Judge: Ohio Gay Marriage Ban Affects Law

So now the religious rightwingers, in their zeal to legislate their hatred of gay people into civil law, have inadvertently made it far easier for straight couples to beat the crap out of each other and get away with it.

Talk about karma.


http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=608847

<snip>

By CONNIE MABIN Associated Press Writer
The Associated Press

CLEVELAND Mar 23, 2005 — Domestic violence charges cannot be filed against unmarried people because of Ohio's new constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, a judge ruled Wednesday.

Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Judge Stuart Friedman changed a felony domestic violence charge against Frederick Burk to a misdemeanor assault charge.

Prosecutors immediately appealed.

Judges and others across the country have been waiting for a ruling on how the gay marriage ban, among the nation's broadest, would affect Ohio's 25-year-old domestic violence law, which previously wasn't limited to married people.

Burk, 42, is accused of slapping and pushing his live-in girlfriend during a January argument over a pack of cigarettes.

His public defender, David Magee, had asked the judge to throw out the charge because of the new wording in Ohio's constitution that prohibits any state or local law that would "create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals."

Before the amendment, courts applied the domestic violence law by defining a family as including an unmarried couple living together as would a husband and wife, the judge said. The gay marriage amendment no longer allows that.

<snip>

... if it didnt invlove increased spousal abuse...

I hate the repukes...

because they would counter that "fornication is as much of a sin as homosexuality in the eyes of God... if they weren't living in sin, no one would be fighting over cigarettes".

To them, this is another added bonus for doing God's work. (/sarcasm)

it's amazing that professional politicians can be so goddamn ignorant!

in there -- they wanted to be sure that Benefits were not given to those in same-sex or heterosexual unmarried (civil union) relationships.


Ohio Legislature Votes to Ban Same-Sex Unions
By JAMES DAO

COLUMBUS, Ohio, Feb. 3 ? The Ohio Legislature gave final approval on Tuesday to one of the most sweeping bans on same-sex unions in the country, galvanized by court rulings in Canada and Massachusetts that have declared gay marriage to be legal.

The Ohio measure, which also would bar state agencies from giving benefits to both gay and heterosexual domestic partners, would make Ohio the 38th state to prohibit the recognition of same-sex unions. Gov. Bob Taft, a Republican, planned to sign it in the coming week, his office said.

In approving the measure, the Republican-controlled Legislature rejected concerns raised by some of the state's largest corporations and colleges, including Ohio State University, that the ban would hurt the state's business image and undermine their ability to recruit skilled workers.

Supporters of the bill, which passed overwhelmingly in the House but on a closer vote in the Senate, argued that the measure was not meant to be discriminatory, but reflected their conviction ? borne out by some polls ? that most people wanted marriage defined in the traditional sense: as between a man and a woman. That desire has intensified, they said, in the months since courts in Massachusetts and Canada ruled that gays should be allowed to marry.

more: http://www.theocracywatch.org/ohio_ban_times.htm

***
From League of Women Voters

STATE ISSUE 1 - PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT(Proposed by Initiative Petition)Adopted by the Ohio Ballot Board on Tuesday, August 17, 2004.Be it Resolved by the People of the State of Ohio: That the Constitution of the State of Ohio be amended by adopting a section to be designated as Section 11 of Article XV thereof, to read as follows:Article XV 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.A majority yes vote is necessary for passage. (The Secretary of State certified Issue 1 for the November ballot in order to meet the September 8th deadline. At the same time, the Secretary’s office acknowledged that legal challenges to the petitions continue in several counties and that the measure could ultimately be removed from the ballot if insufficient signatures are certified.)

LWVOhio Explanation: Concerns about a recent court decision in Massachusetts ordering that state to allow civil marriage between same-sex couples prompted this action. Petitioners intend to avoid such a decision in Ohio and prevent gay and lesbian couples from obtaining marriage benefits.

more: http://www.lwvcincinnati.org/voting/issue12004.html

Surprised? Women are the property of their husbands -- says so somewhere in the Old Testament. They want the legal right to beat their wives senseless if their eggs aren't cooked properly.

Welcome to the Dark Ages.

Her reply was that she didn't think anyone should be living together. That if they wanted recognition, then they should get married.

edit: sad to say this person was a democrat

sexuality -- which is what this whole issue is about -- albeit in a somewhat cloaked way.

Republicians will just toss the suits out of court and be done with it before they allow gay marriage.

but if I were a redneck republican daddy whose daughter is slapped around by her live-in boyfriend and she can't file suit... I'd be mighty pissed at the gop.

It just can't be called "domestic violence". Now it is just plain assault and battery. Probably a more severe crime anyway....

"Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Judge Stuart Friedman changed a felony domestic violence charge against Frederick Burk to a misdemeanor assault charge.'

The whole issue is that the Ohio courts will now treat domestic violence between unmarried partners as a less severe crime: a misdemeanor instead of a felony.

the courts to be overturned...

No charges filed until the victim of domestic violence actually dies.

The hatred continues to grow :grr:

CLEVELAND (AP) — A judge has stoked debate over Ohio's constitutional amendment banning gay marriage by ruling that it bars prosecutors from charging unmarried people with domestic violence.
Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Judge Stuart Friedman said his decision Wednesday changing a felony domestic violence charge against a Cleveland man to misdemeanor assault should apply only to that case.

Prosecutors accuse 42-year-old Frederick Burk of slapping and pushing his live-in girlfriend during a January argument over a pack of cigarettes. But the state can't charge him with domestic violence since the two aren't married, Friedman ruled.

Prosecutors immediately appealed...


http://www.cleveland.com/newsflash/cleveland/index.ssf?/base/news-16/111163136543070.xml&storylist=cleveland

but why can't assault or battery charges be filed?

I'm not familiar with this area of law; however, I can't think of any situation where hitting someone is legal -- spouse or not.

indicate a recognition for the "legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals"? Are the courts now forced to deny reality- that two unmarried people are actually living with each other??? In this specific case they say this changes the charge from a felony(as a repeat offender of domestic violence) to a misdemeanor. So now it's okay to repeat the offense of assault and battery without it becoming a felony?

no legal status. Therefore, the courts are ruling that the prior domestic abuse laws are null and void if you are not married.

http://www.cafepress.com/liberalissues.14744291

A whole set of laws surround domestic violence. The victim doesn't have to make the charge, the state makes it now. In cases where the state made the charge, the victim will either have to step up or they'll all be dropped. Huge step backwards. If I understand correctly.

Oh, the irony. Ohio voters thought they were protecting themselves from us marryin' gays, when in fact they actually voted to undermine their state's domestic violence laws. They hurt themselves more than us. Which makes me think: the right wingers will f*ck around with this country's laws until the country is broken. And they won't be able to put it back together again. <sigh>

http://www.newsnet5.com/news/4311155/detail.html

Judge: Ohio Domestic Violence Law Only Applies To Married Couples
Judge Reduces Felony Charge To Assault, Citing Issue 1

CLEVELAND -- A judge's ruling could lead to the repeal of Ohio's constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.

NewsChannel5 reported that a Cuyahoga County judge Wednesday reduced a domestic violence charge against a man accused of attacking his live-in girlfriend, saying the law only applies to married couples under the new amendment.

<snip>

Last fall, Ohio voters passed Issue 1, a constitutional amendment that forbids the state to grant legal status to relationships of unmarried individuals like Burk and his girl friend.

Friedman ruled Ohio's domestic violence charge applies only to married individuals because of Issue 1.

Prosecutors say future domestic violence cases are in jeopardy because of this ruling.

<more>

If domestic violence charges to dot apply to live in boyfriends/girlfriends, the more serious charge of domestic violence will also not apply to the children (if not biological) as well. So if boyfriend is allowed to batter girlfriend and not be charged with domestic violence, same can be said if/when he batters the girlfriends children (if they are not his biological children).

Additionally, domestic violence charges, if found guilty, result in peace officers losing their right to carry a weapon in the State of Ohio. So, if a peace officer batters a live in girlfriend/boyfriend, the peace officer will not lose his right to carry a weapon, but the married cop would be charged with domestic violence for the crime, and if found guilty lose the right to carry a weapon in Ohio.

I live in Ohio, and was shamed to the core by the passage of this bill.

However, the only way to challenge these hate laws is to point out how they affect ALL people, and to see their impact in action.

assault and battery? would that also lead to their loss of weapon? especialyl with the children. I'm not married, but if I punch my girlfriend, can't she just file charges for assault?

...and I approve of these bruises."

http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/1111746681181900.xml For the second time in two days, a judge has ruled that part of Ohio's law against domestic violence became unconstitutional when voters approved a constitutional amendment that bars legal recognition of unmarried and gay couples.

Cleveland Municipal Judge Lauren C. Moore ruled Thursday that a man accused of backhanding his girlfriend could not be charged with domestic violence because the amended constitution forbids giving legal status to unmarried couples, in opposition to the domestic violence law, which requires giving legal status to people living as spouses
Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Judge Stuart Friedman on Wednesday reduced a felony domestic violence charge to a misdemeanor assault, saying the new amendment, known as Issue 1 on the November ballot, contradicts the domestic violence law.

Friedman and Moore contend that the statute's "person living as a spouse" language is in direct contradiction to the new law that prohibits giving unmarried couples legal status that approximates the "qualities, significance or effect of marriage."

on trial for tying up a woman, duct taping her (in restraint), dragging her across the room to the bedroom (don't remember if that was before or after the duct tape) -- and was acquitted of rape even though it was on video tape. Reason? He was her husband.

I'm sorry I don't have a link -- we talked about it at length in a college class I was taking when I was getting my masters. It happened during the time of the class (wasn't an old case). I think it was in Kentucky or Tennessee, but I could be wrong.

I doubt its the far-right who have fought for domestic violence laws.

I truly wonder whether this will concern the far-right, fundy types who've fought against gay marriage rights. They probably think it's just dandy, and too bad if someone gets hurt -- they shouldn't be living together anyway.

rest of their agenda. In order to preserve the "sanctity of marriage," the struggle had to start somewhere, so it started at the weakest link: gay rights. In some states it has already moved on to mandatory counseling for married couples contemplating divorce, and the line will lead to making divorce into an issue like "partial-birth abortion," which surely no decent, God-fearing, married couples would approve of.

From there the movement can press for enforcement of ancient laws against adultery and perhaps giving it felony status. Or maybe adulterers can be put in public stocks and subject to shame and ridicule. Patricia Field may come out with a whole line of embroidered A's to complement any type of outfit.

Kidding aside, the DOMA and anti-gay-marriage amendments are just a foot in the door that opens onto a pseudo-religious, troglodytic abyss.

And hopefully everyone will still be punished by assault etc.

http://www.365gay.com/newscon05/03/032505ohioUpdt.htm

A second Ohio judge has ruled that the state's constitutional ban on same-sex marriage means a law against domestic violence cannot be enforced unless the perpetrator and the victim are married.

It is the second time in two days that the ban has been used to have domestic violence charges in heterosexual relationships rejected.

In the latest case a Cleveland judge said that a man who beat his live-in girlfriend could not be charged because of the provision in the amendment that says the state cannot grant legal status to unmarried people living as spouses.

I find this very amusing to say the least. =) This is going to be fun to watch for damn sure.

you consider the horrible fallout this will have on too many domestic abuse cases. The current cases will be thrown out if the parties are unmarried, and I believe abuse incidents will rise when it's understood that they can't be punished for it.

If these rulings continue it will provoke an anti-amendment movement to support the gay rights movement. =)

but as an almost-lifelong Clevelander, and knowing the mentality of Ohio's "lawmakers", I'm really starting to think that such consequences was their intention all along. Especially considering how broad and vaguely worded the statute was in the first place. Even those who wanted it to pass were concerned about its wording and how broadly it could be interpreted. But that may just have been the hidden idea behind it in the first place.

as opposed to the felony which he would have been charged with before the same-sex marriage ban.

Maybe people shouldn't have been so quick to deny rights to citizens. When you try and oppress one minority, you are really just oppressing yourself. I hope this teaches those who can think a good lesson about denying American's their rights.

the same piece of legislation ...who knew?!

NSMA, you sure do have a way of tying it all together for us!

Time to dust off the old feminist banners that have been in the attics, basements, and garages for 30 years. If women aren't seen as human beings entitled to respect and all human rights, gay people can't be either. This is an old story, IMHO, and passing the ERA would have prevented this whole sorry episode.

for allowing the law to become far more lenient on domestic abuse cases.

Anytime any rightwinger brings up a "ban" on gay marriage, this should get thrown right back at them.

Those women should have been more subservient to their menfolk, or not have burned dinner, or let the crying baby interrupt NASCAR. If those evil women would have just been good, the man wouldn't have had to beat them!

Domestic Abuse. That can include those living together domestically. He is clearly wrong in this case.

For many years, most places didn't define domestic abuse so that unmarried couples were included. (A good point to remember when you're looking at DV statistics.) Perhaps that was the case in Ohio?

But in any case, this guy is a prick who (a) doesn't have much grasp on the issue of domestic violence and (b) is probably a tool for the women- and gay-hating Reich Wing.

>>(3) "Family or household member" means any of the following:

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

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

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

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

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

http://onlinedocs.andersonpublishing.com/oh/lpExt.dll?f=templates&fn=main-h.htm&cp=PORC

The only way a legally unrelated adult can fall into the domestic violence statues is pursuant to the "person living as a spouse, or former spouse," "parent or child of . . . a person living as a spouse" or the "natural parent of any child of whom the respondent is the other natural parent..." categories.

Ohio's domestic violence law, with respect to unrelated adults, is explicitly based on living as a spouse - which is exactly what the new constitutional amendment prohibits state acknowledgment of.

They've always longed to a return the simpler days anyway. When there was nothing wrong with a man slapping his wife around a bit when she needed it.

from the farce election. Didnt they have some 400% all pro* voter turnout?

Ohio is the new Florida, though Florida is still clinging to life.