Gay marriage amendment and domestic violence cases

[AngryOldDem]

Chalk one up for the "family values" crowd that pushed the gay marriage amendment through to victory last November.

One unintended consequence of this amendment has been to possibly also make unconstitutional domestic violence laws as they pertain to cohabitating couples. Since "domestic" does not apply to those living together without benefit of legal sanction, those who are abused may have no recourse to seek protection against their abusers. Granted, restraining orders are practically worthless in some cases, but still they do provide a measure of protection that should be a right to anybody who is threatened, whether or not they have a valid marriage license.

Story here:

http://www.onnnews.com/Global/story.asp?S=2935718

<<snip>>

CLEVELAND -- A judge said Friday he won't decide whether Ohio's recently enacted constitutional amendment banning gay marriage makes the state's 25-year-old domestic violence law unconstitutional.

Darnell Forte, a 30-year-old Cleveland man accused of slapping his live-in girlfriend, had asked the judge to throw out a domestic violence charge, saying such a charge should be reserved for married couples under the amendment banning gay marriage and civil unions.

Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Judge Stuart Friedman denied Forte's request, because the domestic violence charge was filed in August, before Ohio's marriage amendment passed in November with 62 percent of the vote. Friedman also said his court is usually not the place where constitutional cases are determined.

<snip>

"We don't think Ohio voters intended to enact a domestic abuser loophole into the Constitution," Assistant Prosecutor Matthew Meyer said. "The defendant is going to be prosecuted."

Gay rights groups campaigned against the marriage amendment, saying it could unintentionally harm unmarried people's rights or benefits such as inheritances, hospital visitation and property ownership.

"Domestic violence happens more than any of us will want to admit, and I'm sure this will come up again," said Sue Doerfer, executive director of the Lesbian-Gay Community Center of Cleveland. She said her organization is hoping that the Ohio marriage amendment will be challenged.

"Judges are going to have to make a decision. It would be our hope that eventually the amendment would be found unconstitutional," she said.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio filed a court brief in support of continuing to apply the domestic violence law to unmarried couples.

<<snip>>

From what I understand, seven abuse cases have already been tossed in Montgomery County because of this, because defense lawyers have cited the amendment as proof that "domestic" only applies to married people.

My question: Just how many people will have to get themselves killed before this inane amendment is repealed?

[Justin54B20L]

1. See, this is what I was on about....

People here in Ohio who voted for the amendment were too stupid to actually read the what the hell it said. I, along with all of my liberal/progressive friends and a majority of my conservative friends tried to get the message out to other people about what this amendment actually stated.

We all knew after reading it, that it would have unintended consequences for unmarried couples of all kinds, but to be honest, I really never saw the domestic violence angle of it. Thanks for pointing this out and I agree, how many?

[AngryOldDem]

3. Many people were caught flatfooted by this

Including prosecutors, criminal justice experts...people who are now kicking themselves for not seeing that this would be one of the logical extensions of such a broadly worded amendment.

Nobody saw this coming -- it took a few shrewd defense lawyers to use to their clients' advantage what is now painfully obvious. You can't have it both ways. You can't pick and choose how to apply/interpret language in a constitutional amendment. Gotta hand it to 'em -- they did their jobs well. It's the people in this state who fell for the "sanctity of marriage" line that should be culpable.

And even if the ACLU and gay rights groups are successful in challenging it, this amendment will still be on the books for some years to come.

[sui generis]

2. this statement says it all:

"We don't think Ohio voters intended to enact a domestic abuser loophole into the Constitution," Assistant Prosecutor Matthew Meyer said. "The defendant is going to be prosecuted."

It doesn't matter what anyone "intends". All that matters in the law is what the law says. If you intended it to mean something than you damn well better write what you mean.

If you intended to persecute and hound gays, then that is exactly the language you should have used, rather than preservation of marriage, because heterosexual domestic partners are GUESS WHAT!!! unmarried.

dickheads. dumb fucking dickheads.

[Misunderestimator]

4. Exactly... they would have been better off writing the amendment

to very specifically persecute gays. I doubt that those who voted for it would give two shits if the domestic violence loophole only pertained to gay couples... but now that it affects "normal" people... *gasp*... we can't have that!

[AngryOldDem]

6. I don't know....

I can see those who voted for this amendment justifying the abuse loophole by saying that whoever gets clocked by their spouse/significant other probably had it coming it in the first place.

It's not hard to think on lowest common denominator terms. Sad to say.

But regardless, the implications of this are frightening, made even more so that the experts were caught off-guard. We all knew this was a BAD LAW. Now we know just how bad. What other surprises are in store?

[undergroundpanther]

5. Fundies

Are bullies too much of the time,no wonder they redefine domestic to hurt people.Fundies want women serving men who can beat them.The home is the mans castle and the state shall not interfere when the husband is a tyrant.

Kinda bullshit

"family" the word originally meant "band of slaves"
I wish"family" and the whole concept of it would die.

One mother and one father raising children when both must work_all day_ is a catch 22 travesty.Family the two parent concept obviously is not working because how many kids are in daycare? in school?
Daycare and school have AGENDAS and they are not about community.

People need to form communities with each other somehow,even if it means redefining what"family" is to something viable and sane where kids get hurt less..People need to get to know each other and create personal ties and commitments and friendships with each other and learn conflict resolution and how to take care of each other.No home can be an isolated kingdom if we are to recognize our equal stake in our own well being is also in appreciating and facilitating the well being of others all around us.

I think the state,church or the corporation is doing the job of a community while the community works it's lives away,for peanuts..The state is indeed rearing the future kids,indoctrinating kids to never question authority figures,accept war, sending them to school not to learn,but to be obedient workers, reinforcing inequality through school pecking orders at vulnerable ages, and to church to be terrified of their own thoughts/feelings etc .and develop ruthless internal censors.

As human beings for our own sanities sake,humanity need to take our communities back from church,state and corporation.The concept of a sacred nuclear family is one way how control is foisted upon people you can't revolt against a corrupt state with the kids in tow,with"mouths to feed".The state insures we comply with the state's demands for conformity. for labor and obedience when we have kids we must raise alone without the benefit of task sharing in a community of Friends or kin.

No family is an island, but when you think you are a viable island with 2.5 kids a car and a house with a separate yard, and your neighbors believe that stuff too and have their separated lives, you think you all are on your own, so you don't relate as a community anymore..it's easy to become a mental prisoner to state/corporate illusions of"family" when community is atomized into a cluster of strangers on islands next door..

[Toucano]

7. What the voters intended?

You can't say what the "voters intended" because the amendment is so freaking sloppy.

Some voters thought they were voting "no" on the amendment because they oppose gay marriage. Others may have voted "yes" because they favor gay marriage.

All in favor, say "No". Those opposed say "Yes". Motion carried!

[Moderator]

8. AngryOldDem

Per DU copyright rules
please post only four
paragraphs from the
copyrighted news source.


Thank you.


DU Moderator

[AngryOldDem]

9. Duly Noted

Although I rarely post these days, I will keep that directive in mind. Thank you.