![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Taking one on the chin
Jan. 18th, 2005 12:17 pmLawyers are the cleverest people. They can take any bad idea and run with it to the limits of its absurdity.
Take, for instance, this use of Ohio's Marriage Amendment. Criminal attorneys are using it to claim that domestic violence charges cannot be filed against a person who assaults a live-in partner to whom s/he is not married. Because using DV statutes to protect unmarried domestic partners conveys to them rights that are not allowed under the Ohio Constitution. Oh, sure, they can still be charged with simple assault and battery, but there is a quantum leap in protection between that and the teeth the legislature has put into the DV statutes.
Technically, I suppose, this would also extend to publicly-funded women's shelters - if your boyfriend is beating you up, so sorry.
Marry the guy, and then we can protect you.
No, I suppose there is a Right-Wing argument to be made that people shouldn't be "living in sin" at all. But that argument denies reality - people do have relationships outside of marriage. They always have had them. The Puritans had a very high illegitimate and "8-pound premie" birth rate. Relationships form for strange and often stupid reasons. Pronouncing them unacceptable doesn't really slow down the rate.
So the reality is, battered spouses in Ohio may be more susceptible to repeat beatings, and have the opportunity for support pulled out from under them. And their children.
My one hope is that it will help to speed the overturning of Ohio's dreadful amendment. (It will take a trip to the US Supreme Court for that to happen - Ohio's court system cannot overturn an Ohio Constitutional Amendment.) And that, in turn, this misguided attempt to "protect" marriage will serve as a warning for Congress.
Take, for instance, this use of Ohio's Marriage Amendment. Criminal attorneys are using it to claim that domestic violence charges cannot be filed against a person who assaults a live-in partner to whom s/he is not married. Because using DV statutes to protect unmarried domestic partners conveys to them rights that are not allowed under the Ohio Constitution. Oh, sure, they can still be charged with simple assault and battery, but there is a quantum leap in protection between that and the teeth the legislature has put into the DV statutes.
Technically, I suppose, this would also extend to publicly-funded women's shelters - if your boyfriend is beating you up, so sorry.
Marry the guy, and then we can protect you.
No, I suppose there is a Right-Wing argument to be made that people shouldn't be "living in sin" at all. But that argument denies reality - people do have relationships outside of marriage. They always have had them. The Puritans had a very high illegitimate and "8-pound premie" birth rate. Relationships form for strange and often stupid reasons. Pronouncing them unacceptable doesn't really slow down the rate.
So the reality is, battered spouses in Ohio may be more susceptible to repeat beatings, and have the opportunity for support pulled out from under them. And their children.
My one hope is that it will help to speed the overturning of Ohio's dreadful amendment. (It will take a trip to the US Supreme Court for that to happen - Ohio's court system cannot overturn an Ohio Constitutional Amendment.) And that, in turn, this misguided attempt to "protect" marriage will serve as a warning for Congress.
