The pro-domestic violence amendment

By: Rob
Published On: 7/17/2006 7:50:58 PM

The damaging baggage of the anti-marriage equality amendment (pay link):

They may not realize it yet, but cultural conservatives got some bad news in Ohio. Late in April the state Supreme Court agreed to hear Ohio v. Carswell, a case that asks whether the state's recent Marriage Amendment nullifies the legal protections currently afforded unmarried
victims of domestic abuse. 

Virtually no matter the court's answer, cultural conservatives will lose, setting back efforts in Ohio and elsewhere to pass and enforce
anti-gay-marriage amendments, as well as the broader national project of which they're a part-the push to make the law an annex of traditional morality.

Virginia residents should find the case particularly interesting. Ohio's constitutional amendment, passed in November 2004, is considered one of the harshest because, in addition to banning same-sex marriage, it also bars state recognition of any legal status between unmarried individuals that smells like marriage. Virginia's proposed amendment, on the ballot this fall, sweeps just as broadly.

Full article available here.

Comments



Bu..bu...but...the Virginia Attorney General disagrees! (Bubby - 7/17/2006 11:50:01 PM)
Attorney General, Bob McDonnell sez:
The official explanation of the Amendment passed by the General Assembly, upon the advice of this office, as required by law, states clearly that the ordinary civil rights of unmarried persons will not be affected by this Amendment. I strongly support the passage of the Amendment.  6/15/2006- VaConservative Blog

And he should know because AG Bob is a graduate of one of the semi-top law schools in America - Mr. Robertson's University...Regent University School of Law.



Why thanks, Bubby! (I.Publius - 7/18/2006 9:49:46 AM)
Your astute legal opinion is so much more valid than the Attorney General's!  Thanks so much for enlightening us.

LMAO!!



Well, reason be damned (RayH - 7/18/2006 10:42:14 AM)
Looks like we're in one of them damned if ye do, damned if ye don't things on this business of legislating marriage. Damn.


Reasonable (seveneasypeaces - 7/18/2006 10:47:44 AM)
All Love is Divine


According to what theology (I.Publius - 7/18/2006 11:58:47 AM)
do you make such a claim?

All love?  I suppose one could fabricate a warped notion of divinity in order to make that work.



All Love is Divine (RayH - 7/18/2006 12:56:46 PM)
Actually, I'm glad Seveneasypieces made that statement; it caused me to reconsider my cynical comment, and to think about the nature of love. In doing so, I went back to the New Testament, and read 1 John 4:7-21. I also began to think about humanitarian love, born out in tireless work from teachers, care-givers and mentors I have known- with all their foibles and faults- who have given more to the world than they took from it.

Love transcends politics, and that which is Divine is beyond the scope of a political blog like this. But I'm grateful for the reminder.



Loverly (seveneasypeaces - 7/18/2006 2:24:23 PM)
I was going to comment on the "theology" question but you have done such a beautiful job I won't change the energy.  RayH you got it and shared it, thanks!


Deliberate falsehood (Equality Loudoun - 7/18/2006 12:24:29 PM)
AG Bob actually intervened with the drafting of the official explanation by the Division of Legislative Services, substituting his own language for theirs. Virginia law does call for consultation "with such agencies of state government as may be appropriate, including the Office of Attorney General," however, it also specifies that the explanation "shall be limited to a neutral explanation," and "shall not include arguments submitted by either proponents or opponents of the proposal."

Mr. McDonnell's statement "I strongly support the passage of the Amendment" would seem to violate that provision.

Amendment proponents like Mr. McDonnell are also attempting to mislead voters by claiming that because the Ohio and Virginia domestic violence statutes are worded differently, the interpretation of some Ohio courts that unmarried domestic violence victims are not eligible for protective orders and other provisions could not happen in Virginia. This is patently false. This argument hinges merely on the fact that the Ohio statute makes reference to marital status in its definition of household member, while the Virginia statute does not. If you examine the actual language, however, the Ohio statute specifies both "spouse" and "person living as a spouse." The Virginia statute specifies a person who "cohabits." Virginia courts have defined "cohabits" as "living in the manner of a husband and wife." "Living as a spouse" = "Living in the manner of a husband and wife."

So, there is in fact no difference between the definition of household member in the two statutes, and the language of the two amendments is identical. The argument being put forward that "domestic violence law won't be affected in Virginia" is a complete and deliberate falsehood. Even an education from Regent University would equip one to understand that.