Ban on gay marriage ends domestic violence (not really!)
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.
John Martin, who supervises appeals in the public defender's office, said the office was pleased with the ruling but would not comment further because of the appeal.
Because Burk had a prior domestic violence conviction, the latest charge was a felony that could have resulted in an 18-month jail term; a misdemeanor assault carries a maximum sentence of six months.
"This case is a good example of why we need a domestic violence law. A misdemeanor assault doesn't carry with it a significant enough penalty for repeat domestic violence abusers," said Matt Meyer, an assistant Cuyahoga County prosecutor.
Some opponents of the amendment have said they hope the conflict over the domestic violence law would result in the gay marriage ban being repealed.
Seventeen states have constitutional language defining marriage as between a man and a woman. Ohio's is regarded as the broadest marriage amendment of those passed by 11 states Nov. 2 because it bans civil unions and legal status to all unmarried couples and gay marriages.
Let gay people get married already. This is absurd.
We should just do away with 'marriage' as a government sanctioned institution. Define some new 'quasi-family bond' that applies in particular circumstances, as needed. So, roommates, gays, heteros, whatever, you're all 'bonded'. "Marriage" stops being a government function at all and becomes wholly religious.
Permalink • Posted in: news, 2004 election • Comments (1)
Loading preview...
Comments:
Parmeter Mar 25, 2005
If only we would let it be so simple. Marriage in its modern sense is very much a religious institution and beholden to religious ideals. As the orthodoxy-religious become more shrill in their cries, be aware that everything they consider in their "territory" will be defended with more and more zeal until it is either broken by them or ignored by everybody else.
On the whole, taking Marriage out of government hands does leave us with legal holes to fill in. How does one decide custory of children? How does one determine the ownership of shared property? The scopes of these questions should illustrate the extent to which our society is dependant upon the idea of a "legal" marriage. If it is taken out, something must be put in its spot to address these and countless other questions.
The best solution I have heard thus far has been a Libertarian one (and I might add, one borrowed from Heinlein). Make it a contract and nothing more. Counties and States can come up with their own standard form for such a thing, but must allow those who want their own arrangements to do so. It would have to be registered to the state in some way. Mostly to make it binding, but also to make sure that should a dispute occur, it can be adjudicated properly. By its very nature it would cover the questions of custory and shared property and all of the other things we think of when it comes to legal marriage.
The best part is that, since it is a contract, one could not limit under current law the parties involved except by age. Two men want to enjoin into this contact? Sure! Three women and two men? Why not! The more traditional man and woman would likewise be equally welcome. And best of all it would take the religious aspect of the current legal regime and remove it.