We’re married!” two men shouted, raising their marriage license like a trophy. Applause filled the room.
“The good people of Indiana have waited long enough,” White said of her decision to immediately issue licenses. “Right now, a door has opened. I want to get as many people in before that door closes.”
Later in the day, clerks in Boone, Hamilton, Hendricks and Johnson counties also began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
The Boone and Hamilton county clerks were parties to the lawsuit and were instructed by the attorney general that they must comply with Young’s order, said spokesman Corbin. He said clerks in other counties are not under the direct jurisdiction of the federal court order, but the attorney general “must encourage everyone to show respect for the judge and the orders that are issued.”
It is not clear how long the current window for same-sex marriages will remain open. Legal experts said a decision on the request for a stay could come in a matter of days. Ken Falk, legal director of the ACLU of Indiana, who brought one of the lawsuits that prompted Young’s ruling, said his organization will “vigorously oppose” a stay in the case, though he acknowledged Zoeller’s office has a right to seek one.
“I think the state of Indiana is swimming against the tide of history,” Falk said. If Zoeller’s office is successful in winning a stay of Young’s decision, clerk’s offices across Indiana will no longer be able to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. But Falk said it was unclear whether licenses already issued would still be valid.
“What they have is a marriage, but it’s not yet clear how Indiana would treat that,” Falk said. “U.S. Attorney General (Eric) Holder did indicate in other situations that the United States would recognize those marriages for things like taxes and what have you. We’ll have to see what happens.” Hundreds of marriages performed in Utah, Michigan and Wisconsin, where couples also rushed to the altar after federal courts struck down laws similar to Indiana’s same-sex marriage ban, have been thrown into legal limbo after stays were ordered while those rulings are being appealed.
Steve Sanders, a law professor at the Indiana University Maurer School of Law in Bloomington, called the situation “uncharted territory” and said he would advise same-sex couples against rushing to marry.
“I can sympathize, and I certainly understand the impulse, but I personally think it’s a mistake,” he said. “It is potentially dangerous for them and for the law.”
Sanders said gay couples who married, expecting to enjoy all the rights and privileges afforded to married male-female couples, could find themselves having to return to court to sort out their rights and status.
Gov. Mike Pence, a steadfast advocate of one-man, one-woman marriage, supports the attorney general’s appeal and “Indiana’s right to define the institution of marriage for the residents of our state,” spokeswoman Kara Brooks said in a statement.
The state will comply with the federal court’s order as this case moves through the appeals process, she added. Young’s decision in the Indiana case is “very similar to what we’re seeing in all the district courts” that have taken up challenges to same-sex marriage bans, said Carl Tobias, a University of Richmond School of Law professor who has been closely monitoring court cases across the U.S. involving the issue. The judge’s order says:
“It is clear that the fundamental right to marry shall not be deprived to some individuals based solely on the person they choose to love.” “In fact,” Young wrote, “the history of our Constitution ... is the story of the extension of constitutional rights and protections to people once ignored or excluded.”
The ruling came on the same day a federal appeals court upheld a Utah district court ruling that found that state’s ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional. It is the first appellate ruling in the contentious national debate that experts expect eventually will land in the lap of the U.S. Supreme Court.
Young’s decision came in the case Baskin, et al. v. Bogan, et al., in which several same-sex Indiana couples sued the state in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana. It was one of five federal lawsuits filed this year challenging the Indiana law but became a catalyst for many of the legal decisions Young has made over the past few months chipping away at the state’s same-sex marriage ban.
Amy Sandler and Niki Quasney, a Munster couple named as plaintiffs in the case brought by Lambda Legal, a firm that advocates for LGBT rights, asked Young for immediate recognition of their marriage because Quasney is terminally ill.
On May 8, Young ordered Indiana to recognize the couple’s marriage indefinitely, a decision the state then asked a federal appeals court to overturn. That order, legal experts said, hinted at how the judge might rule on the broader constitutionality of the state law that says marriage is only between a man and a woman.
“Honestly, it’s amazing to me that people are able to get married in Indiana today,” Sandler told The Indianapolis Star by phone Wednesday. “That is really special. That was really important to Niki and I.”
Sandler and Quasney married in Massachusetts last year after a U.S. Supreme Court decision gave full federal recognition to legally married gay couples.
Sandler said she felt that decision signaled a shift in national perception of same-sex marriage – but she was still uncertain about whether she could get that recognition from Indiana.
“To know that people are lining up for the freedoms that they deserve means so much to Niki and I,” Sandler said. “This was what we wanted. We wanted this for everyone.”
D6 – Cat. 02
Toddler’s death in church day care reveals gaps in Indiana child care laws
Robert King, Alex Campbell and Marisa Kwiatkowski
The Indianapolis Star
At first, when he heard they were looking for his son, Juan Cardenas laughed.
Not because it was funny, but because it was absurd – just that morning he had left his little boy, not yet two years old, at day care.
But Juan’s girlfriend was on the phone telling him the day care wanted to know if someone had picked up their little Carlos – because they couldn’t find him. Juan was sure this was a mix-up, but he called the day care.
Bluntly, he asked: “Where is Carlos?”
“We’re looking for him,” the person said.
“What do you mean you’re looking for him?” Juan replied. His anger rose instantly. “You’re not supposed to be looking for him.”
The worker replied: “We’ll call you back.”
Juan wasn’t going to wait for a call. He took off his white coat, left his job as a lab technician and ran to his car. He drove toward the Northwestside church where his son had been in day care the last four months, Praise Fellowship Assembly of God.
His thoughts raced ahead of him.
Juan feared that Carlos, who was just 22 months old, had somehow wandered out of the day care onto busy Michigan Road. He feared that maybe someone had come in and kidnapped the boy. And he feared the worst – that his boy might be dead.
“God, if he is in your hands already,” Juan prayed, as he drove, “I hope you didn’t let him suffer.”
Juan had worried about this day care for a while. Previously, he had seen kids wandering the darkened halls of the church with no one in a hurry to chase after them. A week before, he showed up early to get Carlos and found the lights off. The kids weren’t asleep, but they were in the dark.
Juan had asked an old woman working there about the darkness. “If you want to pay the bill,” she said gruffly, “we can turn on the lights.”
Things were bad enough that Juan had found a new day care for Carlos. The problem was that the new place couldn’t take him until Monday; and this was only Wednesday. When he had dropped off Carlos that morning, he didn’t think Carlos was in danger. He just knew the boy had only three days until he could go to a better place.
A few blocks from the church, Juan was jarred from his thoughts. An ambulance approached, coming from the direction of the church. Its lights flashed. Its sirens blared. And it seemed to exert a magnetic pull on Juan – as if he should follow it. He felt certain Carlos was in there.
Juan told himself to go on to the church – that’s where he had left his son, that’s where he would find him. But when he arrived in front of the church, there were police cars outside. He parked and went in.
None of the day care workers came to meet him. There was no pastor waiting for him. Instead, there was a speech therapist. She’d been coming in to work with Carlos the past few months, teaching him to form his words. Now, she had to form the words the boy’s father couldn’t bear to hear.
Carlos was dead.
To leave one’s child in the care of others and drive away – as Juan had earlier, as thousands of Hoosiers do daily – requires parents to reach a basic threshold of confidence in the caregiver. As Melanie Brizzi, child care administrator for the Family and Social Service Administration’s Bureau of Child Care, puts it: “Parents have to believe in their heart that their children are safe.”
Too often, though, she said parents overestimate the quality of the care their child is getting.
Around Indiana, judging day cares isn’t an easy task for parents. The choices range from day cares in schools and government buildings to large preschool operations in commercial buildings and small ones in homes. And thousands of families around the state have turned to more than 650 day cares classified as “unlicensed registered ministries” that are exempt from most of the quality standards other day cares must meet.
How much different are the rules for ministries?
Licensed day cares are limited by how many children they can put in a single room – 35 square feet of usable space per child. An Indianapolis Star investigation found that ministry day cares can cram as many children into a space as they see fit. In at least one case, a ministry day care had more than five times the number of children recommended for the space it had, according to state records. The usable space per child amounted to at most seven square feet – roughly the size of a doormat.
Licensed day cares must keep tabs on how many children are left in the care of each worker, with limits on what that staff-to-child ratio can be. Ministry day cares have no limits. State lawmakers, on a guided tour, entered one day care ministry and found two people looking after 56 small children.
Licensed day cares must keep children “within sight and sound” of caregivers at all times. Ministry day cares that receive federal subsidies that help the poor pay for day care – such as the place Carlos died – can get by with one or the other – sight or sound.
Those that don’t take the subsidies are not required by law to provide any supervision at all.
In fact, for the roughly 200 ministry day cares not in the subsidy program, many rules do not apply. There’s no requirement for workers to be trained in first aid or CPR. There’s no requirement they be tested for illegal drugs or tuberculosis. No requirement they be trained in how to protect, prevent or report child abuse.
Indiana is just one of 10 states that exempt day care ministries from such licensing rules. Experts say it has produced a system that not only hinders the development of children; it puts them at risk.
“I think most parents and most Hoosiers would be shocked to know how little regulation there actually is on the centers that care for our children and our infants,” said Andrew S. Cullen, director of public policy for the United Way of Central Indiana, which has been working to help providers raise their standards.
Sifting out which ministries are in the field for the right reasons – as a public service – versus those in it for the wrong reasons is something a committee of lawmakers and child advocates has discussed, said Sen. Greg Walker, R-Columbus. The key, Walker says, is for the state to attach tighter rules to the federal subsidy program, which is administered by the Family and Social Services Administration.
“You remove the temptation to overfill your premises with a subsidy and the problem takes care of itself,” Walker said.
For at least five years, though, child advocates have been pushing the legislature to force all day cares that take federal money to face closer scrutiny – particularly on the number of children in the facility and the staff-to-child ratio.
Each time – as recently as earlier this month – lawmakers have balked at doing anything about it.