More 'Unintended' Consequences of the Ohio Anti-Gay Amendment

[justin899]

Before Election Day, law professors warned voters that Issue 1 was a legally ambiguous "jobs bill" for attorneys. Meanwhile, gay-rights activists warned that the anti-gay-marriage ballot issue would take away the legal rights homosexuals have worked so hard to carve out for themselves.

But voters passed Issue 1 anyway, creating a state constitutional amendment to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman.

How will it be interpreted? Thanks to a Valentine's Day lawsuit filed in Franklin County Common Pleas Court, we may be about to find out.

Oddly enough, the suit has been filed by a lesbian who believes the passage of Issue 1 helps her child-custody case.

"It's a conflict. I'm not going to deny that," said Denise Fairchild, who is arguing that the new constitutional amendment nullifies the court-approved parental rights she and her partner agreed upon in happier days.

"These agreements have been going through the courts, and they have not been tested," said Keith Golden, her lawyer.

"Our motion is consistent with what everybody who was against Proposition 1 was saying: 'Don't pass this, because if you do, you're going to leave some things open that you didn't intend.'"

An Ohio State law professor agrees.

"I think it's fair to say that the proponents and the supporters of Issue 1 didn't expect people in the lesbian and gay communities to turn the knife that the issue hands the state against one another," said Marc Spindelman, a Moritz College of Law prof who specializes in constitutional and family law.

http://otherpaper.com/substory1.html

----------------------------

First we have straight men attempting to use the amendment in domestic violence cases against their girlfriends. The argument wasn't allowed in the first case not because it lacked merit but because it was technically filed before the amendment took effect so it's still unclear as to whether this type of argument will prevail.

And now we've got a lesbian using the amendment in a custody case. Yet before the election the people who pushed this amendment lied over and over again that it couldn't be used for anything other than actual marriage (which is bad enough). The same is true in Michigan. They said over and over again that the MI amendment was only about marriage yet the religious groups that backed the amendment are now in court suing to take away state workers health insurance.

This should be used against the 16-20 upcoming amendments (at least half of which are worded similarly to OH and MI to prohibit all forms of same-sex recognition-not just marriage) to show what these amendments really do.

[fob]

1. "prohibit all forms of same-sex recognition-not just marriage"

Interesting. What if someone had to decide to keep/end a sibling(brother/brother or sister/sister) on life-support? Could the State argue that the law cancels that "same-sex-next-of-kin" relationship and take the decision upon themselves?

[justin899]

2. Yes

That's the fear. That's why the AARP, among other groups, came out against the amendment in Ohio just for the very reason you stated.

[AllegroRondo]

3. Taken to the extreme

that could mean any contract between two people of the same sex is null and void.

[arwalden]

4. That's What's Happening In Virginia...

... a new law (or pending law?) could prevent a same sex couple from owning property together, or selling/transferring property to/between each other. Health care directives, powers of attorney... all NULL AND VOID.

[dsc]

5. The law is around a year old

[fob]

6. I think the problem is that it doesn't even need to be "taken to the

extreme", the law as presented seem to say EXACTLY what you wrote, the State has declared null and void ANY "contract"/"conractural relationship" that is solely between members of the same sex!

[Ian David]

8. Only contracts for things normally for husbands and wives, I think

Landlord / Tenant agreements should be safe.

Medical proxy, custody, hospital visitation, inheritance, power of attorney, palimony, restraining orders, medical coverage, family and medical leave, employee benefits-- I think those sorts of things are at risk.

They're already using this stuff to say that public colleges and municipalities can not provide same-sex partner benefits.

They could MAYBE use it to say that PRIVATE employers likewise can not offer same-sex partner benefits.

And not just written contracts, mind you. Any right normally reserved exclusively for marriage. Like I said, things like hospital visitation, family and medical leave, etc.

[Ian David]

7. We need to go out of our way to file these kinds of cases

Even if we have to intentionally set-up these scenarios, with both plaintiff and defendant cooperating, I think we should.

"Hey, I want you to sue me, and I'll use this anti-gay amendment to defend myself, ok?"

I guess we'd have to stop short of, "Hey, I want you to assault me, and then use the anti-gay amendment to defend yourself against criminal charges, ok?"

[Langley85]

9. Evil People

These people who pass amendments like this are some of the most evil people in the world.

[Siyahamba]

10. "Unintended" consequences in the Michigan Anti-Gay Amendment too

Coincidentally, this article was on the front page of Eastern Michigan University's newspaper yesterday:

"Conservative group aims at EMU's same-sex benefits"
http://www.easternecho.com/cgi-bin/story.cgi?1955