United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, New Albany Division
MELISSA LOVE, ERIN BROCK, MICHAEL DRURY, LANE STUMLER, JO ANN DALE, CAROL UEBELHOER, JENNIFER REDMOND, and JANA KOHORST, Plaintiffs,
MICHAEL RICHARD PENCE, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Indiana Defendant
For MELISSA LOVE, ERIN BROCK, MICHAEL DRURY, LANE STUMLER, JO ANN DALE, CAROL UEBELHOER, JENNIFER REDMOND, JANA KOHORST, Plaintiffs: Dawn R. Elliott, Shannon Fauver, FAUVER LAW OFFICE, PLLC, Louisville, KY; L. Joe Dunman, CLAY DANIEL WALTON ADAMS PLC, Louisville, KY; Laura Elizabeth Landenwich, CLAY DANIEL WALTON & ADAMS PLC, Louisville, KY; Daniel J. Canon, CLAY DANIEL WALTON & ADAMS, Louisville, KY.
For MICHAEL RICHARD PENCE, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Indiana, Defendant: Thomas M. Fisher, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, Indianapolis, IN.
ENTRY ON PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO RECONSIDER
RICHARD L. YOUNG, CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Plaintiffs filed suit against Defendant, Michael Richard Pence, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Indiana, challenging the constitutionality of Indiana Code Section 31-11-1-1 (" Section 31-11-1-1" ). Section 31-11-1-1 prohibits same-sex marriages from being celebrated or recognized in Indiana. On June 25, 2014, the court dismissed Plaintiffs' complaint (the " Entry" ) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff now asks the court to reconsider its Entry due to newly discovered evidence. For the reasons set forth below, the court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Plaintiffs' motion.
On March 7, 2014, Plaintiffs filed their Complaint challenging Indiana Code § 31-11-1-1, entitled " Same sex marriages prohibited," otherwise known as Indiana's Defense of Marriage Act. In pertinent part, the challenged statute provides:
(a) Only a female may marry a male. Only a male may marry a female.
(b) 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.
The Plaintiffs are two unmarried same-sex couples and two same-sex couples married in other jurisdictions. (Complaint ¶ ¶ 1-9). Plaintiffs allege that Indiana's Defense of Marriage Act violates the United States Constitution by denying same-sex couples the " rights, privileges, responsibilities, and immunities extended to similarly situated opposite-sex couples." ( Id. ¶ 18). Specifically, Plaintiffs argue that the statute violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the
Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the First Amendment right to freedom of association, the Full Faith and Credit Clause, the Supremacy Clause, the Fourteenth Amendment right to travel, and the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Plaintiffs named the Governor of the State of Indiana as the sole defendant, alleging that, " [b]y implementing and enforcing the statutes discussed below, Defendant has deprived, and continues to deprive, Plaintiffs of rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution." ( Id. ¶ 12).
The Governor moved to dismiss this case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court granted that motion to dismiss on June 25, 2014. Since that time, the Governor, through his general counsel, has issued two memoranda on the issue of same-sex marriages. In light of these memoranda, Plaintiffs ask the ...