Ohio Gay Marriage Amendment Leaves Straight Unwed Abuse Victims Unprotected

[aidanjm]

Ohio Gay Marriage Amendment Leaves Straight Unwed Abuse Victims Unprotected

January 17, 2005

(Cleveland, Ohio) The amendment to the Ohio Constitution to prevent gay marriage is being used to block the prosecution of people in unmarried heterosexual relationships who abuse their partners.

The Cleveland Plain Dealer reports that the Cuyahoga County public defender's office has moved to dismiss domestic-violence charges against unmarried defendants since the amendment was passed by voters last November.

Ohio was one of 11 states to pass amendments to block gays from marrying. The wording in the Ohio amendment, known as Issue 1, says the state "and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage."

The public defender's office argues that the amendment does not apply only to same-sex couples and therefore spousal abuse laws do not apply to unmarried heterosexual couples.

"The thing is, you can only get a domestic-violence charge now if you are a wife beater, not a girlfriend beater," Jeff Lazarus, a law clerk for public defender Robert Tobik told the Plain Dealer.

There have bee no rulings on the motions yet but people who deal with battered women say they are stunned.

"It's a bad, bad thing," Cathleen Alexander, director of the Domestic Violence Center in Cleveland told the Plain Dealer. "We're very worried that some victims will not be granted the protection they need because they're not married. That could jeopardize people's lives.

Some lawyers, the paper reports, believe that the vagueness of the amendment could lead to it being overturned based on the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment guarantee of equal protection under the law.

If a judge were accept the public defenders' office argument it would mean that a married victim of domestic violence would have more protection than an unmarried neighbor beaten by a live-in lover, and married and unmarried defendants would be treated differently as well.

©365Gay.com 2005

 

[LordMagnusKain]

assault and battery is just that, so what's the problem?

there is a difference between having a boyfriend that beats you and a husband that beats you.

if there is a major difference here then the intent of the people in this vote can translated through the use of good jurisprudence in this case.

some lawyers say whatever i want to inject into my article as an opinion.

I?m sorry to see that you would actually believe such propaganda and try to repeat it, without actually thinking about what's written.

 

[slurmsmackenzie]

extra extra gays are being wronged....


we get it, aidan

 

[MisterCornell]

I'm very glad Ohio passed this law. I live in Ohio.

It's not legal for a man to beat a woman. That's a crime, and it will be prosecuted as such.

The article is a complete distortion from a homosexual organization.

 

[slurmsmackenzie]

Originally posted by: MisterCornell
I'm very glad Ohio passed this law. I live in Ohio.

It's not legal for a man to beat a woman. That's a crime, and it will be prosecuted as such.

The article is a complete distortion from a homosexual organization.

what's the situation as you know it?

 

[LordMagnusKain]

Originally posted by: MisterCornell
It's not legal for a man to beat a woman. That's a crime, and it will be prosecuted as such.

The article is a complete distortion from a homosexual organization.

hey.. that's what i said.

i think you did it better.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

Originally posted by: MisterCornell
It's not legal for a man to beat a woman. That's a crime, and it will be prosecuted as such.

The article is a complete distortion from a homosexual organization.

hey.. that's what i said.

i think you did it better.

Hmm, I'm pretty sure there are domestic violence laws for a reason. I'm not sure what the difference between that and simple assault is, maybe someone who does family law can tell us?

In any case, you guys are pretty quick to dismiss this whole thing, maybe you might want to look into a little more. I swear, you say "gay marriage" and nobody can think straight (no pun intended) any more.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: slurmsmackenzie
extra extra gays are being wronged....


we get it, aidan

You know, that's not what this article is about at all. Your reading comprehension seems to be sorely lacking.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

I'm not sure what the difference between that and simple assault is, maybe someone who does family law can tell us?

like i said, your boyfriend beating you and your husband beating you are two different things and treating them as such by law makes sense.

but then, if not that's what courts are there for, to make sure that the spirit of the law is enforced.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

I'm not sure what the difference between that and simple assault is, maybe someone who does family law can tell us?

like i said, your boyfriend beating you and your husband beating you are two different things and treating them as such by law makes sense.

but then, if not that's what courts are there for, to make sure that the spirit of the law is enforced.

What happened to 'strict constructionist' support?

If this amendment is really worded as cited in the article, there are only a couple of possibilities: To interpret it as not applying to heterosexuals is an explicit admission that the point of the amendment was discrimination, not 'clarification' or 'defense of traditional values' (which my personal bias interprets as being the same thing in this case, regardless). To allow the defence to stand, is to erode hard-won victims rights, to the detriment (chiefly) of women. I think there are a lot of unmarried couples with relationships complex enough (in terms of interdependence and power in the relationship) that domestic abuse is the correct term, and not simple assault.

The other possibility is to throw out the amendment, and try again next time, making a better effort to be concise and specific in the wording of the amendment. It sounds like the writers of the amendment tried to use soft-speak to tip-toe around what they really wanted to do, and now they're actually going to be called on it.

From a defence attorney's POV, if that's what the amendment says, then they absolutely must pursue that as a defence, otherwise they aren't doing their job.

 

[gopunk]

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/n...world/2002217783_webgaymarriage23.html

judge accepted the arguement, and rightfully so

edit: rightfully, as in that's what the law says... i don't agree with the law, of course

 

[gopunk]

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

I'm not sure what the difference between that and simple assault is, maybe someone who does family law can tell us?

like i said, your boyfriend beating you and your husband beating you are two different things and treating them as such by law makes sense.

there are people who live the lives of married people, yet are not married. how does treating abuse in those situations differently than had they been married make sense?

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: gopunk
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/n...world/2002217783_webgaymarriage23.html

judge accepted the arguement, and rightfully so

edit: rightfully, as in that's what the law says... i don't agree with the law, of course

Like I said - the defence attorney has to provide the best defence they can; at least they're doing their jobs.

 

[jackschmittusa]

I live in Ohio. And I'm ashamed that this law passed. Hopefully, this will make some people see the the whole thing now for what it really is, a rights issue. Plain old equal protection under the law.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
I live in Ohio. And I'm ashamed that this law passed. Hopefully, this will make some people see the the whole thing now for what it really is, a rights issue. Plain old equal protection under the law.

What ashamed of Red State tactics to discriminate?
Oh come on, gotta love being a Red State.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Sounds like a load of crap to me...it is still a case of battery or assault, regardless of the status of the relationship between two people.

So according to this article, if I am walking down the street and punch some random woman, that would be assault...if that woman is my live in girlfriend, I can beat her all I want because of an extension of Ohio's Gay Marriage Amendment?

Oh wait this article comes from a gay website, which gives it as much credibility as a FoxNews report.

 

[jackschmittusa]

Starbuck1975

Did you even bother to read the link provided by 3chordcharlie? Post back when you do.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Because Burk had a prior domestic violence conviction, the latest charge was a felony that could have resulted in an 18-month jail term; a misdemeanor assault carries a maximum sentence of six months.

"This case is a good example of why we need a domestic violence law. A misdemeanor assault doesn't carry with it a significant enough penalty for repeat domestic violence abusers," said Matt Meyer, an assistant Cuyahoga County prosecutor.

Ohio . . . yet another state too dumb for my family to consider.

 

[judasmachine]

if this is a problem it was tagged on in the planning stages to kill it after it was passed. they do it all the time.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Starbuck1975: Did you even bother to read the link provided by 3chordcharlie? Post back when you do.

Yes I did...it was written by staff members at 365gay.com, and it is a question of interpretation of the gay marriage amendment...while it may appear that this amendment creates a loophole for domestic abuse. That the article only expresses one interpretation of the law, the political motive of posting this article becomes clear...no different then the one sided drivel readily available on FoxNews.com.

If a judge were accept the public defenders' office argument it would mean that a married victim of domestic violence would have more protection than an unmarried neighbor beaten by a live-in lover, and married and unmarried defendants would be treated differently as well.

I don't understand this interpretation of this amendment, as the criminal charges resulting from abuse are a question of assault, regardless of whether or not the couple is married or simply living together. If the couple is married, it may fall under the category of "domestic violence." For a couple living together, it is still a question of assault.

 

[shira]

Another example of how married and unmarried individuals can be treated very differently:

A spouse cannot be compelled to testify against a spouse (it's one element of "maritial privilege"). The purpose of this privilege is to foster open and honest communication in this most intimate of relationships, marriage. If spouses could be compelled to testify, they would tend to hide things from each other.

An unmarried person, even one in a live-in relationship, CAN be compelled to testify against their significant other. Obviously, gays barred under the law from marrying are not entitled to this fundamental privilege.

 

[TuxDave]

Any law students in the house? Is there a difference in penalty of assault vs domestic assault?

 

[EXman]

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
I live in Ohio. And I'm ashamed that this law passed. Hopefully, this will make some people see the the whole thing now for what it really is, a rights issue. Plain old equal protection under the law.

The outspoken minority once again!

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: TuxDave
Any law students in the house? Is there a difference in penalty of assault vs domestic assault?

Most places, there are differnet penalties. It also matters for any sort of separation litigation, and possibly for protection/restraining orders.

Treating domestic violence like it was a random bar fight isn't very useful, because it takes away the courts' opportunity to consider the specifics of the case thoroughly, and any time you take away 'tools' you have less flexibility in determining the most positive outcome.

 

[jackschmittusa]

Starbuck1975

Both of our mistakes. 3chordcharlie included the link I reffered to in a quote, gopunk posted the link that describes events as predicted in the OP.

In Ohio, simple assualt is always a misdemeaner. Serial domestic violence offences become felonies. Also, sentences in Ohio that are less than 1 year are served in county jails, while those of more than a year are served in state prison. Many judges decide not to issue jail time in cases like assault as they consider the burden on the county for incarceration. So, there is a significant difference.