Unmarried People Can't Commit Domestic Violence, Ohio Judge Rules - Page 2

Obi,
While I agree that you have some valid points, I would simply submit the following:
Domestic assault cases are in many cases a "he said, she said", there can be a lot of gray area that a party unknown to you (the cops) will have to sort through.

So let's turn the table a little, isn't it his home, too?
If you get sexually harrassed at work, there is legal recourse that can net you monetary damages as well.
We had a girl at a trucking company I once worked for who claimed sexual harrasment at no less than two different carriers and won cash awards each time, so I'm a little dubious of many of these accusations and it's a red herring anyway.

I also don't think it's right that a man can be punished for simply being accused of doing something and in situations as emotionally charged as this, default blame virtually always falls on the man and I don't really think that's always the case.

Back to the ruling, the judge seems to have followed the law, so he's being castigated for not being an "activist" and ruling the "correct" way-just because of the case he happened to rule on.
Doesn't make sense.

Fester, you do not appear to refute my observation that domestic violence is “worse†than the typical un-armed assault, but rather that there are “grey areas†in domestic violence that make the application of the law difficult. I would point out that this would be true no matter which assault law the abuser were prosecuted pursuant to. In fact, this is true of most laws, period. Humans societal interactions are full of grey areas, and it would be impossible to craft any law that could capture all of it. This does not negate the need for such laws, it only means you need to exercise care in the implementation of the law. It is the latter phase where your issue lies, partly due to past experience. I have a brother-in-law in a similar position, and I sympathize. However, I would strongly disagree with the implication that because there have been people falsely accused and/or prosecuted, that the LAW should be done away with, rather than fixing the problem in the process. Or in this case, mind-set. People always assume that the female is the victim, and it simply isn’t true.

Yes, it’s house, too (assuming it IS a man doing it). But if you assault the person or persons living with you, the victims have a greater right to be safe than the abuser has the right to “his/her†house.

Again, sexual harassment laws have been abused, but that doesn’t negate the need for such laws, it only points out a need to refine the process to avoid spurious claims as much as possible. You can’t narrow it too much, though, because then you’ll also squeeze out some legitimate claims.

I don't think it's right that ANYONE can be punished simply for being accused.

Human behavior often doesn't make sense (see above discussion of "grey areas" ). Again, however, the abuse of reason does not mean that we should get rid of reason entirely.

Edit: I read it again and decided I needed to clarify that the last bit was not directed at you, Fester. It was just some tongue-in-cheek about people who argue violently for one position, but then argue just as violently for the flip-side.

Sandy, I am so sorry for what you went through with your partner. I hope you have found some healing since getting out of the situation As someone who was also formerly abused by a boyfriend (not husband), I am outraged that people who now find themselves in situations similar to ours may not be able to get the help they need because of an downright oblivious judge!

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.


Uncle Fester, I smell a red herring here with the above statement...only I'm not going to bite..

First of all since from the time this nation was formed a small body of men, and some women have always decided what is law. We elect these people who make the laws, or someone who is elected by us appoints them. There are only about 700 individuals in our Congress and Senate. A mere drop in the bucket of folks considering we are a nation of almost 300 million. A majority of nine individuals (The US Surpreme Court) have decided many laws that may not have been popular with the majority of the public at the time. Brown v. The Board of Education, Dred Scott, and Row v. Wade are just a few.

Additionaly, please get your facts straight on the 5000 yr old history of marriage. Marriage, not too long ago was not always done in the name of "Holy" matrimony. Marriages were made for most of these years out of monetary concerns, property rights and continuing lineage. For thousands of years, two people were put together in an arranged by the parents contract. In other words marriage has always been an evolving institution. And for most of those years love, had very little to do with it. So why shouldn't marriage continue to evolve. How does the right for me to marry a woman change your life? Not an iota. It seems the only people who worry about all this are either blatent homophobes, or forgive the pun, closeted homophobes.

Now to the issue of hate crimes v. assualt. Hate crimes target particular individuals or groups. Hate crimes are crimes against a certain portion of humanity. Hitler, for example was King of the hate crime. Assault, like your typical mugging, is random, the mugger does not care if you are gay or let's say black, he only cares that you have enough bucks in your wallet. IMO, rape should be considered a hate crime, because obviously the criminal is targeting those who happen to have a vagina--WOMEN. And yes, men can be raped, but just like in domestic violence the vast majority of the victims are women and girls

Jimmy's advice to the lovelorn.... I maintain that is not always the case. I am currently seeking a research partner to prove my theory!

And I like herring....

M.O.F. (Mom of Franz), you make some very valid arguments and I will attempt to answer them, point by point.
Please don't think I'm being snide, rude, disrespectful, sancitimonious, arrogant, snotty, snippity, mean, hateful or whatever other adjective.
Your arguments are well reasoned, I just don't agree with some of them, although I do respect you REASONABLE tone and non-condecending approach.
However, I would submit that the Mass Supream Court doesn't have the right to decide for the other 49 states, which is exactly what they tried to do in that case.
Especially since the voters of Ohio stated overwhelmingly that gay marriage is a no-go in Ohio as a direct result of the Mass Supream court ruling.

Yes, that is the UNITED STATES SUPREAM COURT, a far cry from the Mass Supream court, I think you're comparing apples to oranges.
The U.S. Supream court slapped down the Florida Supream court and does so to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of appeals on an almost daily basis, you rarely see one state supream court over-ruling another.
If the Ohio supream court finds either one of these rulings out of order, they will rule accordingly.

I think you're wrong there.
A great majority of people do not/will not accept a homosexual relationship as "the norm", the legalization of gay marriage is, in my opinion twofold:First, it is an attempt to "mainstream" that which most choose to reject as not being mainstream and second, perhaps most importantly, it is for the financial benifits.
What is to stop it at same-sex unions, multiple partners, minors, the list is endless.
What is more, there are those who do not want their children introduced to this lifestyle until they, as parents feel the kid is ready to accept or understand it. The schools under pressure from advocacy groups and teachers unions cave in and place the agenda of others into the lesson plan and the parents are usually the last to know.
That does cause some problems.

Also, and this is an observation here, it seems that the gay community does the loudest screaming about "tolerance", however when it comes to dealing with those who disagree with them, they somehow forget to practice what they themselves preach by calling those who disagree with them as "bigots", "Hatemongers"
and "homophobes"
That isn't very tolerant, so how can anyone who engages in such tactics expect to be respected in return?
Now, let's take the term "homophobe"
To have a "phobia" means to have an unreasonable fear of something/someone.
Make no mistake-the day has not, nor will it ever come that I'm afraid of someone who is gay. To imply that i'm afraid of someone who is gay because I disagree with their position is to fool (or flatter) one's self.

M.O.F., I don't know/care if you are gay, none of my business, not my concern-but I would tell you this:
The gay community does enough damage to it's own cause in many of their public events by those who reinforce every sterotype that puts the gay community in a bad light.
Men dressed in womens underwear, dancing in front of CSPAN cameras on the National Mall in Washington, D.C. for example is a heck of a thing to come across when you're channel surfing.
That sets the cause of gay rights back, not forward. I can assure you that there are some in congress who have their own "preferences" but they certainly won't get their agendas anywhere by pulling the same stunts.
Perception is politics.
People are more inclined to listen to well reasoned, well though out cases like the one's you have put forth here.
We may not agree on this point, but your calm, non-vitriolic mannerisim will command respect, attention and a fair consideration of your point of view, so long as you can respect mine.
To your next statement:
So you're in favor of giving one crime victim more standing than another? How does that solve anything and isn't that discriminating against the victim who isn't in the "protected" class?
If someone kills two people, one victim is gay, the other is not, does the murderer get more time for killing the gay person?
Doesn't that marginalize the person who is not gay? Afterall, they're just as dead by the same hand, aren't they?
But to the hate crimes idea, their murder isn't as significant as the murder of the person who was gay.
As this argument relates to the thread we're discussing,
So here you are on one hand asking for equality on the one hand with supporting gay marriage, but on the other hand, you want someone's sexual preference or gender to give them more standing when a crime has been committed against them.
Others may disagree with me, but that strikes me as inconsistant.

/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

As this relates to the Ohio case, it seems to me that the Judge followed the law and since the people of Ohio voted in favor of the gay marriage ban, one sort of fouled up the other and the judge ruled accordingly.
Ohio seems to have some work to do on this one and I hope that they get it squared up, although it looks like this particular coward got a pass.
On the bright side, Ohio does have a lot of "Good 'ol Boys" and if the victim of this assault has a brother or two, maybe aforementioned dirtbag will get his due-We can only hope.

While that might be true of a majority of voters in those U.S. states that held plebiscites regarding gay marriage, I doubt that this is a "universal truth", especially since voter turnout isn't particularly high in the U.S.. I don't know what percentage of the world population is homosexual, but it's probably somewhere between the 1% and 10% most studies state, meaning most people have family members, friends, neighbors, colleagues, classmates, etc., who are homosexual, even if they don't acknowledge that fact. Let's say 8%, just for the sake of argument. What percentage of the U.S. population is Hispanic, African-American, or Asian? Aren't they part of the "mainstream" nowadays? Hasn't WASP society, for the most part, learned to recognize them as equals, to a great extent due to rulings of "activist judges", i.e., the interpretation of laws passed by Congress or state legislatures, over time?
You know I'm an American living in Europe. A number of European countries have legalized either gay marriage, Spain being the most recent example, or gay unions/registered partnerships. The "public outcry" has been incredibly low-key! I really don't think human beings are all that different the world over, so I doubt that allowing gay marriage in the U.S. would shake the country to its very foundations.
Don't many heterosexuals decide to marry because of the financial benefits (taxes, health care, job promotions, visas, or whatever)? Why should different rules apply to homosexuals?

[quote=Uncle Fester]M.O.F. (Mom of Franz), you make some very valid arguments and I will attempt to answer them, point by point.
Please don't think I'm being snide, rude, disrespectful, sancitimonious, arrogant, snotty, snippity, mean, hateful or whatever other adjective.


I'm sorry to say that in most of of your posts, I do find an agenda that duplicates the sentiments you listed above, but that's my opinion. Actually, the word phobia as in homophobia denotes more than irrational fear. Taken from my OED, it also means strong dislike or aversion. I don't know about you, but I never go against my OED! LOL!

The Mass Surpreme Court, was elected by the people, or appointed by someone who was elected by the people. Marriage laws have traditionally had acceptance state to state. I can't say it has always been that way, but certainly true in modern times.

"My people" just like any group can act like idiots in front of a camera. Just come to NYC for the Saint Pat's day parade and I'll show you a lot of drunk Irish and non Irish idiots. Same goes for New Years, etc. Most of them are straight...it takes all types and God has spead idiocy quite evenly among the human race. Still you think the actions of a few have done a diservice to "my people", on the contrary. How about the "stories" that DON'T make the nightly news. As gay and lesbians have come out over the last few decades, more and more people have realized, hey guess what? they know some homosexuals! It is much easier to hate, if you do not know the person, and then when you realize he or she is your neighbor that you have always liked or your cousin from Michigan that you always thought was a swell guy. Peoples attitudes change, well most reasonable thoughful and sensitive people change anyway. That's called evolution of the psyche!

Get with the program Uncle Fester, we, meaning me and "my people" are being accepted more and more each day...we will not lose what we have gained so far. Others countries around the globe are just a few steps ahead of us.

As far as violence goes, I stand by my assertion that simple assualt is different from hate crime. For example, read the stats on crime, crime rates are going down, in some areas drastically. However the crime rate for rape, essentialy a crime levied against women and girls are going up! What that does that tell you? I believe last year might have shown a slight decrease in rape, I don't recall if those stats were national or local. One year does not mean a thing to me. It will take quite a few years of rape on the decrease, for me to believe anything has changed.

As I stated earlier, marriage has always been an evolving partnership. The world turns, things change and they always will. Some people, and I know a couple of them, would rather live in the stone age, bemoaning that eggs are still not a nickle a dozen and bread no longer cost a dime a loaf. Others know life is change and embrace it.

[quote=Uncle Fester]Obi,
While I agree that you have some valid points, I would simply submit the following:
Domestic assault cases are in many cases a "he said, she said", there can be a lot of gray area that a party unknown to you (the cops) will have to sort through.

Yeah, yeah Fester, in my 20 years of hospital nursing I saw a lot of "she saids" with broken bones, contusions and cuts, funny I never saw any men (not that it does not happen). Futhermore most of the "she saids" were not very verbal about what had happened to them, The real stories had to be dragged out of them when their story ( like, falling down the stairs) did not add up. Yeah, I saw a lot of gray areas too...on the x-rays!


Oh and one more thing. After a woman files a complaint of domestice violence, many of them end up in Domestic Violence Shelters (with their kids) because the situation at home is unsafe. The women can't wait to get there, they come in droves. Must be the ambience and gov't issued food. You've never had meatloaf until you've tasted the government's version..Just like Moms!

Intention:
The mind of a person plays an important role, not just the result of his action. Consider the following 4 situations and realise that while the act and result is similar the punishment would be vastly different.
1) Man negligently hits a pedestrian with his car.
2) Man recklessly drives and hits a pedestrian.
3) Man knowingly drives his car in such a manner that he knew it would result in hitting a pedestrian.
4) Man purposely and intentionally drove his car into a pedestrian.

Effect:
The effect of domestic battery and hate crime goes beyond just the physical injury. But it is an assualt on the mind and very being of the survivor for it robs their integrity and violates their trust. As such the people behind such actions should be further punished.

Marriage:
As I recall, it was not too long ago that woman was considered as property in a marriage, or that they had to obey their husbands and could be beaten by their husbands or that minors could be married or even multiple marriage was allowed by a particular church.

One examines the situation to see whether a decision would have a negative impact. What stops marriage from expanding to minors or multiple partners, which is often 1 man, multiple woman rather than the other way, is the negative impact on the minors who may not have matured or the high level of abuse found in multiple partner. But there is nothing wrong with a homosexual relationship.

The mentioning of financial benefits is important for the GAO concluded its examination of federal laws and found that there are 1049 benefits and rights that are given to people who are married thus the discrimination in the law prevents same sex couples from obtaining such rights.

The simple question which has yet to be answered is "What is wrong with same sex marriage?" Even comments that a majority of people voted against it does not answer the question of what lead them to their decision.

60 years ago on this date (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4430133.stm), US forces liberated the Buchenwald death camp, a place where Jews, homosexuals and many others were detained. For those who are against homosexuals, know where your hellish ideology stems from and the approval you would get from Hitler. For those who support an end to discrimination and intolerance know that within you flows the founding spirit of America and that you are carrying on a fine tradition in support of freedom, liberty and equality.

EXCELLENT Post Bumpy.

I would also add that simple assault, such as a mugging generally effects the person both physically and psychologically who was mugged. Domestic violence, in my view, a hate crime has an effect that can bubble over into generations. It is not a ONE victim crime.

[quote=Mom of Franz] Mom of Franz, I agree with you completely. Take a case I am working on now, for example. My client was choked by her husband. At the time, she did not have a cell phone or a phone in the home (because he, of course, would not allow it), so she could not call the police. When I took this case to our army case review committee (a group of "professionals" who decide whether or not to substantiate a case for domestic violence and then give the abuser the appropriate punishment/treatment), they voted to unsubstantiate because there was no police report. There I was, with a photo of the bruise on her neck and a copy of the protective order that she had obtained in court! But these folks, like Uncle Fester, felt it was too "he said/she said" and my client's abuser got off scott-free in the eyes of the military .
What's even more sad is that, when I first met the person who heads this committee, her first words to me were, "Don't believe everything the 'victims' tell you." No wonder so many DV victims do not receive the justice and help they deserve, with attitudes like this!!!

Just to add to the debate about common assault vs. hate crimes.

In my opinion, hate crimes should be treated more severely than common assault, because when hate comes into the equation, the level of violence escalates. Hate allows the hatee (is there such a word?) to be treated as less than human; I have always believed that the punishment should fit the crime.

Sue