More Unintended Consequences Of The Anti-Gay State Amendments

[justin899]

CLEVELAND - Some attorneys are attempting to use Ohio's new gay marriage amendment to defend unmarried clients against domestic violence charges.

The constitutional amendment, which took effect on Dec. 1, denies legal status to unmarried couples.

In at least two cases last week, the Cuyahoga County public defender's office has asked a judge to dismiss domestic-violence charges against unmarried defendants, arguing that the charges violate the amendment by affording marriage-like legal status to unmarried victims who live with the people accused of attacking them.

Advocates for victims of domestic violence have worried about the effect of the amendment since it passed in November, and they fear defense attorneys will copy the tactic used in Cuyahoga County.

"We're very worried that some victims will not be granted the protection they need because they're not married," said Cathleen Alexander, director of the Domestic Violence Center in Cleveland.

The Ohio Domestic Violence Network said more than 20,500 people were arrested for domestic violence in 2003, and courts issued 16,219 protective orders. The group's executive director, Nancy Nealon, estimates up to one in five cases involves unmarried partners.

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050116/NEWS01/501160419/1056/news01

[Vincardog]

1. OK charge them with assault

[beam me up scottie]

2. Keep reading, this could work in our favor:

<snip>
"Some legal scholars argue that if a judge were to agree with the public defender's ruling, a court could declare the amendment in violation of the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment, which guarantees equal protection under the law."
<snip>

[BR_Parkway]

3. Lord, get ready to hear "activist judges" ad nauseum - but it

would be really sweet for it to get tossed.

[beam me up scottie]

4. poetic justice

n/t:evilgrin:

[justin899]

5. I did read that part

however, http://www.365gay.com/newscon05/01/011705ohioBan.htm">another article says these cases involves heterosexuals so a court challenge overturning the entire amendment is iffy.

Plus you also have the problem with the Supreme Court refusing to clarify Lawrence by refusing to hear the Florida adoption law challenge. It's highly doubtful they'll overturn any of these amendments anytime soon.

[beam me up scottie]

6. Sorry, I didn't mean to sound snarky.

I was merely pointing out what could be a positive outcome.
I couldn't get the link to the other article to work.
:hippie:
peace

[Ian David]

7. THE HEADLINE LIES!!! IT'S NOT GAY COUPLES, IT'S STRAIGHT ONES!

NOWHERE IN THIS ARTICLE AS IT APPEARED IN THE CINCINNATTI INQUIRER DID IT SAY ANYTHING ABOUT GAY ABUSERS!!

Was it Associated Press or the Cincinnatti Inqurier who is responsible?

There is a longer version of the story on 365gay.com:

Ohio Gay Marriage Amendment Leaves Straight Unwed Abuse Victims Unprotected
by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff

Posted: January 17, 2005 12:01 am. ET

(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."
<snip>
"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.
<snip>
"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.
<snip>
More:
http://www.365gay.com/newscon05/01/011705ohioBan.htm

[beam me up scottie]

8. Many victims rights advocates tried to tell people this

was going to happen
So people knew.
And they voted for this anyway.
I guess feeling all icky when they see two men kiss was a higher priority fro some than protecting unmarried victims from domestic abuse.

[Ian David]

9. Here's what we gotta do

1) Make a list of every "this will go wrong" scenario that the anti-amendment people talk about.

2) Find straight couples and others who are willing to make sure these scenarios happen. For example, creating probate issues, employment benefit issues, medical proxy, etc. Intentionally create situations that force the issue to be tried in court.

I do not think it is a good idea for a straight woman to file domestic abuse charges against her straight boyfriend just because the two of them want to test the law's application to domestic abuse. I draw the line at intentionally creating "criminal test cases."

Feedback anyone?

[dsc]

10. I think you are misreading the headline

the amendment was anti gay, not the couples. The point is that in trying to prohibit gay marriage they ended up screwing a bunch of heterosexual unmarried couples.

[DBoon]

12. It most certainly WAS against unmarried "shacking up" heteros!

Anti-gay is just a foot in the door to these people, to allow a massive regulation of private morality.

Just like "anti abortion" is now about denying birth control pills to women. They don't care about "killing babies", they want to stop women from having sex without the fear of pregnancy.

I think the hidden intent of anti-gay initiatives is much broader, to allow restrictions against a whole host of "non traditional" arrangement. Unfortunately, most heteros will not see it that way until it is too late.

They will start supporting legalized discrimination against "incorrect" marital status. You will no longer have protection when looking for a job or for housing.

[dsc]

13. the purveyors of the amendment probably were against it

but many of the voters certainly weren't.

[queerart]

11. The Religious Right Knew Exactly What They Were Doing....

They "fed" the Hetro Hating Public up on venom for Queers, just like a "Fred Phelps Thanksgiving Dinner" so they would have the help needed in passing their own special brand of poison, and have it framed into law.............

But in the end... They (The Hetro Hating Public) are the one's that got "The Turkey".... as the Religious Right do not approve of Hetro's shacking up either......

Unwed couples that are serving up off spring with out the consecration of marriage, are frowned upon by these zealot groups..........

So The "Unmarried" Hetro Hating Public are just a bit shocked at the moment that the venom is being directed at them as well........

Frankly, I hope they enjoy their "Turkey"........

As the Religious Right is about to deliver the rest of their dinner real soon........... with desert included!

[TaleWgnDg]

14. Well . . .

As a lawyer, I'd argue that as well for my client, as all lawyers must whenever and wherever that presentation is viable in law.

However, not knowing how the Ohio domestic violence state statute is worded and not knowing how the Ohio courts have interpreted that statute in case law and not knowing the legislative history, I, therefore, have not a clue as to whether this legal argument will fly in any Ohio court-of-law! This ridiculous newspaper article doesn't quote the statute language at issue, nor does it cite to the statute at issue. Hell, it doesn't even give us a clue as to the wording of the Ohio constitutional amendment which the article also raises as at issue! Why formulate an opinion here in DU or otherwise w/o that knowledge?

And, no, I won't do their "legal research" for them (this newspaper) to uphold their sensationalistic article or otherwise comment.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


.