Indiana LGBT Laws

Consensual sex between same-sex couples is lawful at age eighteen (18) years [L1.1].

Indiana Code, Title 35. Criminal Law and Procedure, Article 42. Offences against the person, Chapter 4. Sex crimes [L1.1]

IC 35-42-4-3 Child molesting

Sec. 3. (a) A person who, with a child under fourteen (14) years of age, performs or submits to sexual intercourse or deviate sexual conduct commits child molesting, a Class B felony. However, the offense is a Class A felony if:

(1) it is committed by a person at least twenty-one (21) years of age;

[parts omitted]

(c) It is a defense that the accused person reasonably believed that the child was sixteen (16) years of age or older at the time of the conduct, unless:

(1) the offense is committed by using or threatening the use of deadly force or while armed with a deadly weapon;
(2) the offense results in serious bodily injury; or
(3) the commission of the offense is facilitated by furnishing the victim, without the victim’s knowledge, with a drug (as defined in IC 16-42-19-2(1)) or a controlled substance (as defined in IC 35-48-1-9) or knowing that the victim was furnished with the drug or controlled substance without the victim’s knowledge.

IC 35-42-4-9 Sexual misconduct with a minor

Sec. 9. (a) A person at least eighteen (18) years of age who, with a child at least fourteen (14) years of age but less than sixteen (16) years of age, performs or submits to sexual intercourse or deviate sexual conduct commits sexual misconduct with a minor, a Class C felony. However, the offense is:

(1) a Class B felony if it is committed by a person at least twenty-one (21) years of age;

[parts omitted]

(b) A person at least eighteen (18) years of age who, with a child at least fourteen (14) years of age but less than sixteen (16) years of age, performs or submits to any fondling or touching, of either the child or the older person, with intent to arouse or to satisfy the sexual desires of either the child or the older person, commits sexual misconduct with a minor, a Class D felony. However, the offense is:

(1) a Class C felony if it is committed by a person at least twenty-one (21) years of age;

[parts omitted]

On 31 October 2013, the Court of Appeal wanted the Legislature to update state laws to address custody issues regarding children of same-sex and other non-traditional families. The court sent the case back to the Elkhart County judge with instructions to consider the non-biological mother’s visitation request under standards involving a former stepparent or grandparent [C1.4], [R1.3].

On 18 March 2003, the Indiana Court of Appeals rejected a lower court ruling that two women can’t both adopt three children because the women aren’t married [R1.2].

In 2002, the 3-judge Indiana Court of Appeals unanimously ruled that gay parents living with partners should not lose custody of their children or the right to visit them [R1.1].

Further, a child’s best interest, not a parent’s sexual orientation, must dictate visitation and custody decisions.

The ruling overturns a Marshall County court ruling banning parents from living with same-sex and unmarried domestic partners if they have custody.

On 28 March 2011, in a 36–11 party-line vote, the Senate rejected a proposal by Anderson Democrat Tim Lanane to delete a ban on civil unions from a proposed constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage [R1.1].

On 13 August 2012, in a 20–8 vote the Indianapolis City–County Council approved an ordinance proposal now in the hands of the mayor, that would offer health insurance coverage to unmarried opposite-sex and same-sex partners of city employees [R2.1].

One other Indiana municipality is believed to offer domestic partner benefits to same-sex couples [Citation required].

See: 4. Courts & Tribunals below at [C4.8], [R4.7]

On 27 January 2016, Senate Rules and Legislative Procedures Committee passed Senate Bill 344 7-5 . The Bill, that has yet to pass the full Senate and the Assembly, would extend civil rights to gay, lesbian and bisexual (but not transgender) people [R1.10].

On 13 December 2015, it was reported that in July the US Federal Government granted Bethel College Title IX exemption status that will allow the school to ban students or employees who are gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, pregnant out of wedlock or in same-sex marriages, however President Gregg Chenoweth said that the waiver doesn’t mean people who are attracted to the same sex are prohibited from attending or graduating from the Christian school in Mishawaka, however they must be celibate [R1.9].

On 02 April 2015, the Indiana legislature passed (SB 50, effective 01 July) that prohibits service providers from using the law as a legal defense for refusing to provide goods, services, facilities or accommodations. It also bars discrimination based on race, color, religion, ancestry, age, national origin, disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or U.S. military service. The measure exempts churches and affiliated schools, along with nonprofit religious organizations [L1.8], [R1.7].

Indiana’s has no state legislation prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity [R1.6].

On 26 March 2015, Governor Mike Pence signed into law Senate Bill 101 (the Religious Freedom Restoration Bill) into law. The law goes into effect on 01 July 2015 [R1.5].

On 23 March 2015, the House approved 63-31 (6 excused) Senate Bill 101 (the Religious Freedom Restoration Bill), that would prevent state and local governments from “substantially burdening” a person’s exercise of religion unless the government can prove it has a compelling interest and is doing so in the least restrictive means. On 24 February the Senate passed the Bill 40-10 and must now approve House amendments. The Governor has indicated he plans to sign the Bill into law [R1.4].

On 16 March 2015, the House Committee on Judiciary approved 9-4 Senate Bill 101 (the Religious Freedom Restoration Act) that would add legal protections for people with strong religious beliefs, including business owners who don’t want to provide services for same-sex wedding ceremonies. The Bill now goes to the full House and will return to the Senate to approve committee amendment [R1.3].

On 18 August 2012, Dynasty Young, a gay, gender non-conforming 17-year-old, would not be allowed to return to his former high school, officials for Indianapolis Public Schools (IPS) reportedly decided [R1.2].

In August 2001, State employment policy, which governs the treatment of about 35,000 state employees, specifically prohibited job discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation [R1.1].

Tippecanoe County has ordinances that prevent discrimination based on sexual orientation [R3.3].

Indianapolis/Marion County, Monroe County has ordinances against descrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identiy [R3.3]

On 14 March 2016, Kokomo City Council voted 5-4 to add sexual orientation and gender identity to the city’s human rights municipal code and also make discrimination based on marital status, age or veteran status unlawful, with potential fines of up to $2000. Mayor Greg Goodnight has said he will sign the law [R3.6].

On 05 October 2015, the Carmel City Council narrowly passed 4-3 Ordinance D-2224-15 banning discrimination based on a person’s sexual orientation and gender identity in housing, public accommodations, education, employment, contracting or entry into a place of business. There are religious and other exemptions [R3.5].

Michigan and Whitestown have enacted ordinances that prevent discrimination based on sexual orientation [R3.4].

Columbus, Hammond, Muncie, New Albany, South Bend, Terre Haute and Zionsville (July 2015) and have enacted ordinances that prevent discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity [R3.4].

Goshen has an executive order is pending, subject to settlement of final wording [R3.3].

On 28 November 2011, Evansville amended the city’s municipal code to include provisions against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity [R3.2].

The cities of Lafayette, West Lafayette and Bloomington have local anti-discrimination laws that include sexual orientation, as has Purdue University [R3.1].

In November 2001, Fort Wayne City Council included sexual orientation in its anti-discrimination law to take effect from 1 March 2002 with the ordinance being put up for another council vote in mid-2003 [R3.1].

On 08 August 2018, it was reported that Kimberly Hively, a lesbian adjunct math professor who sued her employer for discrimination, has settled her lawsuit against Ivy Tech Community College, filing a joint mediation summary statement announcing the settlement on 01 August in the US District Court for the Northern District of Indiana. The terms of the agreement were not released to the public [R4.9].

On 04 April 2017, the full Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 8-3 that workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the federal law prohibiting employers from discriminating against employees on the basis of sex, race, color, national origin, and religion [C4.8], [R4.7].

On 15 December 2016, US District Court Judge Richard L Young ruled that Harrison County Clerk Sally Whitis did not violate Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and discriminate against Linda G Summers when she fired her for refusing, on religious grounds, to process marriage licenses for same-sex couples [C4.6], [R4.5].

On 11 October 2016, the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit vacated the three-judge ruling that Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act does not protect employees from antigay discrimination, and granted Kimberley Hively’s Petition for Rehearing in her claim of employment discrimination by Ivy Tech Community College. The court will announce the date for oral argument in a separate order [C4.4], [R4.3].

On 28 July 2016, in the US Appeals Court for the Seventh Circuit Judge Ilana Rovner wrote in a 42-page decision on behalf of a three-judge panel ”it seems illogical to entertain” the idea that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 against sex discrimination covers gender non-conformity, but not sexual orientation, however she says she cannot issue a new ruling given precedent in the judicial circuit [C4.2], [R4.1].

In 2002, Indiana’s had no state legislation prohibiting discrimination on the basis of gender identity or sexual orientation [R1.1].

On 03 August 2018, US District Judge William T Lawrence issued a ruling requiring that the Evansville Vanderburgh School Corporation allow a transgender high school student, J.A.W., to use male restrooms, the restrooms consistent with his gender identity [C2.11], [R2.10].

On 02 March 2018, the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled 2-0 that Mexican native John Doe, a biological woman, with asylum in the United States cannot continue with his suit against various Indiana officials challenging the citizenship requirement in Indiana’s name-change statute after the Court found he lacked standing to bring his case [C2.9], [R2.8].

On 27 September 2017, the attorney for transgender man John Doe (legal name ”Jane Doe”) asked the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit to reinstate the name-change lawsuit dismissed on 13 March 2017 [R2.7].

On 10 August 2017, a three-judge panel of the Indiana Court of Appeals unanimously reversed two rulings by the Tippecanoe Circuit Court. The panel ruled that in the circumstances the statute requiring that transgender name changes be published should be waived. An administrative regulation gives courts discretion to waive that requirement if the applicant’s health or safety would be threatened [C2.6], [R2.5].

On 13 March 2017, Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson in the US District Court dismissed the name change suit filed on behalf of transgender man John Doe (legal name ”Jane Doe”) from Mexico. Doe was granted asylum in the US and asserted his constitutional rights under the 1st and 14th Amendments were violated through a state statute prohibiting non-citizens from legally changing their names. The Judge dismissed his case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction – as Doe never actually filled out the application to change his name, he cannot establish an actual injury [C2.4], [R2.3].

On 04 December 2014, Judge Freidlander for the Court of Appeals of Indiana reversed the trial court denial of a petition to change an f2m transgender man’s legal gender so that he could correct the gender markers on his birth certificate, remanding the case and directing the trial court to grant Appellant’s petition and issue an order directing the Indiana State Department of Health to amend his birth certificate to reflect his male gender [C2.2], [R2.1].

As at 2013, it is a Class D felony, meaning six months to three years in prison for the crime of “malicious mischief”, placing blood, urine, semen, or feces in a place with the intent a person will “involuntarily touch” the prohibited body fluids, if the accused was infected with HIV [R1.1].

In 1977, consensual sex between same-sex couples became lawful [R1.1].

In 1997, Indiana’s “defense of marriage” law prohibited the state from recognizing same-sex marriages “solemnized” in other states [R2.1].

State law already had banned same-sex marriage [R2.1].

Title 31. Family Law and Juvenile Law, Article 11. Family Law: Marriage, Chapter 1. Who May Marry [L1.12]

IC 31-11-1-1 Same sex marriages prohibited

Sec. 1. (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.

As added by P.L.1-1997, SEC.3. Amended by P.L.198-1997, SEC.1.

On 13 February 2014, the Senate offered no amendments to HJR3, the constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage and thus the language struck by the House earlier this month was not reinserted, meaning the measure must begin its process from the beginning and will not reach voters until at least 2016 [R1.11].

On 10 February 2014, the Senate Rules Committee passed Resolution HJR-3 that would amend the constitution stipulating that only marriage be between one man and one woman would be recognized. Language that also would ban same-sex civil unions being omitted.The Bill must pass the Legislature again this session to go to voters in a November referendum [R1.10].

On 28 January 2014, the House of Representatives approved 57-40 the amended Bill (HB1153 Marriage Amendment Ballot Language) that would place the state’s gay marriage ban in the state constitution, while leaving the door open to eventual approval of civil unions. The amended Bill now heads back to the Senate Judiciary Committee and Senate [R1.9].

On 22 January 2014, the Elections and Apportionment Committee approved 9-3 House Bill 1153 (Marriage Amendment Ballot Language) that would amend the Consitution to define marriage as being between one man and one woman. If it passes out of the House, the bill would then need to pass out of the Senate then the public would vote on it as a ballot measure [R1.8].

On 09 July 2013, attention was drawn to the 1997 law under which same-sex couples applying for a marriage license in Indiana could face a charge of perjury simply for submitting the application to their county clerk. However, simply styling your name as “John Smith (male not female)” or “John Smith (female not male)” as the case may require, would likely circumvent this law [L1.7], [R1.6].

On 29 March 2011, in a 40–10 vote the Senate approved a state constitutional amendment that would gay marriages and civil unions. If it passes the General Assembly again in 2013 or 2014 it would go on the election ballot in 2014. [R1.5].

On 23 March 2011, the Senate judiciary committee voted 7–3 to advance a proposed constitutional amendment that would ban marriage equality and civil unions [R1.4].

On 15 February 2011, House of Representatives approved a constitutional ban on marriage equality in a 70–26 vote. If the ban passes in the Senate, the same bill must be approved again by the 2013 or 2014 House and Senate. From there, voters will decide on whether to constitutionally bar same-sex couples from marriage in Indiana in the November 2014 election [R1.3].

On 08 February 2011, the House Judiciary Committee approved a resolution 8–4 on a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. The resolution next went to the full House. If the House passes it, it goes to the Senate for consideration [R1.2].

On 29 January 2010, the Senate approved 38–10 a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage that includes a restriction on civil unions. As the law already bans same-sex marriages, the constitutional amendment is unlikely to gain traction in the House [R1.1].

On 06 October 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court denied review of five cases from Indiana, Oklahoma, Utah, Virginia and Wisconsin seeking the freedom to marry, leaving in force the five favorable marriage rulings reached in three federal appellate courts, meaning that soon, as many as 60% of the American people will be living in freedom-to-marry states [C2.40], [R2.39].

On 29 September 2014, the nine justices of the US Supreme Court likely met to discuss whether they should take up any or all of the seven petitions before the Court from Indiana, Oklahoma, Utah, Virginia and Wisconsin on the issue of marriage equality. (The only public word from the Court after the conference will be its order list. The list could be released earlier but likely will issue on 06 October.) [R2.38].

On 15 September 2014, the US Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, stayed its 04 September ruling finding bans against same-sex marriage unconstitutional pending disposition by the US Supreme Court [C2.37], [R2.36].

On 12 September 2014, Judge US District Judge Richard Young reinstated four same-sex couples’ claim that Indiana’s refusal to recognize out-of-state gay marriages is unconstitutional but not that part of the lawsuit that challenged the general constitutionality of the ban [C2.35], [R2.34].

On 11 September 2014, Judge Joseph Van Bokkelen in the US District Court ordered that the State recognise the out-of-state marriage of Veronica Romero and Mayra Yvette Rivera and if either of them should die, the Department of Health will issue a death certificate recording the deceased Plaintiff’s status as “married” and list the other adult Plaintiff as the “surviving spouse” [C2.33], [C2.32], [R2.31].

On 04 September 2014, the the Seventh Court of Appeals unanimously upheld lower court rulings finding bans against same-sex marriage unconstitutional [C2.30], [R2.29].

On 19 August 2014, Richard L Young, Chief Judge of the US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, ruled in Bowling v. Pence that State law prohibiting same-sex marriage was unconstitutional, staying the order pending the 7th Circuit Court rulings in Baskin v. Bogan, Lee v. Pence, and Fujii v. Pence [C2.28], [C2.27], [R2.26].

On 25 July 2014, the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit announced that the date for oral arguments in the Indiana and Wisconsin equal marriage cases had been set down for 26 August. The Court denied a request by the States for an en banc 10-member hearing, that will be before the customary 3-judge panel [R2.25].

On 16 July 2014,the US Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, ” … on its own motion, ORDERS that the oral argument in this appeal, scheduled for Wednesday, August 13, 2014, is VACATED. A new oral argument date will be set by separate court order … ” [C2.24], [R2.23].

On 14 July 2014, the US Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit ordered the Indiana and Wisconsin marriage equality cases be orally argued on 13 August 2014 [C2.22], [R2.21].

On 01 July 2014, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ordered Indiana to recognize the legal marriage of Amy Sandler and terminally-ill Nikole Quasney, pending the outcome of the appeal [C2.20], [R2.19].

On 30 June 2014, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ordered an expedited briefing schedule for hearing the challenges to the same-sex marriage ban in Indiana [C2.18], [R2.17].

On 27 June 2014, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ordered a stay of the marriage equality cases “Marilyn R Baskin and Esther Fuller et al. v. Penny Bogan et al.” pending resolution of the appeal. The stay puts same-sex marriages in the State on hold [C2.16], [R2.15].

On 26 June 2014, during the few days that same-sex marriage was lawful in Indiana, Monroe Circuit Judge Valeri Haughton granted m2f transgender Melanie Davis (formerly David Paul Summers) and Angela Summers a divorce [C2.14], [R2.13].

Previously:

On 23 December 2013, the Court of Appeals held that the law against same-sex marriage could not be used to invalidate a marriage if one spouse later changes his or her gender identity [C2.5], [R2.4].

On 25 June 2014, federal district court judge Richard L Young struck down Indiana’s same-sex marriage ban. The ruling holds that the ban violates the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution. There is no stay however, the State lodged a Notice of Appeal to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeal requesting a stay [C2.12], [C2.11], [R2.10].

On 08 May 2014, US District Judge Richard Young in the US District Court granted the plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction so requiring the State of Indiana to recognize a lesbian couple’s out-of-state marriage and have one of the women named as a spouse on her terminally ill partner’s death certificate [C2.9], [R2.8].

On 09 April 2014, Chief Judge Richard Young in the US District Court Southern District of Indiana granted a 28-day injunction ordering the state to immediately recognize the marriage of Amy Sandler and Niki Quasney, who married last year in Massachusetts, and are raising two children. Quasney has been fighting stage four ovarian cancer for over five years [C2.7], [R2.6].

On 23 December 2013, the Court of Appeals, in a 3-0 ruling delivered by Mathias J, determined that Indiana’s law banning same-sex marriage cannot be used to invalidate a marriage if one spouse later changes his or her gender identity [C2.5], [R2.4].

On 20 January 2005, the Indiana Court of Appeals upheld the state’s DOMA in its ruling in Morrison v. Sadler. The three same-sex couples that entered into civil unions in Vermont were denied Indiana marriage licenses under Indiana’s DOMA. They challenged the law before the Marion Superior Court, which dismissed the case. The Court of Appeals of Indiana affirmed, holding that the state’s DOMA does not violate the state constitution [C2.3].

In January 2003, Attorney General Steve Carter’s office asked a judge to dismiss the lawsuit [R2.2].

In August 2002, a lawsuit seeking the right to marry was filed on behalf of Teresa Stephens and Ruth Morrison and two other couples in Marion County Superior Court [R2.1].

Joint adoption by same-sex couples is lawful [R1.4].

In March 1999, the Indiana Senate killed proposed legislation making it more difficult for singles to adopt children before the bill could come up for final reading, or even a real debate [R1.3].

On 24 February 1999, the Indiana Senate Judiciary Committee voted 5–4 to endorse a bill to make adoption nearly impossible for anyone not living in an “intact marriage” under Indiana law. [R1.2].

In February 1999, Bloomington became the first municipality in Indiana to take an official stand against banning gay and lesbian couples from consideration as adoptive or foster parents. Resolution 99-01 passed the Bloomington City Council 6-0, with two abstentions [R1.1].

On 30 June 2016, US District Court Judge Tanya Walton Pratt concluded that ”Given Indiana’s long-articulated interest in doing what is in the best interest of the child and given that the Indiana legislature has stated the purpose of Title 31 is to protect, promote, and preserve Indiana families, there is no conceivable important governmental interest that would justify the different treatment of female spouses of artificially-inseminated birth mothers from the male spouses of artificially-inseminated birth mothers” [C2.3], [R2.2].

In March 2003, the Indiana Court of Appeals rejected a lower court ruling that two women can’t both adopt three children because the women aren’t married and the state’s adoption statutes don’t specifically address the issue of second-parent adoptions [R2.1].

The court found that a second parent sharing legal responsibility for children in a nurturing environment is in the best interest of the children.

On 18 August 2012, Dynasty Young, a gay, gender non-conforming 17-year-old, would not be allowed to return to his former high school, officials for Indianapolis Public Schools (IPS) reportedly decided [R1.1].

See 2. Courts & Tribunals below.

On 02 October 2017, in a decision that may impact the LGBTIQ community, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled that whilst adult male Sameer G Thakar can legally have sex with a 16- or 17-year-old in Indiana, sending a nude photo to a teen of the same age is unlawful under the Dissemination Statute [C2.4], [R2.3]. Cf: Maine Supreme Judicial Court Opinion: State of Maine v. Andrew J Legassie No. 2017 ME 202  154.90kb 05 OCT 15

On 09 July 2013, a proposed settlement agreement in the Darnell “Dynasty” Young v. Indianapolis Public Schools was filed in U.S. District Court in Indianapolis. Young was expelled for bringing a stun gun to school to protect himself from bullies [C2.2], [R2.1].