Taking one on the chin

[zoethe]

Lawyers 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.

Comments

[veiledpaperdoll.livejournal.com]

I'm glad Jesus taught me that 'sinners' should be stoned and persecuted, and yes, even beaten and abused, because otherwise this would seem just plain wrong.


ugh.


*sticks head back in sand*

[dagrrl.livejournal.com]

I don't see where that would benefit ANYONE except for the person who did the beating as well as his lawyer.

Domestic is live-in. Marriage shouldn't be an issue. You know that, though - it IS your rant, after all. How freaking absurd.

[zoethe.livejournal.com]

The Ohio Marriage Protection Amendment reads as follows:

Only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this state and its political subdivisions. This 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.

So any protection that would be considered as creating a legal status for relationships of unmarried persons is technically no longer constitutional.

I'm not surprised that the first cases occurred in Cuyahoga County. We are the bastion of liberalism in this state, and the challenge to this amendment was almost certainly going to come from here.

[dagrrl.livejournal.com]

So Ohio doesn't recognize common law marriages? What about common law marriages that occur out of state? From what I remember from my domestic law class, doesn't a state have to recgonize a marriage formed in another state, common law or formalized? Perhaps I don't remember right, but this sounds like more trouble than whatever they were trying to accomplish when they wrote that.
Speaking of, were they even trying to accomplish anything? Or is this a conservative push on the general public to legally formalize marriage?

Either way, that seems like a lot of questions to ask a woman with a black eye and bloody nose: "Ma'am, are you two legally married? In the state of Ohio, right? Can I see your marriage license?"

[zoethe.livejournal.com]

Ohio doesn't recognize common law marriages anymore, though common law marriages that predate the statute prohibiting their legal recognition (1982 or thereabouts) are still recognized.

Common law marriages are strange legal fictions. I'm not sure that a relationship begun in another state would be recognized as a common law marriage here unless there was some legal proceeding that established it to be so in that state.

As far as the reason behind the law, it was billed as Ohio's anti-gay marriage amendment but is so far over-reaching that I'm still stunned it passed.

[dagrrl.livejournal.com]

That was my guess (the why). How sad that certain lawmakers feel the need to push their beliefs onto the people that way, and it's even sadder that people either thought this needed to be signed in or that didn't do the research to understand the full consequences of such a thing passing.

[sneakingyoda.livejournal.com]

Ew. Just... yuck. Screwtape is smiling.

[longtimegone]

I read about this on pegkerr's LJ yesterday and was just as disgusted then too. *headdesk* WTF, mate?

[gailg.livejournal.com]

This is ironic, since before DV legislation, it was easier for non-married victims to get protection from abusers because abuse was a husband's right. I was reading the Model Criminal Code (or whatever it's called--I don't have time now to look it up) fairly recently and noticed that the definition of rape excluded assault by a husband on his wife.

[dreagoddess.livejournal.com]

Luckily, the Model Penal Code in its entirety isn't the law *anywhere* to my knowledge -- it's just the basis most states use to start from. I can't speak for other states, but in Texas the language "including a person's spouse" is specifically included in the definition of assault. The only "marriage exception" for sexual assault is in a presumption of non-consensual, which states that lack of consent is presumed if one party is an employee at a facility at which the other is a resident, unless they're married.

[hookncrook.livejournal.com]

In New Mexico (until a few years ago) it was illegal to say your husband raped you--since marriage was defined as a sexual relation--well you had just better give it up baby when the MAN wanted it.

Later they saw how stupid it was so they allow a wife to bring rape charges against her husband, but if you are proven false in your claims (and really look how hard it is to prosecute rape even with a date rape, much less a marriage), the district attorney automatically has to put in a defilmation of character charge against you for false procecution... So howmany marital rapes do you think get procecuted in NM?

The entire sanctity of marriage has never flown with me as a reason to deny domestic partners anything... but recently I heard a Republican bitching about offering partner coverage in our county and they pointed out domestic partners could be anyone you are living with sexually or non-sexually!

I thought -- "Oh no, that means like your sister, or your roomate or anyone living with you could get Health Insurance you pay for with your salary! The Horror! More people covered for insurnace and health care... What is America coming to when just anyone living with you can be covered."

[lordindra.livejournal.com]

As bad as this is, the defense attorneys job is to keep their client out of jail, or if that isn't possible, to minimize the punishment. Without defense attorneys using every legal tool at their disposal, the system would break down.

[zoethe.livejournal.com]

I'm not faulting the defense attorneys in the least. Only the stupidity of the amendment.

[(Anonymous)]

It is quite clear what the amendment was intended to do. Barring a judge like Former judge Tubbs-Jones, as much as it pains me to do so, I have to agree with Prosecutor Mason, who, though not the brightest attorney in the County, is right this time.

[zoethe.livejournal.com]

No, it's NOT clear what the amendment was supposed to do. It's quite clear that its promulgators were against gay marriage, but it was written with such a broad stroke that it takes in a whole slew of other relationships.

Excusing bad laws with, "yeah, but you know what they meant" does not solve the problem.

[zero-design.livejournal.com]

"We will protect you from your own sinfullness. Even if it means we have to make sure that sinfullness gets beat out of you. Until you are dead."
-motto of the Spanish Inquisition... and modern american governing bodies?

[apostate-96.livejournal.com]

There's also the aspect of making people free up the funding necessary to broaden this protection to cover those it should and not just those who can't be squeezed out of the loophole. Money has often made for apparently ridiculous rules or legislation. It also takes a twisted mind to look at a proposed amendment before it's passed and figure out how it might be corrupted and perverted to cause harm. That's not something that everyone can do, especially if they're trying to focus on being positive and protective of others.

[zoethe.livejournal.com]

Except the marriage amendment bill was specifically designed to strip rights. Read the text. Even our two Republican Senators were campaigning against it.

[ccr1138.livejournal.com]

I don't think domestic violence should be punished more severely than assault and battery. I don't think hate crimes should be punished more severely than others. I think a crime should have a set punishment, period, regardless of its motivation. If I murder someone for $2 or because he's gay, it's still murder. So, while I don't want to get into the argument of whether or not people living in sin deserve less consideration (of course they do) in certain situations than married couples, I don't see how "battered spouses in Ohio may be more susceptible to repeat beatings..." Somebody beats you, they should go to jail. Period. Doesn't matter if they're a stranger, a POSSLQ, or a spouse.

[zoethe.livejournal.com]

DV laws offer more immediate protections against what is more likely to be a repeat offender, whereas regular assault and battery laws are meant for the guy in a bar who throws a punch at you. They aren't the same kind of crime.

[adjust-56.livejournal.com]

so tell me, what are we trying to promote in Iraq? Freedom.... like this? God helpe.....

[zero-design.livejournal.com]

Bolt in the sky thought:

I wonder if the car rental company I book for's Additional Driver Policy is unconstitutional in Ohio - we make no sexual distinction where the concept of spouses are concerned...