A legal dogpile...

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Bullypulpit, Feb 3, 2005.

  1. Bullypulpit
    Offline

    Bullypulpit Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2004
    Messages:
    5,849
    Thanks Received:
    378
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Columbus, OH
    Ratings:
    +379
    <center><h1><a href=http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/cuyahoga/1105785144152810.xml>Gay marriage ban hits the fan</a></h1></center>

    <blockquote>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.</blockquote>

    Issue 1, as it was listed on the balllot in November, was passed by around 61% of Ohio voters. The problem is, they didn't read it very carefully. As a result, the first steaming legal dogpile its passage left behind has been steppped in.

    In Cuyahoga County, the Public Defender's Office is using this amendment in an attempt to dismiss domestic violence cases involving unmarried individuals who are living together and have no children. Their rationale is that, under this amendment, the state can only recognize the relationship bewteen a married couple of different genders. However, if the state recognizes that domestic violence occurs between two unrelated, unmarried people who are cohabitating regardless of gender, the state would be recognizing that relationship. Based upon this interpretation of Ohio's Constitution, that is simply not allowed.

    The crux of the issue here is that this interpretaion would place the amendment in violation of the equal protection clause of the US Constitution. Maried couples would have protections under domestic violence laws which are unavailable to unwed couples who are living together. And, like it or not, that protection applies to same gender couples as well. If it doesn't, the Constitution isn't worth the match it would take to burn it. It applies to all, or it applies to none. Deal with it.
     
  2. Avatar4321
    Online

    Avatar4321 Diamond Member Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2004
    Messages:
    70,529
    Thanks Received:
    8,159
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Ratings:
    +12,148

    Um genius. its illegal to do violence against people regardless of whether people are married or not. Get off your self righteous attitude and come back to reality.
     
  3. musicman
    Offline

    musicman Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2004
    Messages:
    5,171
    Thanks Received:
    533
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Ohio
    Ratings:
    +533
    Ooooo....The Cuyahoga County Public defenders Office, eh? I bet there are some real Clarence Darrows in THAT outfit. I'm sure the founding fathers are trembling in their graves.
     
  4. Johnney
    Offline

    Johnney Senior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2003
    Messages:
    4,330
    Thanks Received:
    141
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    IOWA
    Ratings:
    +141
    isnt this horse dead already?
     
  5. Avatar4321
    Online

    Avatar4321 Diamond Member Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2004
    Messages:
    70,529
    Thanks Received:
    8,159
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Ratings:
    +12,148
    Maybe we need more firepower to put the animal out of its misery. :flameth:
     
  6. 5stringJeff
    Offline

    5stringJeff Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2003
    Messages:
    9,990
    Thanks Received:
    536
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Puyallup, WA
    Ratings:
    +540
    It's still assault, even if it doesn't carry the "domestic violence" label. Deal with it.
     
  7. Johnney
    Offline

    Johnney Senior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2003
    Messages:
    4,330
    Thanks Received:
    141
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    IOWA
    Ratings:
    +141
    i think if bully had his way anyone living with anyone else regardless of relation or not would be entitled to married bennies.
     
  8. no1tovote4
    Offline

    no1tovote4 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,294
    Thanks Received:
    616
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Colorado
    Ratings:
    +616

    Assault is assault whether or not it has a "Domestic Violence" label. Any judge dismissing an assault case because of this should simply be removed from the bench because they are dismissing a case to make a political point rather than seeking justice. They are attempting to use that to make it seem like there will be unintended victims when clearly they can be charged with assault and this is a transparent political move that disregards the actual victim.

    They would have to charge them differently, that is all.

    Deal with it.
     

Share This Page