Ohio gay marriage amendment used in unintentional ways

[Derek Meister]

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

The constitutional amendment took effect on December first. It 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. The attorneys in the two cases argue 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. They fear defense attorneys around the state will copy the tactic used in Cuyahoga County.

Of course, the the victim could still press charges for assault even if this defense works, but it would curtail the ability of a third party, usually the state, to press charges even if the victim refuses.

[Pace]

Hm. So when you legislate religion, the flaws in said doctrine start to present themselves. Who'da thunk it?

[Guido Jones]

Reap what you sow, and all that jazz.

[mouselock]

Somehow I'm betting the people living in conjugal sin aren't really the ones who turned out to sow the policy that they're reaping.

[MikeTwain]

Hm. So when you legislate religion, the flaws in said doctrine start to present themselves. Who'da thunk it?

The same faulty and moronic argument could be used for slavery. Many of those opposed to slavery opposed it on religious grounds. The question of whether a policy has merit needs to be considered outside of the question of the motivations of those that support it. Plenty of non-religious people support these efforts and plenty of religious people do too. Plenty of non-religious people are opposed to these efforts and plenty of religious people are too. I just don't understand why you guys can't talk about these issues on the merits rather than treating everything like it's smack talk in an FPS.

:roll:

[Pace]

Hm. So because the issue of slavery (the non-consentual ownership of one human being by another) can be objected to on religious grounds, legislating religion, as in the case of Gay Marriage (the consentual civil union of two homosexual individuals) is always valid?

Fair enough. Let me try another one:

When you refuse to grant rights to a subset of people, whatever your motivations, the rights of all people are placed in jeopardy.

[Euri]

Hm. So when you legislate religion, the flaws in said doctrine start to present themselves. Who'da thunk it?

NOT ME, THAT'S FOR SURE.

[Pace]

Regardless, the situation is sickening.

Because a nation of Joe-Bobs can't stand the fact that two male lovers might qualify for joint health insurance, men who beat up the women they claim to love are possibly able to get away with it.

Sometimes I think we heteros shouldn't be allowed to marry, either.

[MikeTwain]

Hm. So because the issue of slavery (the non-consentual ownership of one human being by another) can be objected to on religious grounds, legislating religion, as in the case of Gay Marriage (the consentual civil union of two homosexual individuals) is never a valid argument?

Fair enough. Let me try another one:

When you refuse to grant rights to a subset of people, whatever your motivations, the rights of all people are placed in jeopardy.

If you're determined to believe that objecting to homosexual marriage has to be a case of "legislating religion" then I probably won't be able to get you to admit your argument is shoddy.

You see, just because you don't like some of the people that hold a certain position and just because they hold it for religious reasons cannot possibly be used as an argument to suggest that this is an attempt to "legislate religion."

Nationalreview.com has posted this kind of argument a number of times. Their arguments are usually based on the societal impact of homosexual marriage. Many of these people do not believe for one second that homosexuality is immoral and are simply not religious, but that doesn't stop them from believing that homosexual marriage is a bad idea.

It's the same as any other topic. What about the people that oppose the Iraq war on religious grounds? By attempting to stop the war are they "legislating religion?"

As for your second dumb argument, I'm just thankful that the framers of the constitution and the courts have never held such an absurdly vague and over-general understanding of what endows us with rights. I'd have the "right" to reformat your hard drive and you'd have the right to cut down trees in my yard.

Because after all, once you start "refusing to grant rights" you're in deep trouble right?



:roll:

[MikeTwain]

Sometimes I think we heteros shouldn't be allowed to marry, either.

This is priceless. One minute you're loudly proclaiming how we can't possibly "refuse to grant rights" and the next minute you're obnoxiously claiming that nobody should be allowed to marry.

This is just so typical of liberals. You guys want people to have every right that you want them to have unless it's one you don't want them to have or until you change your minds.

Whatever dude.

[Jamie Madigan]

I would like to hear a summary of any argument(s) against gay marriage that make sense and are not ultimately founded in religion. Seriously. I've never heard one but I'm willing to listen.

[Euri]

Sometimes I think we heteros shouldn't be allowed to marry, either.

This is priceless. One minute you're loudly proclaiming how we can't possibly "refuse to grant rights" and the next minute you're obnoxiously claiming that nobody should be allowed to marry.

This is just so typical of liberals. You guys want people to have every right that you want them to have unless it's one you don't want them to have or until you change your minds.

Whatever dude.

Way to fly off the handle at a little hyperbole! Maybe you should calm down, think clearly, and understand that Liberals are simply correct and this is painful for you. Legislating away civil liberties is *always* a bad thing.

[Andrew Mayer]

This is just so typical of liberals. You guys want people to have every right that you want them to have unless it's one you don't want them to have or until you change your minds.

Gibber Gibber, Liberal!, gibber gibber.

Whatever dude.

The moment you've moved the definiton of marriage to a state sanctioned "right" you lost the debate...

[MikeTwain]

Mitt Romney:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110004647

Salon Article about Michael Warner, a gay activist that doesn't think Gay Marriage is a good idea:

http://archive.salon.com/books/feature/1999/12/08/warner/index1.html

[MikeTwain]

The moment you've moved the definiton of marriage to a state sanctioned "right" you lost the debate...

Sorry Pace, Andrew Mayer says you lost the debate.

[Pace]

Sometimes I think we heteros shouldn't be allowed to marry, either.

This is priceless. One minute you're loudly proclaiming how we can't possibly "refuse to grant rights" and the next minute you're obnoxiously claiming that nobody should be allowed to marry.

This is just so typical of liberals. You guys want people to have every right that you want them to have unless it's one you don't want them to have or until you change your minds.

Whatever dude.

Cool. You sure drubbed my obviously hyperbolic throwaway statement. Nicely done!

I've not seen a compelling non-religious argument for banning homosexual marriage. That, coupled with the fact that our president (the chief proponent of said ban) has stated on numerous occasions that he's doing the good work for the beardy man in the sky, leads me to believe it's religious legislation.

Slavery had some quite compelling arguments against it outside of a religious framework. In fact, slavery is condoned in the religious texts of the dominant religion of the time in our country (and still is today). So I'd say that legislating against it was legislating outside of a religious framework.

As for your second dumb argument, I'm just thankful that the framers of the constitution and the courts have never held such an absurdly vague and over-general understanding of what endows us with rights. I'd have the "right" to reformat your hard drive and you'd have the right to cut down trees in my yard.

So you're saying that the limitations placed on the rights of gay couples AREN'T causing a loss of rights for other people? Turns out, that's the topic of discussion. Unless you feel it's not a person's right to be safe from physical violence.

[Pace]

The moment you've moved the definiton of marriage to a state sanctioned "right" you lost the debate...

Sorry Pace, Andrew Mayer says you lost the debate.

He's wrong. I'm used to that.

[Derek Meister]

men who beat up the women they claim to love are possibly able to get away with it.

Odd that you see this as something that would only benefit men.

Anyway, note that this defense if successful only makes it impossible for the state to charge a person with assault regardless of the wishes of the person assaulted. There's nothing to prevent the victim from pressing assault charges.

Also, since the Ohio domestic assault laws appear to apply to unmarried family members living in the same house, such as parents and children, the domestic abuse laws probably won't be overturned because they don't explicitly give married couple rights to everyone.

[Pace]

Odd that you see this as something that would only benefit men.

You're right. I was considering the article in question. Sorry. It allows people to beat the crap out of other people that they supposedly love. Regardless, no one "benefits". I'm more concerned with the parties being abused.

Anyway, note that this defense if successful only makes it impossible for the state to charge a person with assault regardless of the wishes of the person assaulted. There's nothing to prevent the victim from pressing assault charges.

There's a good reason for the state being able to press these charges. Are you claiming that domestic violence is okay if the victim doesn't press charges? A frightened person under threat of violence can't always be expected to stand up for themselves. They should, but they don't.

Also, since the Ohio domestic assault laws appear to apply to unmarried family members living in the same house, such as parents and children, the domestic abuse laws probably won't be overturned because they don't explicitly give married couple rights to everyone.

The wording here is unclear, but the way I'm reading it, it looks like your talking about it applying to immediate family other than a spouse. This definition doesn't include common-law spouses, or live-in girlfriends, etc. If the actual definition does include those situations, then I'll concede the point.

[Andrew Mayer]

The moment you've moved the definiton of marriage to a state sanctioned "right" you lost the debate...

Sorry Pace, Andrew Mayer says you lost the debate.

Clarification:

You've lost the ability to argue that it should be denied to a class of citizens by discrimination.

Note that this does not apply universally to support or "insurance" services provided by your government, though it may in some specific cases.

[Derek Meister]

There's a good reason for the state being able to press these charges. Are you claiming that domestic violence is okay if the victim doesn't press charges? A frightened person under threat of violence can't always be expected to stand up for themselves. They should, but they don't.

That's a tough one to answer because the sprectrum of unique situations that are covered by such a law is pretty wide open. I feel for the person who's so controlled by the violence of another that they fear for their lives if they report the abuse. At the same time what do you say to those people for whom they truely don't want the government involved in their argument?

Not every domestic abuse call is about an abusive husband/father/boyfriend who's constantly beating up on his wife/daughter/girfriend. There are situations in which two people get into a single very heated argument and exchange a slap or a shove, but live in an otherwise well-adjusted loving relationship.

The problem with the current version of the domestic violence law is also it's biggest benefit, in that it allows third parties to press charges against the supposed assailant, regardless of the wishes of the victim. And that third party doesn't have to be the state or local police. It could be any random person who believes that black eye your girlfriend has just had to come from that argument you had tonight. And by law, the police have to arrest and charge you regardless of what your girlfriend says.

Of course, the Ohio domestic violence laws don't just cover couples, parents or children. If you have friends or roommates living in your house for any length of time, it covers them as well.

It certainly doesn't help that being convicted of even the slightest domestic abuse in Ohio loses you a number of rights that few other crimes outside of sexual assault will cause.

So, yeah, I'm conflicted on the law. I understand the benefits, but I also see some significant weaknesses as well. There's no perfect "fit all sizes" solution here.

The wording here is unclear, but the way I'm reading it, it looks like your talking about it applying to immediate family other than a spouse. This definition doesn't include common-law spouses, or live-in girlfriends, etc. If the actual definition does include those situations, then I'll concede the point.

"Domestic violence" means abuse committed against an adult or a minor who is a spouse, former spouse, cohabitant, former cohabitant, or person with whom the suspect has had a child or is having or has had a dating or engagement relationship. For purposes of this subdivision, "cohabitant" means two unrelated adult persons living together for a substantial period of time, resulting in some permanency of relationship. Factors that may determine whether persons are cohabiting include, but are not limited to, (1) sexual relations between the parties while sharing the same living quarters, (2) sharing of income or expenses, (3) joint use or ownership of property, (4) whether the parties hold themselves out as husband and wife, (5) the continuity of the relationship, and (6) the length of the relationship.

Basically, the argument goes that because the domestic violence laws offer rights to people not normally considered the equivalent of a married couple in addition to those that are, it doesn't conflict with the gay marriage amendment. If the domestic violence laws only covered couples having a relationship, it would probably fail under the amendment.

[Pace]

The moment you've moved the definiton of marriage to a state sanctioned "right" you lost the debate...

Sorry Pace, Andrew Mayer says you lost the debate.

Clarification:

You've lost the ability to argue that it should be denied to a class of citizens by discrimination.

Note that this does not apply universally to support or "insurance" services provided by your government, though it may in some specific cases.

So you're saying that by making marriage "rights" something that the state grants to people (civil unions), the lawmakers lose the ability to discriminate based on sexual orientation? I most definitely agree with that. That's what all this hoo-hah about equal rights is, in fact, about.

So, guys, let's bring a hypothetical situation into play: Let's say it's not homosexuals. Let's say someone put a law on the books that said a black man marrying a black woman (or a black person marrying a white person), is not a legally recognized marriage, because beardy men in the sky said so, or really for whatever reason you like. Would that be kosher? Because I can apply most of the same arguments I've seen fielded against gay marriage to that situation.

If it's a holy union of souls, only holy people should be able to enter into it. If it's a government-granted union, then equal opportunity laws should apply. All of this, though, is background noise.

The fact is, an ill-considered law born out of bigotry (prove me wrong...) apparently has the side effect of destroying decades of effort towards decreasing domestic violence. Honestly, I can't believe anyone is coming out in defense of this law.

[Pace]

Thanks for the clarification, Derek. I'll concede the point on the protection of the law, and with this new information, feel this should be an open-and-shut defense.

However, with regards to your "single heated argument" and government involvement in it, I have to say, if the argument is heated enough to warrant a domestic abuse charge, then I'm going to say the relationship isn't very loving at all.

I have arguments with my wife. We even yell at each other. That's a normal part of any relationship, especially nowadays, and if you can't tell, I love a spirited argument as much as anyone. That said, violence is never an issue. It's just not an option, and the moment it becomes one is the moment that yout prove yourself too immature to have that sort of relationship with another person. I realize this is not everyone's point of view, but the alternative is saying that domestic violence is sometimes okay, if only "just this once", which is exactly the mindset that leads to unreported domestic violence cases, histories of abuse, and the cycle of violence that not only permeates, but dominates our culture.

Perhaps it's just the group of people I hang out with, but everyone I know has been in an abusive relationship. Whether it's parental or intimate or whatever, and it's something that I feel a majority of people can relate to on one level or another. To validate violence in any situation is, to me, the same as validating it in every situation.

[Anders Hallin]

This is priceless. One minute you're loudly proclaiming how we can't possibly "refuse to grant rights" and the next minute you're obnoxiously claiming that nobody should be allowed to marry.

This is just so typical of liberals. You guys want people to have every right that you want them to have unless it's one you don't want them to have or until you change your minds.

Whatever dude.
If no one can do it, then it's obviously not a right, since the state (no matter the romantic hyperbole on the subject) bestows rights upon its citizens. If it bestows a right upon one part of the population and refuses it for another, however, then it is engaging in discrimination and belittles the cohabitation of two individuals when there is no reason to do so.

[Anders Hallin]

Also, since the Ohio domestic assault laws appear to apply to unmarried family members living in the same house, such as parents and children, the domestic abuse laws probably won't be overturned because they don't explicitly give married couple rights to everyone.
Okay, found the relevant laws on the matter.
The amendment:
Section 11. 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.
Domestic violence (2919:25 of Ohio law):
(A) No person shall knowingly cause or attempt to cause physical harm to a family or household member.

(B) No person shall recklessly cause serious physical harm to a family or household member.

(C) No person, by threat of force, shall knowingly cause a family or household member to believe that the offender will cause imminent physical harm to the family or household member.

(D) (1) Whoever violates this section is guilty of domestic violence. [...]
Now, "household member" may seem to encompass everyone, however..
(1) "Family or household member" means any of the following:

(a) Any of the following who is residing or has resided with the offender:

(i) A spouse, a person living as a spouse, or a former spouse of the offender;

(ii) A parent or a child of the offender, or another person related by consanguinity or affinity to the offender;

(iii) A parent or a child of a spouse, person living as a spouse, or former spouse of the offender, or another person related by consanguinity or affinity to a spouse, person living as a spouse, or former spouse of the offender.

(b) The natural parent of any child of whom the offender is the other natural parent or is the putative other natural parent.

(2) "Person living as a spouse" means a person who is living or has lived with the offender in a common law marital relationship, who otherwise is cohabiting with the offender, or who otherwise has cohabited with the offender within five years prior to the date of the alleged commission of the act in question.
I'm really not sure how to read that last sentence. I mean, it could work out, but it could also be seen as recognising a legal status approximating that of marriage. I kind of trust the courts will be reasonable, though.

[shift6]

I would like to hear a summary of any argument(s) against gay marriage that make sense and are not ultimately founded in religion. Seriously. I've never heard one but I'm willing to listen.
Because society at large is not ready for it.

[Pace]

I would like to hear a summary of any argument(s) against gay marriage that make sense and are not ultimately founded in religion. Seriously. I've never heard one but I'm willing to listen.
Because society at large is not ready for it.

Society is not ready for it because the leaders of the prevalent religions stunt our social, emotional, and intellectual growth. But I suppose that isn't really happening. Why isn't society ready for it?

Moreover, why aren't religions ready for it. From a invisible-beardy-man standpoint, does gay marriage cause the damnation of anyone but the two people involved in it (if them)? Why is it so important to deny homosexuals something that other people take for granted?

[shift6]

Pace, I don't pretend to have the answers to society's ills. If I did, 'I'd be a famous blogger by now! :P

I was simply suggesting a possible answer to Thrrrpt's question. Hell, ancient Rome certainly didn't have this Bush-voting base of activist Christians running their society (as they were being actively persecuted most of the time) and Rome didn't have homosexual marriage either, although they had much more than a socially acceptable wink-and-nod for homosexual relations.

[Guido Jones]

Somehow I'm betting the people living in conjugal sin aren't really the ones who turned out to sow the policy that they're reaping.

They probably didn't turn out at all, but neither of us really knows either way.

[extarbags]

I would like to hear a summary of any argument(s) against gay marriage that make sense and are not ultimately founded in religion. Seriously. I've never heard one but I'm willing to listen.
Because society at large is not ready for it.

Society is not ready for it because the leaders of the prevalent religions stunt our social, emotional, and intellectual growth. But I suppose that isn't really happening. Why isn't society ready for it?

Moreover, why aren't religions ready for it. From a invisible-beardy-man standpoint, does gay marriage cause the damnation of anyone but the two people involved in it (if them)? Why is it so important to deny homosexuals something that other people take for granted?

Because in America, we hate minorities. But it's not ok to make laws against black people anymore, so we've moved on.

[Matthew Gallant]

Also, we hate the blacks by proxy through hating the French, because blacks have francotastic names like LaMont and LeBron.