This is beyond low.
An Ohio lawyer is arguing that his client, Daniel Forte, can't be convicted of domestic violence because the victim was Forte's girlfriend, not his wife. And he's using the state's gay marriage ban to back him up:
The case is being watched nationally because of the precedent that could be set if the domestic violence charges are thrown out. Forte's lawyer argues his client cannot be charged with the felony because domestic violence charges should be reserved for married couples under the state's law defining marriage, which won 62 percent of the vote in November.
The marriage amendment contains wording that supposedly conflicts with the state's domestic violence law, which bans any state or local law that would "create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals."
Lovely. Cause you should only be able to get an order of protection if you have a ring on your finger.
A ruling on the case is expected February 18.
What I want to know is how the lawyer making this case is able to live with himself. That must take talent. How can anybody be this slimy?
The lawyer's job is to get the best outcome for his client. The one's who screwed things up were the legislators and voters who passed the ammendment.
Well, being that I live in central Ohio I have had to live with the stupidity of about half of my fellow Ohioans since Nov. 2 (before and beyond as well). this particular piece of legislation was so badly worded that MANY people were extremely confused about what it says. It was billed as the Gay Marriage Amendment, while it really places all non-marital relationships being outside of the law (in a sense).
So while I do agree that the defense of this abuser is pretty awful, this case may be what actually helps people to understand how crazy this amendment is and what it really does. This seemingly awful case may actually be a good way of challenging the law.
The sad thing is that the people who want to "defend" marriage against extending it to gays are probably not too bothered by unmarried straight couples losing basic protections.
I, also, live in central (soon to be SE) Ohio. I heard about this case some time ago -- it's pretty dispiriting, to say the least. I'd like to think, on one hand, that Terese is right, that this case will show the stupidity of the law. But I'm not holding my breath. I think Amanda is right, overall, but there's always hope.
I just wish (another) woman didn't have to sacrifice her health, freedom and safety in order to kindle that hope.
Though I, too, am cautiously hopeful that this perhaps will wake people who were "for" the law up to how very stupid and ill-concieved the law is, perhaps opening up avenues towards having it repealed, I'm also a bit saddened -- it shouldn't take straight people/couples realizing "HEY! We could be losing our rights, too!" for there to be a more widespread movement against it.
You think that doemstic violence case is crazy? Hey folks, there is an even bigger decision about to come down.
The Utah Supreme Court is hearing arguments from the lawyer of Ron Holm, who is using the Lawrence v. Texas decision to attempt to overturn Holm's conviction. You see, Holm's is a practicing polygamist, who feels that his relations with a 16 year old were within the moral precepts of polygamy. Ruling in Holms' favor could overturn polygamy laws and that is when the fun really begins.
We face the risk that polygamy, which is nothing more than domestic slavery, will be a part of American society thanks to a pro-gay Court decision. Rant all you want about the Ohio amendment. What is happening in Utah could make the Ohio case look like small potatoes.
If polygamy were ever legalized, I can't imagine that they could get away with the old, sexist model of polygamy, where it was only the man who got to have more than one woman. It would surely be equal opportunity.
I really can't think about polygamy without separating theory and practice.
Most polygamists in the US are Mormon fundamentalists, fringies on the outskirts of the LDS church, living in the Southwest. The problems I have with the way they live are patriarchal extremism, cultish obedience to religious leaders, sexual repression, child-rape, wife-beating, arranged marriages, inability to support their families and welfare fraud.
Now, in concept I just can't say that the prospect of polygamous marriage bothers me. And every single case I have heard of where there has been a polygamy prosecution, the issue has been child sexual abuse, plain and simple. The polygamy laws make it easier to prosecute in those situations, but the real crime is not the polygamous marriage.
Take polygamy out of that context -- say, a dominant woman in full-time dominant/submissive relationships with several male submissives -- and I'm okay with it.