In a highly ironic turn of events, Ohio has run into an interesting case recently. In the last election they were one of the 11 states that passed a gay marriage ban. Their amendment was - Issue 1 Election 2004:


I guess when the fine people of Ohio passed this amendment, they didn't expect that it would remove Domestic Violence protections from all unmarried relationships, even straight ones - Unintended Consequences of Ohio's Gay Marriage Amendment


Before this amendment was passed, domestic violence laws included umarried couples living together. Now this guy (who deserves a felony charge) will be getting off with a misdemeanor assault charge all because of this fear of homosexual marriage. Furthermore, now women in Ohio have all lost a little bit of protection they once enjoyed.

The tricky thing here is that from a legislative perspective this cannot be solved with anything other than a new constitutional amendment or repealing the old one. Meanwhile hundreds of domestic violence cases can only be prosecuted as misdemeanors.

Questions for debate:
1. Do you believe that the judge made the correct ruling here based on the new amendment? Why or why not?

2. Do you believe that Ohio's new gay marriage ban might be overturned by the state in order to protect the domestic violence law? Why or why not?

Id like to add my little two cents even though i dont post as much as I use to.

1. Do you believe that the judge made the correct ruling here based on the new amendment? Why or why not? By law he had to follow the new rules, however my parents nor sister agreed to this amendment when the added it on the ballots, so no he did not make a correct ruling. I see this new admement or the old one to be declared unconstutional.

2. Do you believe that Ohio's new gay marriage ban might be overturned by the state in order to protect the domestic violence law? Why or why not? Yes I believe it will be over turned. Media here is Ohio or at least Cleveland is highly run by democrats, therefore I believe it will be declared unconstutional.

1) I think that the judge is interpreting the law correctly. You can not fault the judge for enforcing written law, flawed or otherwise IMO.

2) I do not believe that Ohio's new gay marriage ban will be overturned. A simple amendment will be passed either to redefine Domestic Violence or more clearly define the gay marriage ban.

1. Do you believe that the judge made the correct ruling here based on the new amendment? Why or why not?

Probably, since that was argued. The problem is that while we know what the gay marriage amendment says, we don't know what the Ohio domestic violence law says. If it specifically references marriage, then it would seem to me that the problem is with that statute, not the amendment.


2. Do you believe that Ohio's new gay marriage ban might be overturned by the state in order to protect the domestic violence law? Why or why not?


Well, obviously if the pro-gay marriage lobby has anything to say about it, they'll try for that since their agenda isn't really domestic violence. But, as I stated previously, the easiest way to recify this conflict would be to go back and amend the domestic violence statute to include relationships that aren't considered marriages in Ohio. Assuming that it's just a statute, all it takes is legislative action and voila! The problem is solved!


Then, the pro-gay marriage folks will have to go shopping for another backdoor...

Here is the actual Ohio Code regarding domestic violence laws: § 3113.31

After a quick review of the code, it is obvious there a conflict of laws in Ohio.

Domestic violence is defined as:

Family or household member is defined as:

There is obviously a conflict in the two laws here. In fact, I see a conflict in the definitions of 'family' and 'household member.' Why are roommates not considered household members? I think the domestic violence laws need to be clarified so that anyone regularly residing in the same domicile are covered, no matter how they are related.

1. Do you believe that the judge made the correct ruling here based on the new amendment? Why or why not?

I've not found any documentation on exactly what the Judge said in his ruling to kick this case down to a misdemeanor. As much as I want to say the Judge erred, I can not do so in good conscious after reading the domestic violence laws. I simply don't know why it went from a felony to a misdemeanor and why it wasn't converted to felony assault.

2. Do you believe that Ohio's new gay marriage ban might be overturned by the state in order to protect the domestic violence law? Why or why not?

Nope. Populism is too strong these days in regards to the gay marriage ban amendments. I do foresee a rewriting of the domestic violence laws if anything.

I'd agree with you Jaime, it would be a very tough sell to get the new gay marriage ban overturned. I believe the complexity here is that the domestic violence law is a 'law' and the gay marriage ban was a constitutional amendment. So I'm sure, procedurally, how they'd be able to re-write the law here while the amendment stands.

That is of course provided we don't have any "activist judge" incidents


As Jaime stated in her post, the domestic violence laws already include relationships that are not marriages. That is the problem with the gay marriage ban, it is so broad that it causes a conflict with this law

1. Do you believe that the judge made the correct ruling here based on the new amendment? Why or why not?

I really don't know, but it looks like the decision is probably based on past interpretations of the law. Personally, I think assault should be handled the same way whether living together or married. What makes assault in marriage worse than outside of marriage?

2. Do you believe that Ohio's new gay marriage ban might be overturned by the state in order to protect the domestic violence law? Why or why not?

Not necessarily. Again, assault is wrong no matter what the marriage condition. I think what we see in this situation is an attempt to stem domestic violence with harsh penalties, perhaps too harsh or too lenient, but however that gets resolved, I think all assault cases should be handled the same way and with the same penalties.

Just what Ohio does with this is up to conjecture. The situation does point to marriage as being considered different than any other situation, and thus getting more protection under the law. Conversely, not being married means having less protection under the law -- and that might be seen as an unfair penalty.

Are single people lesser citizens than married people? Seems that way, at least with this assault situation. I do understand that the difference comes from a history of domestic violence rationalization, where at one time in our history it was perfectly okay under the law and within society to beat wives into submission. Maybe it has come time to grant equal protection under the law to everyone.

Just a small point here. A Constitutional Amendment CANNOT be declared unconstitutional as it is now a part of that document. The only remedy is to pass another amendment that clarifies or eliminates one area of or an entire amendment or section of a Constitution.

On the Federal Level, I assume it is plausible that the USSC could declare an amendment to a state constitution to be unconstitutional in regard to the US constitution, though I am not aware of this ever happening. However, I can't think of any constitutional grounds to do so (assuming it is possible) in this case.

As for the Domestic Violence laws in question. I have a problem with them in general. It is the same problem I have with hate crime laws.

Why is it that when a straight, white guy named Jack, attacks a straight, white guy he doesn't know named Steve is this crime handled one way, but if Steve is a minority, it is treated another way, and if Steve is Jack's brother and they still live in the same home it is treated yet another way?

Why is assault, not simply assault? Why are the penalties so weak on regualr assualt, and so harse on these other variations? Isn't the damage still the same?

I agree with the state setting up operations to help support those in abusive relationships. I agree with the state setting up operations to promote the concept that all people are equal. What I have a problem with is the state treating the same crime different ways simply because of the relationship between the criminal and victim or the biases of the criminal.

One point my wife brought up was that most domestic violence laws allow the state to prosecute, even if the victim refuses to file a complaint. Well, are there not a multitude of situations where some subject to assault, not domestically or hate motivated might refuse to sign a complaint for fear of retaliation, or because of a relationship outside of the domestic environment? Why not expand this concept to all assault cases?


1. Do you believe that the judge made the correct ruling here based on the new amendment? Why or why not?

based on what limited information I can find it would seem that it was a correct, (even a Texualist ) ruling.

It took me awhile, but I finally figured out the conflict in question.

The New Amendment forbids:



In the definition of who can be charged with domestic violence we have this definition that applies specifically to this case:



In the case in question for domestic violence laws to have applied to this situation you would have to prove that she was "living as a spouse". And there is the conflict. Because now, the new Gay Marriage amendment specifically forbids giving "legal status" to unmarried individuals that approximate marriage.

An interesting side note. Was the defendant also charge with assault? If not, why was he not simply acquitted? Not that I would think this was justice in anyway, just curious.

This is what happens when people make law based on a charged emotional response (or a political opportunity ) to a situation rather then taking a reasoned approach IMHO.

However, our government has a long history of writing policy and law with little to no regard for how it might effect other areas outside their tunnel-vision approach to a problem.


2. Do you believe that Ohio's new gay marriage ban might be overturned by the state in order to protect the domestic violence law? Why or why not?

That might happen. All that is required is that the majority of the public in Ohio decide to get another amendment written and voted on to add to the constitution. However, I do not think it is necessary. They could just as easily get a new Amendment written and voted on that clarify the domestic violence law applications, or narrow the application of the last part of the gay marriage amendment.

OLS- yes, the supreme court does have precedent of overturning parts of a state's constitution- one I am more aware of is the overturning of the Alaska constitutional provision for equal access to game animals for all alaskans- while federal law mandates rural preference. On all federal lands in Alaska, there is rural preference, and large amount of state autonomy over game managment is now shifted to the feds. Sorry for the long explanation- but the feds can over-ride a state amendment, and frequently have.

I think it is ironic that the law confirmed the slippery slope argument, not for the anti-rights crowd, but for the gay rights crowd.

I think the judge just followed the law as it was interpreted- he did his job.

Never underestimate the power of bigotry- they will find a way to close the loophole if they can!

Once again, misrepresentation passes without challenge (until moi) here on AD.



The bolded portion would seem to satisfy the judge's position. That, of course, is as far as Jaime quoted.

However, let's take a look at the next section.



Who otherwise is cohabiting... If the judge's ruling is valid, then this phrase has no value, nada, zip. It should also be noted that this Domestic Violence act provides absolutely no protection to "intimates" who are not living with one another. So when Kelly thumps on Chris, if they don't live together, neither their sex, nor their sexual orientation, nor their romantic or sexual involvement with one another make any difference, because they don't fall under the jurisdiction of the DV act.

Questions for debate:
1. Do you believe that the judge made the correct ruling here based on the new amendment? Why or why not? No, because the new amendment does not in any way invalidate the clause I have highlighted.

2. Do you believe that Ohio's new gay marriage ban might be overturned by the state in order to protect the domestic violence law? Why or why not? No. As noted by others, it can not be overturned by the state. It can be repealed, which is a completely different matter. Prohibition was not "overturned", it was repealed by another amendment.

Bikerdad - you confuse me. I don't see what you're adding that I haven't said. It's no big whoop that I didn't quote the whole section. I have faith you are all grown up enough to know how to click and read links. I agree the judge's ruling was valid. However, I still see a conflict in the two laws, as did the judge or he wouldn't have kicked the case out of domestic violence court to a misdemeanor court.

I think you are absolutely correct Jaime. The Ohio domestic violence statute is very clear on the definition of a household member.

There is absolutely no need to add an amendment to the Ohio constitution or any such thing. I think it would take a simple amendment to the domestic violence statute as you suggest. It can be redrafted to read any person living in the same household or something like that.

The effect of these 11 state amendments are being seen across the country. I know in Michigan, our attorney general Mike Cox just issued an opinion stating that state organizations cannot provide benefits to unmarried couples.

[quote=Bikerdad,Mar 25 2005, 10:36 PM]
Who otherwise is cohabiting... If the judge's ruling is valid, then this phrase has no value, nada, zip.[/quote

But the phrasing of the law equates cohabiting with marriage when it comes to domestic violence... living as a spouse. This is why the judge had to rule the way he did. The Amendment makes the entire section regarding "living as a spouse" unconstitutional.

Questions for debate:
1. Do you believe that the judge made the correct ruling here based on the new amendment?
Yes, unfortunately, he did.

2. Do you believe that Ohio's new gay marriage ban might be overturned by the state in order to protect the domestic violence law? Why or why not?
I think they will probably change the wording of this law. And then the next one will crop up -- all laws related to common law marriage are now unconstitutional in Ohio, for example. So, whereas it used to be that if you had a common law marriage before Oct. 1991 it was still recognized, all those common law marriages are now invalidated. These heterosexual couples' rights are now gone. And if you are in a common law marriage outside of Ohio, you're not gonna want to move there, because this Amendment means thay your common law marriage will not be recognized. Ain't no rewording of the laws gonna change that.

I agree that one solution is to amend the Domestic Violence law. The problem with the domestic violence law, as I see it, is the original drafters where probably bent on trying to ensure that they covered everyone and left no loopholes. This is a something we see in many laws and codes. Deeper and deeper levels of complication in an effort cover everything. There is a mindset that specific mention of every possible situation needs to be made. I have no formal education in the law, but I aways wonder why we do this. For example, the Ohio Domestic Violence law mentions multiple situations specifically. Couldn't the same thing have been achieved by simplifying the definition to say.

Family is defined as: any relation, by blood or marriage.

Household is defined as: any persons legally residing in the same domicile.

Maybe I missed a category, if I did I am sure someone will catch it. However, if the law was written more simply, there would be little room for the legal professionals to try to maneuver around the law, and it would be far less likely that other laws (if they are also written more simply) would conflict with each other.

Your rewording leaves out former spouses and their relations... and also removes this wording from the current law, "or has resided with the respondent". And your definition includes more people than was originally intended. Basically anyone "living as a spouse" which specifically refers to common law marriages will not be covered no matter how you reword the law.


Yes it does, because the clause specifically refers to common law marriages, which have no legal status according to the amendment.

Well then add the wording:

Family is defined as: Any relation by blood or any relation through marriage both past and present. Adding the past ad present should cover former spouses and families.

As for it leaving out someone living as a spouse. It actually makes it irrelevant. Are they living together? yes. They she who have been covered.

As for it adding people, I realize this, but I fail to see why people living together, even as roommates should be treated differently.

However, I still feel that there should simply be a broader application of assault law as well as stiffer penalties for assault law. I do not understand why my beating a stranger with my fists is less of a crime then my beating my wife in the same way.

Note: For the record, if I tried that on her you would read about me next in the Obituary pages.

Folks, read the entire section again.

Section 3, which Jaime quoted, defines generally who is covered by the DV law, and it includes "a person living as a spouse."

That term is defined in Section 4, and it includes "common law marriage" (which the Amendment would deny to homosexuals), or otherwise cohabiting. Otherwise cohabiting is not the same as common law marriage, if it were, then there'd be no need for "or".

Now, the "person living as a spouse" by "otherwise cohabiting" had none of the government benefits of marriage, and under the new amendment, they still don't have any of the benefits. The claim that the law creates a relationship that approximates marriage is foolish, precisely because the law addresses marriage relationships, common law marriage, cohabiting, parental, sibling, and affinity. It cuts a swath much wider than marriage.

Government should not encourage or otherwise privilege behavior that is harmful to society. How far government should go in this is, of course, a matter of great debate. When, via a law such as the DV law, government gives superior status to live-in non-married couples over couples who are not shacking up, such is stupidity on the part of government. Shacking up is the highest conflict type of relationship, with the greatest risk for children as well. Now, whether or not a person knowing that they have the protection (ya, right, illusory mostly) of DV laws when they shack up makes any difference in the decision to shack up is an open question. But it is evident from the law that government does nothing to discourage shacking up.

Some of you will object that it isn't government's place to discourage shacking up, which of course could lead us into another long and adventurous thread regarding what gov't should and shouldn't encourage, discourage, why it should, etc. That, however, isn't the point of this thread. Granting for a moment that gov't shouldn't try to influence one way or the other the decision to shack up, let's instead consider this question:

Why should gov't actively attempt to ameliorate the increased risk that this voluntary activity brings to those who choose it?

This amendment can be read strictly as the judge has done, which, btw, could actually be what the socially conservative citizens of Ohio intended. If you want any of the benefits, protections and privileges under the law attendant to marriage, then by gosh, get married to someone of the opposite sex. And nobody get's to do an end-around on marriage by cooking up "civil unions" and "domestic partnership covenants" or any of that malarky.

Startling concept isn't it? :hmmm

BTW, the possibility of the amendment being interpreted in this manner was widely raised before the election, and yet, the voters of Ohio still adopted it.

Plus, there's this...

You are right, I misread it. Thanks for the correction.



You are right, it does not "create a relationship that approximates marriage", but it does recognize a legal status for a relationship that approximates the design of a marital relationship. This doesn't mean that it has to be a relationship that has or had government benefits of marriage. It merely has to approximate the design of a marital relationship. A couple that is cohabiting is approximating the design of a marital relationship. A couple that is cohabiting has everything a married couple has except the government benefits and the piece of paper -- the design is otherwise the same. The DV law recognizes this fact because it refers to this as "living as a spouse." If someone is "living as a spouse" with a respondent, they are approximating the design of a marriage.

Bikerdad, what exactly are you trying to argue here, I'm not sure anyone understands it. You agree that it was the correct ruling, but you keep bringing up the whole code (which I'm sure everyone has read).

Even when you look at the whole code, it still covers people (whether same sex or opposite sex) that are in cohabitation relationships. Ohio's amendment removes Domestic Violence protections from these people. Are you trying to argue that is a good thing?

Please forgive my ignorance, I'm not too familiar with Ohio law, before or after this same-sex-marriage law was passed.

I gather that, if I were to slug my wife in Ohio, I would be subject to hefty penalties (and I'd deserve them) since it would be a case a "domestic violence". Correct?

But if I were to slug the woman who lives next door, I would be subject to less-hefty penalties, since I'm not married to her or otherwise related to her and it would not be considered "domestic violence"? Do I have this right so far?

If so, it sounds like a problem with the laws in the second situation, not the first. If I slug a woman, I should be subject to HARSH penalties. And they should not be reduced due to my not being married to her. Since when did unmarried persons become second-class citizens, not deserving the same protection from violence as citizens who are married to each other?

Gender or homosexuality has nothing to do with this. I'm a man, and I cannot marry another man in Ohio. Why on earth does that mean I'll get a lesser penalty for beating him up, than if I WERE able to somehow "marry" him and did so? The two things should have absolutely nothing to do with each other.

If the law in Ohio says that I'll get a lesser penalty if I'm not married to the person I beat up, then THAT'S the law that should be changed. I should get the same (harsh) penalty for beating up someone, regardless of any marital status.

If people who want a same-sex marriage, are upset because the person who beats them up will now get a lesser penalty, that's not a reason to create a "marriage". It's merely a reason to change the law providing the lesser penalty for unmarried people.

The domestic violence laws are harsher because it involves violence in an intimate relationship. When you are in an intimate relationship with someone, you should be able to trust that the person you are living with will not beat you. So, my guess is that the victim is considered more vulnerable, hence the harsher penalty. And the ruling mentioned had nothing to do with homosexuals, it had to do with a man who beat the woman he was living with. Because of the amendment, there relationship can't be given any legal status, hence the domestic violence law no longer applies to them.

I submit that the penalty should have nothing to do with "vulnerability", and everything to do with the violent act. And again, There's nothing wrong with a harsh penalty for a man who abuses his wife; but there is something wrong with a less-harsh penalty for a man who abuses a women who isn't his wife. Is there anyone who says she does NOT deserve equal protection?

But, irony upon irony, I must point out that, if there were such a thing as a same-sex "marriage", the partners in such a "marriage"could be considered LESS "vulnerable" than the partners in an opposite-sex marriage. In a normal marriage, one partner is usually bigger and stronger than the other. And that's the partner who usually commits the violence, when any is committed. It's pretty rare for a 200-pound man to be assaulted by a 100-pound woman... and even more rare for him to call for help when it does happen. Not everybody marries a Liza Minelli.

But when two men are "married", it's more frequent that they will be fairly evenly matched, and each able to defend himself against violence from the other. Same deal with two women, I'd imagine.

I see no reason whatsoever, for there to be differing penalties for violence within a marriage vs. violence outside a marriage. And I favor the harsher penalty rather than the milder one, identically for both situations.

Gaining more protection against your partner's violence, is hardly a reason to create a "marriage" between two people of the same sex. It's merely a reason to increase the penalty for violence between two unmarried people, to match the penalty for violence between married people.

Even when you look at the whole code, it still covers people (whether same sex or opposite sex) that are in cohabitation relationships. Yes, it does. It also covers brothers, sisters, grandparents, parents, partners in adultery of spouses, (thems the "affinity" folks), etc. It clearly differentiates between legal spouses, common law marriages, and cohabitation.

Ohio's amendment removes Domestic Violence protections from these people. No, one judge has found that the amendment removes DV protection from individuals who shack up, another has found that it does not.

Are you trying to argue that is a good thing? Good? I have modest reservations with domestic violence laws for the reasons that Little-Acorn is advancing, and serious reservations due to the unequal application of the laws. When those reservations are combined with my position that government should not give enhanced protections to those who engage in self-destructive behavior that also increases risks for others, (shacking up), then yes, I suppose that I am arguing that denying DV protections to cohabitors is a good thing. Not a great thing, not even a very good thing, but a good thing. Mind you, I have no problem with prosecuters using the existing "joe everybody" assault laws against cohabitors who assault their partners, heck, I'm all for it.

It is not "pretty rare". Half of "intimate" DV is committed by women, and more than half is initiated by women. The old "she might have started it, but I finished it" comes to mind, and the end-results of DV have far more cachet in the public discourse than the initiation, which is part of the reason for the factual misconceptions common in discussions of DV. Women are also much more likely to use weapons in altercations with men. I don't know if the higher usage of weapons holds true in lesbian DV, there are some groups in SF that may have enough experience with the matter to serve as good sources of info, as well as info on gay DV.

It is far rarer for men to seek assistance for both social, psychological, and practical reasons. The practical reason, which goes to the unequal application of the DV laws, is that if he calls for help, its almost a certainty that he's going to be the one hauled off, not her.

You have the problem wrong. Ohio law states that if you happen to be in a cohabitation relationship (the definition there would include both straight and gay couples) and you slug your girlfriend/boyfriend then you are subject to domestic violence laws.

I personally think that is how it should be, but that is probably the subject of another debate.

Anyway, the point here is that this ban removes protections from unmarried couples based on the language and in this case domestic violence protections from cohabitation relationships.

I agree that a person should have the same protection against assaults etc. by someone he is married to, as by someone he is not married to. In Ohio's case, this would best be guaranteed by boosting the penalties for not-so-domestic violence in all cases, to be equal to the penalties currently set for domestic violence.

And the term "domestic violence" should be stricken from the lexicon. Violence is violence, and it should make no difference whether it's your husband smacking you or someone you've never met. They should receive an equally harsh penalty regardless.

Using the current poorly-written laws in Ohio that people here have described, as an excuse for same-sex couples to get "married", is a non sequitor or the first order. Two wrongs certainly don't make a right. Differing levels of protection based on marital status, is wrong. And a man can no more marry a man, than he can marry his sister or marry a horse he is particularly fond of - that is impossible, and so just as wrong.

And you would be wrong. Let me heighten the circumstances to illustrate why the domestic violence laws exist as they do.

A man and a woman who are living together walk into a dark alley (they have to get through this alley in order to get home). They are both cautious and conscious of the possible dangers of the dark alley. The woman pulls out a knife and stabs the man. This is considered a much more violent act by the State because the man was more vulnerable to the attack from the woman walking next to him than to any possible attack from somebody jumping out of the shadows -- being that, because of their intimate relationship, she would be the last person the man would expect to stab him. So, it isn't about size or ability to defend one's self -- not that type of vulnerability. It is about the fact that in the relationships described in the law, a person should be able to implicitly trust that the person they are living with won't attack them. This implicit trust makes them more vulnerable no matter how big or small. A 500 lb Sumo wrestler is not going to be expecting a whack to the head with a frying pan from his 100 lb wife. Or, a man is not going to be expecting that his wife will wake up in the middle of the night and cut off his privates with a butcher knife.

Equal protection does not mean equal penalties for varying circumstances. This is why we have varying degrees of murder. The same thing applies here.

So, the problem here is that the amendment, worded as it is in its attempt to prevent homosexual relationships from having a legal status, has also affected unmarried heterosexual relationships. A man who beat his girlfriend, with whom he was (as the domestic violence law defines it) "living as a spouse", got off with a lighter penalty. This is because to apply the law would have given legal status to a relationship that approximated the design of marriage.

I'm not stating that homosexuals should be allowed to marry simply because the amendment affects the domestic violence law. So, you can put your views about homosexuality away for now, Little Acorn. Or better yet, apply them to some of the other threads that are currently hearing crickets from those opposed to gay marriage.

Well first of all, as I stated in my previous post, this thread isn't meant to discuss whether Domestic Violence should have a different penalty than getting into a bar fight. If you'd like to discuss your position I'd suggest a new topic on that subject.

Secondly, no one (that I have seen) has suggested that because there are Domestic Violence laws in Ohio, that means homosexuals should get married. That is some argument you just invented and I don't think anyone has made it.

The core issue in this topic has to do with unitended consequences. Because the people of Ohio saw fit to pass a very broad amendment to their constitution concerning homosexual marriage, they have invalidated some of the laws they probably would prefer to keep in place - e.g. domestic violence laws. Your confusion here might be alleviated by going back to read:
1) The law as cited by Jaime and others and
2) Some of the other posts in the topic.

The questions for debate again are:
1. Do you believe that the judge made the correct ruling here based on the new amendment? Why or why not?

2. Do you believe that Ohio's new gay marriage ban might be overturned by the state in order to protect the domestic violence law? Why or why not?

And yes I realize that incorrect wording was used in the last question, since an amendment can't be "overturned" so there is no need to point that out again.

OLS,

This is for information, not argumentative purposes. In May, 1996 the U. S. Supreme in Romer v. Evans held an amendment to the Colorado constitution unconstitutional. I don’t know how many other times this has happened, but I did find this instance.

I don’t know whether or not the USSC will declare any of the eleven gay marriage amendments unconstitutional, either in full or in part, but there is at least precedent for declaring portions of state constitutions unconstitutional.

I found this case in an article in the March 28, 2005 issue of The New Yorker by Margaret Talbot entitled “Supreme Confidence.” Hayleyanne mentioned this article in another thread. I highly recommend it.





http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/653/

BoF,

Colorado's infamous Amendment 2 -- great case of manipulating law to make it okay to discriminate against people, this one based on sexual orientation. We've just been visited by so-called religious people who are convinced that God hates gays, and that gays are destined to go to hell.

I personally don't call this attitude religious in any way. But, what the Amendment 2 situation showed is that everyone is supposed to be equal under the law.

Yep, so why should married people have more protection under the law than single people, or people sharing a roof? I think this whole marriage thing is heading toward a logical disconnect. Either uphold equal protection or admit that the legal basis of marriage discriminates against single people. In other words, to attain full legal adult status, the laws are designed so that people must get married.

My stance on this is that married folks and single folks (of legal age) should be treated equally under the law. At present, this is not the case. Just what God thinks about this is up to conjecture. The God I worship doesn't hate anybody, as this would be attributing human weakness to a perfect deity -- another logical disconnect