Unmarried People Can't Commit Domestic Violence, Ohio Judge Rules

I'm not quite sure if this is the proper way to revoke the Ohio law against same-sex marriages, but as the law is worded the judge was correct in his decision. It certainly points out a large flaw in the statute.

I can't fault the judge, because he's applying the law, but I sure can fault Ohio's legislators, for not foreseeing where their ban could lead.

Jeez, am I'm glad I live in New York! Here you can charge domestic violence even between non sexual partners, such as a son striking his mother. Domestic to me means "in the home", or between people who have a close relationship.

When I was interning at the courthouse during Fall in the Domestic Violence Injunction courtroom DV could occur from a one time date, not even with someone you have become terribly close with! Which is exactly the way I think it should be.

That's nuts!!!!

Well, it's nice to know that if a man ever raises his hand to me, I can beat the holy heck outta him and not get in serious trouble.

Seriously though, it's a sickening thought. I have a lot of gay friends, and I wish they would be able to officially be married. But putting that aside, not having strict enough laws against domestic violence is the worst thing that could happen to a woman. I'm hoping that women's rights groups can lobby and get this changed fast.

My dad was raised in Canada... It's times like this I wish I could have been, too.

The judge could be trying make a statement against the same sex marriage or equally possible he could be one of those literalist/procedure interpretation judges, which there are. No such thing as technicalities for everything is to be applied by the book and that he is merely following the intent of the legislation without any concern whatsoever for same-sex marriage. Or there could be a small third possibility, which I doubt, is that he may be against domestic violence legislation.

But of course, legislation could change the law invovled but in such a situation it would have no effect on this case.

Get ready y'all for my rant.
As many of you already know from my zillions of previous posts, I am a domestic violence victim advocate for the military. Needless to say, I follow things like this closely.
Trust me when I say, this is not happening in JUST Ohio. In a majority of states where that gay marriage amendment was passed (don't even get me STARTED on how wrong it is to legislate morality in such a manner), the DV-relationship question is being raised.
Domestic violence can happen between past or present boyfriends/girlfriends/husbands/wives/roommates/children and parents/and life partners. It knows no age, race, socioeconomic, religious, or gender barrier. It knows NO barrier whatsoever.
People have hypothesized that the judge in this case in question may be using his stance to make a point about how REDICULOUS the gay marriage amendment is (which I agree with). But he is doing it in a way that may harm countless people. By saying that DV can only happen between married, straight partners, so many batterers are getting off the hook. Their victims would become ineligible for protective orders and certain child custodial rights. The batterers who are also arrested for charges related to their violence (such as battery or simple assault), may still be convicted of their crimes, but without the domestic violence title attached to their charges, they may face much more lax consequences.
I could go on and on on this topic all day. Here in GA, both our Commission and Coalition Against Domestic Violence worked hard to lobby against the gay marriage amendment (which passed overwhelmingly in our backward state ) and will continue to work hard to make sure that ALL domestic violence victims, whether they be gay, straight, married, or unmarried, continue to receive all protection and services that are available for them.

So now that Ohio has a "free ride" for most that would face a "domestic violence" charge, these people will now only be guilty of "simple assault" which is just beating the heck out of someone. For the law enforcement community for whom any conviction of domestic violence is an immediate career stopper (can't possess a handgun), Ohio will be the best place for ummarried persons to beat up their "non-domestic" partner without fear of jeopardizing their fine future in police work where their skills at beating people could be put to good use. What a bunch of garabage! I was born in Akron, Ohio. After they did this and struck down their dangerous animal law, I am seeking legal representation to have my birth state legally changed to one that is populated with semi-sentient beings. BTW - Wisconsin has been removed from the list. Anyone want to offer me a state to join?

Notice - State of Confusion, State of Denial, State of Mind and State of Shock are already taken.

And for the record, its never acceptable to hit any domestic partner no matter how that partner fits into the "domestic" pattern.

Hey now, I cry foul. I don't at all approve of a ban on same-gender marriage and was appalled that one was passed in so many states, and I'm even further appalled that it has led to an erosion of protections for all but actual married male-female couples. Now how did this discussion end up with a comment which seems to imply that the job of a police officer is to beat people up, including their spouses? Or that cops take their jobs because they like beating people up? FOUL! That particular comment was out of bounds, in large part because it makes a pretty strong character judgement on an entire group of people despite not actually knowing them. Remember, some of us on this forum are cops, some of us are related to people who are cops, and some of us are friends with people who are cops; comments like that make all of those people feel unwelcome here.

Obi, Mark was being sarcastic - he's in law enforcement himself.

Hmmmmmm. It's obvious he was employing sarcasm , and I noted that from the start. That's why I read the post several times before replying, trying to divine if his comments about law enforcement were not intended to be taken at all seriously, or if the sarcasm was only intended to make his real opinion more extreme-sounding (e.g. "yeah, I'd just love to have a stranger maul me" if you don't like massages). I decided it was the latter. I've had several other people read it, and they all thought the same thing I did, so It wasn't just being oblivious . I must assume, since you appear to know him and therefore are in a better position to understand, that he was NOT serious. Thank you for clarifying on his behalf.

It wasn't at all your fault - Mark has recently taken on a very demanding new job, and isn't here often enough to respond immediately. Granted, his post might have been a bit "off-putting" to people not familiar with him - I simply wanted to give an explanation for why his statements weren't edited or deleted. You definitely weren't being "oblivious", and IMO can only be enriched by the participation of discerning members!

Tricia, do you think its good that we dont live in america?

My apologies for any offense taken to my comments. I am in law enforcement and I fully believe that our job is NOT to go around beating people or animals. My comments were meant to be sarcastic and, being from Ohio myself, were aimed at that states's recent descent into insanity. By my final comment, I hoped to make it clear that I do not adhere to opinion that some have regarding any type of spousal, domestic partner, child, or pet abuse. I've noticed some real twisted types here lately comparing heinous sex offenses to losing gainful employment.

Most police departments have rigorous screening programs designed to keep the sterotypical chest thumping morons out of public service. Combinations of psych testing, background investigations, interviews, personality assessments and a host of other methods do a good job of weeding out the wierdos. Unfortunately the concept that many people still have is that all cops are either jack booted storm troopers or otherwise sadistic power freaks. Both cases as far from the truth as they could be. Rulings like the one in Ohio, which removes the "domestic assault" creates a situation where these scum could slip through this process and make it into the LEO community. Another unintended consequence of our decidely narrow minded legislators of late when trying to use legal manipulation to inflict their perception of the moral or ethical flavor of the moment.

Domestic partners, same sex marriage - I wasn't trying to chime in on these. Just the people that think they know what is best for the rest of us. I remind everyone I meet that voting is the only way we make a difference. I will have to seriously consider a few people when the next elections come around....

Again, apologies are offered. No offense intended. My expressed opinion may have been done in a poor fashion but nonetheless, I have always taken full responsibility for anything I have said here, hence my name and email in my tag line. Thanks to the mods for leaving it intact so that others may follow what everyone said, including myself.

Sometimes the only reason I open my mouth is to change feet!

Quote by Fwan: Tricia, do you think it's good that we don't live in America?

I think your question is insulting to American TCS members and perhaps would have been more appropriate as a private message.

I really think Fwan meant it in a half joking manner..I know I took no offense. And even if she didn't it's okay by me for her to express her opinion.

I wish I didn't live in the US sometimes....

America is not the center of the universe. Sometimes we forget that other countries, cultures, and people have their own opinions of how things should be.

I am simply thankful that (at least for now depending on how you look at the "Patriot Act") masked government gunmen can't come to my house, drag me away, and throw me in a jail to rot without a trial for simply expressing a negative opinion about some aspect of the country.

I am not insulted nor offended by others opinions, especially in the IMO forum. This is the place for opinions whether I agree with them or not. And people are certainly allowed to express their opinions of others opinions. Kinda circular arguement, huh? Just as long as we all realize that no one intends anything as a personal attack, I'm fine with debating this point forever.

Since the question was posed to me, let me state for the record that I am an American TCS member, and I hardly think fwan was trying to insult me, or anybody else.
With all the craziness that has been going on recently with rulings like this, the ban that caused it, the Schiavo case, another school massacre, etc., yes, there are times when I feel I'm better off not being on that side of the Atlantic. Of course, there are other times when I wish I was!

I'd like to hear more TCS members share their opinions on this matter. It holds a place very close to my heart...

Who can we barrage with emails?

Well, the Violence Against Women Act is up before Congress soon to see if Congress will continue funding (it is NOT looking good the way this administration is prioritizing its budget). I am attending a workshop in May on how to lobby for the continuement of this vital program. I will be glad to post info to any TCS-ers who are interested in doing something to see that domestic violence gets treated with the attention that it deserves.

Here's my .02 cents:
I don't understand how one can differenate<SP> domestic assault vs. plain old "regular" assault.
You struck another person and you shouldn't have-that's against the law.
But it seems to me that domestic violence laws give special weight to some while denying it to others.
Just like "hate crime" laws. If you commit a crime against another, there are laws to deal with that but the Judge has to enforce them.
I can assure that there are Judges that have such a corrupted sense of right and wrong that getting them to apply the law equally and actually paying attention to the evidence is a tall order, even on a good day.

How can we expect the system to work when those who are charged with enforcing the laws equally are nothing more than glorified lawyers?
What is a Lawyer?
A person who prostitutes their sense of right and wrong to the highest bidder....Yea, that's integrity!
And these are some of the very same clowns who write the laws!

Did you know that in Kansas for example, if you've ever been ACCUSED of domestic violence, you can't buy a firearm.
Not convicted, ACCUSED.
So someone is denied a constitutional right for being accused? How can that be right?
Even if the accusation is a bare-faced lie, it doesn't matter-you are accused.
Welcome to the new Amerika.

And here's the wierdest thing in the world, bar-none, relating to domestic violence
.
In my experience with domestic violence as a first-responder (EMT-A) and happining to be in the right place at the right time, the woman usually loses for reasons of simple anatomy-they're usually never as good at violence as men are-although I have seen a few surprises!
However, when a woman get's slapped, punched, shoved or otherwise assaulted in the presence of other men, real men it's usually the abusers turn to get slapped, punched and mauled.
This is usually when it is discovered that the guy who abuses the woman isn't a very good fighter.
Right about that time, the woman who was just abused by this clown startes attacking those who have stepped in to defend her from the very person who just assaulted her.
CAN SOMEONE PLEASE EXPLAIN THIS TO ME?!?!??!?!!?!

Now I know that you might think that I'm making light of this subject, but I have a confession to make here:
I'm just exiting from a marriage that can be best described as "stormy", I have had things thrown at me, I have been pushed, lashed out at, struck and tourmented, while being accused of things that were not only outright lies, but physically impossible.
I can assure anyone that had I even begun to do any of the things that I was accused of, she would have enjoyed having me jailed if for no other reason than the enormous feeling of power it would have given her-and all it would have taken is her word-little else.
I'm a pretty large guy and I can assure you also that I had I ever laid a hand on her, she'd have proof.
I would have been removed from my home, handcuffed and told to find another place to live all the while having the stigma of "Wife beater" placed on me.
When it comes to that kind of "He said, she said", there's nothing on earth that could ever convince anyone that the man isn't wrong.
Could I say I was "abused"?
Man, I don't know. Maybe I was and maybe not...
Suffice it to say this, I use to have terriable headaches and I thought it was from an accident I had in 1994.
She left in November and I haven't had nearly as many headaches. It's over, she's gone, I'm glad.

Having said all that:
The problem is as I see it, a runaway judiciary that has lost touch with the reason it is supposed to exist-to uphold the law and protect the public. There is painfully little oversight of these judges and why don't they have citizen oversight like some police departments do?
These clowns answer to no one!
Think about it, when was the last time you heard of a judge being disiplined for an erronious ruling?
When was the last time you heard of a judge being called to account for dropping the ball and turning a killer loose on society, or worse, giving a child molester a pass so he can do it again-just like we all saw in Florida?
What do judges care?
They live in their gated communities and probably won't have to deal with the mess they helped create, but you and I might.
Fellow TCS members, all I want and I think we all deserve ACCOUNTABILITY from those who enforce the law and we're not getting it.
Why do you think that domestic violence laws came about?
BECAUSE JUDGES WEREN'T ENFORCING THE LAWS FOR ASSAULT AND BATTERY THAT WERE ALREADY ON THE BOOKS.
Although it should be said that these laws have taken the battered "domestic" out of the loop because for years, many wouldn't testify.
Why?
Because laws were so lax, the accused would be out within if not hours, then days.

So, How did this all come about?
The Mass. supreame court decided for the entire nation that gay marriage was allowable. Think about that-four judges decided for over 250 million Americans and 5000 years of what a marriage really is and told us that they know best.
As I read the story about this domestic assault, the judge did what the law required him to do, now he's being critisized for not being an activist.
This guy can't win for losing!

As far as the gay marriage thing, I think that they are just trying to stop gay people from having intimate relations.
If THAT is true, then the fastest way to stop it is to LET THEM GET MARRIED!

I'm sure that this ruling will be overturned and the judge that made it, although it appears he was following the law, will be run out of town on a rail, drawn and quatered, flailed and crucified.
It seems to me that these days, judges don't usually follow the law so much as they make the "correct" rulings.
I am convinced that our judiciary is bought and paid for and it wasn't with our money.......
Which is exactly the reason I tossed my notice for jury duty-I want no part of this broken, corrupt and morally bankrupt legal system.

There is a solid reason for differentiating between "assault" and "domestic violence". If I get mauled by someone on the street, he/she will get hauled off and I can go home, where I'm safe. However, if the violence is happening IN MY HOME, where can I go to escape it? Domestic violence is an escalated form of violence and deserves stricter punishment. Street assualts are often one-time deals, or at least you can start avoiding the person doing it. But domestic violence happens on a daily basis, and often the only way to avoid it is to leave my own freaking home. It's much worse. Similarly, if I get sexually harrased by some guy at a bar, I just leave the bar. But if I get harrassed at work, I can't just walk away. Not without losing my job.

As a former victim of domestic partner (not spousal) abuse, this ruling scares the bejesus out of me!! Domestic violence can only be done by a spouse? Then tell me where my numerous black eyes and bloody lips came from? We weren't married. So I'm guessing it wasn't violence?? (yes, read sarcasticaly)

Because our sense of self is so warped by that time, we are still in love with the clown. So we are protecting our loved one. PLUS! (at least in my case) I knew that if I allowed them to take him away, when he got out in a few hours, I was in for worse for #1 reporting him even if it wasn't me that called the cops, #2 for siding against him.

unreal! i hope this decision is overturned, quickly!

The judge needs his head examined.
That or, like some others have mentioned, he may be trying to point out the utter absurdity of the wording of gay marriage ban (not to mention that the ban itself is absurd...). If that's the case, he's going about it all wrong...that poor woman is going to suffer at the hands of that ******* boyfriend.