MyDD :: Ohio's Gay Marriage Ban Strikes Down Domestic Violence Charge

Ohio's Gay Marriage Ban Strikes Down Domestic Violence Charge

by Chris Bowers, Thu Mar 24, 2005 at 02:59:39 PM EST

Conservatives argue that gay marriage must be stopped in the name of traditional values, family values, moral values, whatever. To do so, they end up passing laws that reduce punishments for domestic violence:

Domestic violence charges cannot be filed against unmarried people because of Ohio's new constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, a judge ruled Wednesday. (...)

Judges and others across the country have been waiting for a ruling on how the gay marriage ban, among the nation's broadest, would affect Ohio's 25-year-old domestic violence law, which previously wasn't limited to married people.

Burk, 42, is accused of slapping and pushing his live-in girlfriend during a January argument over a pack of cigarettes.

His public defender, David Magee, had asked the judge to throw out the charge because of the new wording in Ohio's constitution that prohibits any state or local law that would "create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals."

Before the amendment, courts applied the domestic violence law by defining a family as including an unmarried couple living together as would a husband and wife, the judge said. The gay marriage amendment no longer allows that.

I feel like I run across stories at least four five stories a day that, like this one, demonstrate the hypocrosy of the modern conservative movement. No one ever seems to report on this stuff though. Gay marriage bans will damage domestic violence laws across the country. Those are real conservative values.

Tags: Culture (all tags)

Permalink :: 11 Comments :: Post a Comment

Well, durn it! (none / 0)

They shouldn't be living in SIN anyway!

by howie14 on Thu Mar 24, 2005 at 03:21:31 PM EST

At least we can get rid of Oregon ban now (none / 0)

I don't know about the rest of the country, but at least we have the hammer to repeal the just-passed gay marriage ban in Oregon now. Oregon voters will not stand for domestic violence laws being threatened.

by afs on Thu Mar 24, 2005 at 03:41:38 PM EST

I love it (none / 0)

God, I love the stupidity of hate!!!

by yitbos96bb on Thu Mar 24, 2005 at 04:07:18 PM EST

This is the funny aspect of the Ohio Law (none / 0)

As I mentioned last year, the thing about this law, and that tells me that it wasn't a law that a lot of people put much thought into is that it is overbroad in more ways that just this one. If you ask people what they thought they were voting on, a lot of them would have said that they were voting on preventing the govt from forcing them to perform gay marriage. This is what they understand the bill to mean. I will bet in a lot of these places, they will tell you that is what they are preventing. The debate on this issue is so skewed, however, because there are so many conservatives even on the Democratic side of the aisle who don't want to have an honest debate. Occasionally, these people rear their heads here and on Daily Kos. The discussion is always about how people are against gay marriage, but not about whether we can actually judge what people aer for or against in such a tainted environment where people think that they are voting to prevent the govt from forcing them to perform gay marriage. They are so willing to vote against their own interest that they don't even notice that it has additional consequences as the domestic violence law issue. This is true although people were warning of these consequences last year. This is about misinformation, in part. As I have discovered, if you engage even evangelicals on this issue- not through demagogery and misinformation- you can win even some of them over about the merits of civil union. However, I don't see a real debate happening any time soon- do you ?

by bruh21 on Thu Mar 24, 2005 at 04:18:33 PM EST

wow. (none / 0)

wow. it never ceases to amaze, what lenths a group of men will go to in order to deny rights to another group of men.

But this reminds me, I guy I played rugby with in college was picked up on a Domestic Disturbance case and charged with Domestic Assault because he got in an alcohol induced fight with his cousin (and roommate) at the time. He pushed him down the stairs and broke his leg or something like that.

Apparently in Michigan, you can be charged with DD when you commit assault on anyone with whom you live.

by doinkicarus on Thu Mar 24, 2005 at 05:08:49 PM EST

Well, of course the gay marriage ban (3.00 / 1)

reduces penalties for domestic violence -- some of those God-Fearing folk believe that there's nothing wrong with domestic violence, that a man should be allowed to beat his wife, and its all her fault anyway. Plus if they're living in SIN -- well, why should the law protect them anyway?

sigh.

by Maven on Thu Mar 24, 2005 at 06:03:08 PM EST

Re: Well, of course the gay marriage ban (none / 0)

Hehehe! You know it's pretty sick and twisted, but this is honestly what they believe. Is there anyway that we can ship these people off to some desolate island where they can live with their morality and not infringe on normal people? Really, is there a way?

by rpwmed on Thu Mar 24, 2005 at 06:52:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

We had a chance to do this (none / 0)

At one point in time, these folks actually left the United States of thier own free will.

Unfortuantly, we decided to fight a war to make them stay. Somebody should invent a time machine and go back and convince Lincoln to let them go.

by Geotpf on Thu Mar 24, 2005 at 08:06:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Law of Unintended Consequences? (none / 0)

Maybe they [conservative homophobes] didn't intend this result and it exposes some of the stupidity of these offensive policies?

by Friedman on Thu Mar 24, 2005 at 09:45:56 PM EST

Re: Law of Unintended Consequences? (none / 0)

Actually, the people who wrote the thing and pushed it had to know this was coming. I saw analyses of the Ohio ban in particular which predicted this outcome.

Maybe your average homophobe didn't know this was coming when they voted for the ban, but I guarantee destroying protection for unmarried heterosexual couples (especially the women in unmarried heterosexual couples) is part of the FCR agenda.

by paperwight on Fri Mar 25, 2005 at 12:52:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

hypocrisy-- and HOW! (none / 0)

I had this thought last night while I was in the shower. I know, I sometimes come up with great ideas in the shower. But seriously, try this one on for size:

To all the moral majorists, theo-cons, etc. who claim that homo-marriages will some way undermine the institution (ha!) that marriage is in this nation, consider the following:

A)If allowing gay marriage (b/c the Bible prohibits it) undermines marriage, then what happens when we as a society allow: Jewish marriages, Islamic marriages, Buddhist marriages, etc. Why are these types of marriages not targeted by the ultra-right in the same manner?

2) allowing gay marriage will in no way obligate your church/pastor to accept, permit, or perform gay marriages. (See above- When was the last time that your priest performed a jewish ceremony?)

B) your beliefs are not your rights, and therefore do not and should not carry a greater weight than anyone else's beliefs.

Well, that ought to pretty much negate the whole "God" argument. Although I'm sure it's been said elsewhere, with much more eloquenciosity.

Doinkicarus (likes to make up words.)

by doinkicarus on Fri Mar 25, 2005 at 01:11:28 PM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.