| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
07 Apr 2005 06:09:37 PM |
| Object: |
Ohio Republicans legalize domestic abuse |
http://makeashorterlink.com/?H246127DA
Wednesday, March 23, 2005 11:47 p.m. ET
By CONNIE MABIN Associated Press Writer
CLEVELAND (AP) -- Domestic violence charges cannot be filed
against unmarried people because of Ohio's new constitutional
amendment banning gay marriage, a judge ruled Wednesday.
Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Judge Stuart Friedman changed a
felony domestic violence charge against Frederick Burk to a
misdemeanor assault charge.
Prosecutors immediately appealed.
Judges and others across the country have been waiting for a
ruling on how the gay marriage ban, among the nation's broadest,
would affect Ohio's 25-year-old domestic violence law, which
previously wasn't limited to married people.
Burk, 42, is accused of slapping and pushing his live-in
girlfriend during a January argument over a pack of cigarettes.
His public defender, David Magee, had asked the judge to throw out the
charge because of the new wording in Ohio's constitution
that prohibits any state or local law that would "create or
recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried
individuals."
Before the amendment, courts applied the domestic violence law by
defining a family as including an unmarried couple living
together as would a husband and wife, the judge said. The gay
marriage amendment no longer allows that.
John Martin, who supervises appeals in the public defender's
office, said the office was pleased with the ruling but would not
comment further because of the appeal.
Because Burk had a prior domestic violence conviction, the latest
charge was a felony that could have resulted in an 18-month jail
term; a misdemeanor assault carries a maximum sentence of six
months.
"This case is a good example of why we need a domestic violence
law. A misdemeanor assault doesn't carry with it a significant
enough penalty for repeat domestic violence abusers," said Matt
Meyer, an assistant Cuyahoga County prosecutor.
Some opponents of the amendment have said they hope the conflict
over the domestic violence law would result in the gay marriage
ban being repealed.
Seventeen states have constitutional language defining marriage
as between a man and a woman. Ohio's is regarded as the broadest
marriage amendment of those passed by 11 states Nov. 2 because it
bans civil unions and legal status to all unmarried couples and
gay marriages.
.
|
|
| User: "Fester" |
|
| Title: Re: Ohio Republicans legalize domestic abuse |
07 Apr 2005 11:06:53 PM |
|
|
<man_in_black529@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1112897377.624052.228170@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
http://makeashorterlink.com/?H246127DA
Wednesday, March 23, 2005 11:47 p.m. ET
By CONNIE MABIN Associated Press Writer
CLEVELAND (AP) -- Domestic violence charges cannot be filed
against unmarried people because of Ohio's new constitutional
amendment banning gay marriage, a judge ruled Wednesday.
Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Judge Stuart Friedman changed a
felony domestic violence charge against Frederick Burk to a
misdemeanor assault charge.
Prosecutors immediately appealed.
Judges and others across the country have been waiting for a
ruling on how the gay marriage ban, among the nation's broadest,
would affect Ohio's 25-year-old domestic violence law, which
previously wasn't limited to married people.
Burk, 42, is accused of slapping and pushing his live-in
girlfriend during a January argument over a pack of cigarettes.
His public defender, David Magee, had asked the judge to throw out the
charge because of the new wording in Ohio's constitution
that prohibits any state or local law that would "create or
recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried
individuals."
Before the amendment, courts applied the domestic violence law by
defining a family as including an unmarried couple living
together as would a husband and wife, the judge said. The gay
marriage amendment no longer allows that.
John Martin, who supervises appeals in the public defender's
office, said the office was pleased with the ruling but would not
comment further because of the appeal.
Because Burk had a prior domestic violence conviction, the latest
charge was a felony that could have resulted in an 18-month jail
term; a misdemeanor assault carries a maximum sentence of six
months.
"This case is a good example of why we need a domestic violence
law. A misdemeanor assault doesn't carry with it a significant
enough penalty for repeat domestic violence abusers," said Matt
Meyer, an assistant Cuyahoga County prosecutor.
Some opponents of the amendment have said they hope the conflict
over the domestic violence law would result in the gay marriage
ban being repealed.
Seventeen states have constitutional language defining marriage
as between a man and a woman. Ohio's is regarded as the broadest
marriage amendment of those passed by 11 states Nov. 2 because it
bans civil unions and legal status to all unmarried couples and
gay marriages.
Did they also do away with assault and battery? If not, then your post is a
red herring.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Ohio Republicans legalize domestic abuse |
08 Apr 2005 01:11:03 AM |
|
|
Fester wrote:
Did they also do away with assault and battery? If not, then your
post is a
red herring.
And shouldn't people who assault people they live with be
charged worse? I mean, if the victims go to the cops,
they're afraid they might end up homeless.
Either way, this is the problem with the gay marriage
amendment.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fester" |
|
| Title: Re: Ohio Republicans legalize domestic abuse |
08 Apr 2005 01:40:59 AM |
|
|
<man_in_black529@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1112922663.613202.267800@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Fester wrote:
Did they also do away with assault and battery? If not, then your
post is a
red herring.
And shouldn't people who assault people they live with be
charged worse? I mean, if the victims go to the cops,
they're afraid they might end up homeless.
Either way, this is the problem with the gay marriage
amendment.
Whty the ***** would anyone stay in a place where they get beat up? It's got
nothing to do with an ammendment which maitains the status quo definition of
marriage. Battery is battery and the batterer is a criminal. If the victim
won't press charges and won't leave of his/her own accord just what are we
supposed to do about it?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fester" |
|
| Title: Re: Ohio Republicans legalize domestic abuse |
08 Apr 2005 01:53:45 AM |
|
|
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message
news:Lil5e.24198$9v2.887660@twister.southeast.rr.com...
<man_in_black529@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1112922663.613202.267800@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Fester wrote:
Did they also do away with assault and battery? If not, then your
post is a
red herring.
And shouldn't people who assault people they live with be
charged worse? I mean, if the victims go to the cops,
they're afraid they might end up homeless.
Either way, this is the problem with the gay marriage
amendment.
Whty the ***** would anyone stay in a place where they get beat up? It's
got nothing to do with an ammendment which maitains the status quo
definition of marriage. Battery is battery and the batterer is a
criminal. If the victim won't press charges and won't leave of his/her
own accord just what are we supposed to do about it?
To extend my reply I want to provide an example of what I'm talking about.
Suppose Oscar beats the ***** out Felix. They're not queers, have no
relationship other than living together and do not want to marry each other.
What does has the definition of marriage have to with Felix going to the
cops and having Oscar put away, or Felix deciding to move to avoid getting
his ***** kicked? What's the difference if they're a couple of queers or not?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Secret Squirrel" |
|
| Title: Re: Ohio Republicans legalize domestic abuse |
10 Apr 2005 11:49:49 PM |
|
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in
news:Jul5e.24294$9v2.888755@twister.southeast.rr.com:
To extend my reply I want to provide an example of what I'm
talking about. Suppose Oscar beats the ***** out Felix.
They're not queers, have no relationship other than living
together and do not want to marry each other. What does has
the definition of marriage have to with Felix going to the
cops and having Oscar put away, or Felix deciding to move
to avoid getting his ***** kicked? What's the difference if
they're a couple of queers or not?
Because, silly, if they're "spouses", property held between
them is frequently considered as being shared.
So, to answer your question with a question, if Oscar beats
up Felix, and forces Felix to move out, why should Oscar be
rewarded for having acted this way so by being able to control
any property that he and Felix co-owned that Felix couldn't
take with him?
Among mere roomates, Oscar isn't considered to co-own any of
Felix's property. But if he's his "spouse", he might be just
co-owner. And that's a BIG difference.
Secret Squirrel
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: N/A
iQEVAwUBQlhsgT/rA6+b3AyhAQFtCwf+Jz2kuFlxIq1Q8JePAY3zatlnaLZjBfmD
Gy9Dsg9CyFAXgo9yJnHaIjMlNyfVSzpZn2aMBtosPeA1OLdQHOAAyq4swB3PUp2S
/R/jR++LrtOKysREG30kdODOB806DpKRVrrq+fIyVsL3Tumjrc6ayKKHQs4r5/P2
jmcA/ahOkjeD759cxZ4/fyxcyv8YHir87HBgRwrI/F1l3r5+i4w66K0HjEWGOTUZ
8YfsCHvAahFUKvpfIoGeduW1cm2kfbyjKB0dCHxkfCD2uxGmr2s/5oz5xvqAOVJ/
chrb/OO0mMip8Bd+f3X3bCm/ZWirbkVnvevzh/Pai3KziIBFxkczbQ==
=TrFV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Ohio Republicans legalize domestic abuse |
08 Apr 2005 05:42:07 AM |
|
|
Fester wrote:
To extend my reply I want to provide an example of what I'm talking
about.
Suppose Oscar beats the ***** out Felix. They're not queers, have no
relationship other than living together and do not want to marry each
other.
Wait, they're NOT?
What does has the definition of marriage have to with Felix going to
the
cops and having Oscar put away, or Felix deciding to move to avoid
getting
his ***** kicked? What's the difference if they're a couple of queers
or not?
Well, the law says that NO non-blood relationship shall be
legally recognized other than marriage.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fester" |
|
| Title: Re: Ohio Republicans legalize domestic abuse |
08 Apr 2005 11:43:27 AM |
|
|
<man_in_black529@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1112938927.363353.50640@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Fester wrote:
To extend my reply I want to provide an example of what I'm talking
about.
Suppose Oscar beats the ***** out Felix. They're not queers, have no
relationship other than living together and do not want to marry each
other.
Wait, they're NOT?
Do your homework, they're obviously not.
What does has the definition of marriage have to with Felix going to
the
cops and having Oscar put away, or Felix deciding to move to avoid
getting
his ***** kicked? What's the difference if they're a couple of queers
or not?
Well, the law says that NO non-blood relationship shall be
legally recognized other than marriage.
You still haven't resolved the case of Unger v Madison. Felix has legal
remedies available to him. Would/should Felix deserve "extra special"
protection if he and Oscar were gay? If so, why?
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Ohio Republicans legalize domestic abuse |
08 Apr 2005 01:33:46 PM |
|
|
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote
You still haven't resolved the case of Unger v Madison.
Felix has legal remedies available to him. Would/should
Felix deserve "extra special" protection if he and Oscar
were gay? If so, why?
In the case of marriage, the discrimination is based on gender.
A gay man can marry a gay woman. The fact that they are
gay wouldn't disqualify them from marriage.... just as
being straight wouldn't disqualify two men from getting
married, if discrimination no longer took place.
Get it? Even just a little? Unger & Madison could get
married, even if -- as in your example -- they are not
gay. There would be no "Legal relationship" denied to
them. None.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Ohio Republicans legalize domestic abuse |
08 Apr 2005 05:22:14 PM |
|
|
JTEM wrote:
You still haven't resolved the case of Unger v Madison.
Felix has legal remedies available to him. Would/should
Felix deserve "extra special" protection if he and Oscar
were gay? If so, why?
In the case of marriage, the discrimination is based on gender.
A gay man can marry a gay woman. The fact that they are
gay wouldn't disqualify them from marriage.... just as
being straight wouldn't disqualify two men from getting
married, if discrimination no longer took place.
Get it? Even just a little? Unger & Madison could get
married, even if -- as in your example -- they are not
gay. There would be no "Legal relationship" denied to
them. None.
And why would they want to? There are no benefits to being
married to just anyone.
Besides, everyone knows fundies are only mad because what
they do with twelve-year-old girls is illegal in all 50
states.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Ohio Republicans legalize domestic abuse |
08 Apr 2005 05:20:14 PM |
|
|
Fester wrote:
Fester wrote:
To extend my reply I want to provide an example of what I'm
talking
about.
Suppose Oscar beats the ***** out Felix. They're not queers, have
no
relationship other than living together and do not want to marry
each
other.
Wait, they're NOT?
Do your homework, they're obviously not.
Oscar and Felix, Batman and Robin, Laverne and Shirley.
Let's face it: We were ALL thinking they were.
What does has the definition of marriage have to with Felix going
to
the
cops and having Oscar put away, or Felix deciding to move to avoid
getting
his ***** kicked? What's the difference if they're a couple of
queers
or not?
Well, the law says that NO non-blood relationship shall be
legally recognized other than marriage.
You still haven't resolved the case of Unger v Madison. Felix has
legal
remedies available to him. Would/should Felix deserve "extra
special"
protection if he and Oscar were gay? If so, why?
Gay or otherwise, the extra protection offered by the
domestic violence law comes from living together, but the
state doesn't recognize that now.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Ohio Republicans legalize domestic abuse |
08 Apr 2005 03:17:47 PM |
|
|
In article "Fester" <not@home.com> <z7u5e.32042$JL2.1021799@twister.southeast.rr.com>writes:
<man_in_black529@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1112938927.363353.50640@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Fester wrote:
To extend my reply I want to provide an example of what I'm talking
about.
Suppose Oscar beats the ***** out Felix. They're not queers, have no
relationship other than living together and do not want to marry each
other.
Wait, they're NOT?
Do your homework, they're obviously not.
What does has the definition of marriage have to with Felix going to
the
cops and having Oscar put away, or Felix deciding to move to avoid
getting
his ***** kicked? What's the difference if they're a couple of queers
or not?
Well, the law says that NO non-blood relationship shall be
legally recognized other than marriage.
You still haven't resolved the case of Unger v Madison. Felix has legal
remedies available to him. Would/should Felix deserve "extra special"
protection if he and Oscar were gay? If so, why?
Except that by the "aren't there still assault and battery statues?" argument,
why have domestic violence laws at all, for anyone?
-- cary
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fester" |
|
| Title: Re: Ohio Republicans legalize domestic abuse |
08 Apr 2005 10:56:29 PM |
|
|
"Cary Kittrell" <cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
news:d367ar$cev$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
In article "Fester" <not@home.com>
<z7u5e.32042$JL2.1021799@twister.southeast.rr.com>writes:
<man_in_black529@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1112938927.363353.50640@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Fester wrote:
To extend my reply I want to provide an example of what I'm talking
about.
Suppose Oscar beats the ***** out Felix. They're not queers, have no
relationship other than living together and do not want to marry each
other.
Wait, they're NOT?
Do your homework, they're obviously not.
What does has the definition of marriage have to with Felix going to
the
cops and having Oscar put away, or Felix deciding to move to avoid
getting
his ***** kicked? What's the difference if they're a couple of queers
or not?
Well, the law says that NO non-blood relationship shall be
legally recognized other than marriage.
You still haven't resolved the case of Unger v Madison. Felix has legal
remedies available to him. Would/should Felix deserve "extra special"
protection if he and Oscar were gay? If so, why?
Except that by the "aren't there still assault and battery statues?"
argument,
why have domestic violence laws at all, for anyone?
I have no idea. But then I have on idea why we "hate crime" laws either.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Ohio Republicans legalize domestic abuse |
08 Apr 2005 04:11:37 PM |
|
|
(Cary Kittrell) wrote in
news:d367ar$cev$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu:
In article "Fester" <not@home.com>
<z7u5e.32042$JL2.1021799@twister.southeast.rr.com>writes:
<man_in_black529@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1112938927.363353.50640@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Fester wrote:
To extend my reply I want to provide an example of what I'm
talking
about.
Suppose Oscar beats the ***** out Felix. They're not queers, have
no relationship other than living together and do not want to
marry each
other.
Wait, they're NOT?
Do your homework, they're obviously not.
What does has the definition of marriage have to with Felix going
to
the
cops and having Oscar put away, or Felix deciding to move to avoid
getting
his ***** kicked? What's the difference if they're a couple of
queers
or not?
Well, the law says that NO non-blood relationship shall be
legally recognized other than marriage.
You still haven't resolved the case of Unger v Madison. Felix has
legal remedies available to him. Would/should Felix deserve "extra
special" protection if he and Oscar were gay? If so, why?
Except that by the "aren't there still assault and battery statues?"
argument, why have domestic violence laws at all, for anyone?
-- cary
Good question.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"You know you're over the target when you start receiving flak."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: Ohio Republicans legalize domestic abuse |
09 Apr 2005 04:50:05 AM |
|
|
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
Except that by the "aren't there still assault and battery statues?"
argument, why have domestic violence laws at all, for anyone?
Domestic violence laws cover a lot more than assault and battery
criminal statutes:
Here's a summary of Federal domestic violence law.
http://www.vaw.umn.edu/documents/ffc/chapter5/chapter5.html
And here is a summary of a random state (Missouri's) law.
http://www.mobar.org/pamphlet/domviol.htm
lojbab
--
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Ohio Republicans legalize domestic abuse |
09 Apr 2005 12:03:21 PM |
|
|
Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in
news:eene51lorunhf3gilp0vk7e61c0ci2kiks@4ax.com:
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
I didn't write that. Please get your attributions right.
Except that by the "aren't there still assault and battery statues?"
argument, why have domestic violence laws at all, for anyone?
Domestic violence laws cover a lot more than assault and battery
criminal statutes:
Here's a summary of Federal domestic violence law.
http://www.vaw.umn.edu/documents/ffc/chapter5/chapter5.html
And here is a summary of a random state (Missouri's) law.
http://www.mobar.org/pamphlet/domviol.htm
lojbab
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"You know you're over the target when you start receiving flak."
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gray Shockley" |
|
| Title: Re: Ohio Republicans legalize domestic abuse |
11 Apr 2005 10:37:51 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 8 Apr 2005 00:42:07 -0500,
man_in_black529@yahoo.com wrote
Fester wrote:
To extend my reply I want to provide an example of what I'm talking
about.
Suppose Oscar beats the ***** out Felix. They're not queers, have no
relationship other than living together and do not want to marry each
other.
Wait, they're NOT?
What does has the definition of marriage have to with Felix going to
the
cops and having Oscar put away, or Felix deciding to move to avoid
getting
his ***** kicked? What's the difference if they're a couple of queers
or not?
Well, the law says that NO non-blood relationship shall be
legally recognized other than marriage.
Well, acksually [authorized FidoNet spelling] adoption is
pretty legal.
gray
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Ohio Republicans legalize domestic abuse |
13 Apr 2005 02:24:44 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 17:37:51 -0500, Gray Shockley
<grayshockley@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 8 Apr 2005 00:42:07 -0500,
man_in_black529@yahoo.com wrote
Fester wrote:
To extend my reply I want to provide an example of what I'm talking
about.
Suppose Oscar beats the ***** out Felix. They're not queers, have no
relationship other than living together and do not want to marry each
other.
Wait, they're NOT?
What does has the definition of marriage have to with Felix going to
the
cops and having Oscar put away, or Felix deciding to move to avoid
getting
his ***** kicked? What's the difference if they're a couple of queers
or not?
Well, the law says that NO non-blood relationship shall be
legally recognized other than marriage.
Well, acksually [authorized FidoNet spelling] adoption is
pretty legal.
Not anymore.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Ohio Republicans legalize domestic abuse |
08 Apr 2005 05:43:29 AM |
|
|
Fester wrote:
Did they also do away with assault and battery? If not, then your
post is a
red herring.
And shouldn't people who assault people they live with be
charged worse? I mean, if the victims go to the cops,
they're afraid they might end up homeless.
Either way, this is the problem with the gay marriage
amendment.
Whty the ***** would anyone stay in a place where they get beat up?
Among the lower classes, it's often that or homelessness.
It's got
nothing to do with an ammendment which maitains the status quo
definition of
marriage. Battery is battery and the batterer is a criminal. If the
victim
won't press charges and won't leave of his/her own accord just what
are we
supposed to do about it?
The domestic violence law had remedies, but no more, thanks
to the Republicans.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Ohio Republicans legalize domestic abuse |
08 Apr 2005 11:34:16 AM |
|
|
wrote in
news:1112939009.050936.38810@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
Fester wrote:
Did they also do away with assault and battery? If not, then your
post is a
red herring.
And shouldn't people who assault people they live with be
charged worse? I mean, if the victims go to the cops,
they're afraid they might end up homeless.
Either way, this is the problem with the gay marriage
amendment.
Whty the ***** would anyone stay in a place where they get beat up?
Among the lower classes, it's often that or homelessness.
It's got
nothing to do with an ammendment which maitains the status quo
definition of marriage. Battery is battery and the batterer is a
criminal. If the victim won't press charges and won't leave of
his/her own accord just what are we supposed to do about it?
The domestic violence law had remedies, but no more, thanks
to the Republicans.
No, thanks to the stupid Democrats who came up with this ridiculous
foolish and mindless interpretation of the law.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"You know you're over the target when you start receiving flak."
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Ohio Republicans legalize domestic abuse |
08 Apr 2005 05:18:28 PM |
|
|
Fred Stone wrote:
The domestic violence law had remedies, but no more, thanks
to the Republicans.
No, thanks to the stupid Democrats who came up with this ridiculous
foolish and mindless interpretation of the law.
Oh, yes, now are you going to threaten to kill judges?
Seriously, let's look at the law:
1) The domestic violence law recognizes non-blood ties other
than marriage.
2) The amendment says doing so is unconstitutional.
You do the math.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Ohio Republicans legalize domestic abuse |
08 Apr 2005 06:31:56 PM |
|
|
wrote in news:1112980708.780728.324070
@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
The domestic violence law had remedies, but no more, thanks
to the Republicans.
No, thanks to the stupid Democrats who came up with this ridiculous
foolish and mindless interpretation of the law.
Oh, yes, now are you going to threaten to kill judges?
No.
Seriously, let's look at the law:
Yes, let's look at the actual wording of the law(s).
http://www.smartvoter.org/2004/11/02/oh/state/issue/1/
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.
Ohio Code § 2919.25. Domestic violence.
(A) No person shall knowingly cause or attempt to cause physical harm
to a family or household member.
(B) No person shall recklessly cause serious physical harm to a family
or household member.
(C) No person, by threat of force, shall knowingly cause a family or
household member to believe that the offender will cause imminent
physical harm to the family or household member.
(D) (1) Whoever violates this section is guilty of domestic violence.
....
(1) "Family or household member" means any of the following:
(a) Any of the following who is residing or has resided with the
offender:
(i) A spouse, a person living as a spouse, or a former spouse of the
offender;
(ii) A parent or a child of the offender, or another person related by
consanguinity or affinity to the offender;
(iii) A parent or a child of a spouse, person living as a spouse, or
former spouse of the offender, or another person related by
consanguinity or affinity to a spouse, person living as a spouse, or
former spouse of the offender.
(b) The natural parent of any child of whom the offender is the other
natural parent or is the putative other natural parent.
(2) "Person living as a spouse" means a person who is living or has
lived with the offender in a common law marital relationship, who
otherwise is cohabiting with the offender, or who otherwise has
cohabited with the offender within five years prior to the date of the
alleged commission of the act in question.
1) The domestic violence law recognizes non-blood ties other
than marriage.
It does not "approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect
of marriage", unless you want to claim that physical harm is part of the
design of marriage.
2) The amendment says doing so is unconstitutional.
Only if you stretch the meaning of the terms. Why the judge bought it is
beyond my understanding. I suspect a Democratic political agenda,
myself.
You do the math.
I expect the decision will be overturned on appeal.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"You know you're over the target when you start receiving flak."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Secret Squirrel" |
|
| Title: Re: Ohio Republicans legalize domestic abuse |
11 Apr 2005 12:19:18 AM |
|
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in
news:1112985117.72d7fbed854ec1021453a368f6f863b5@teranews:
Yes, let's look at the actual wording of the law(s).
Indeed, let's.
http://www.smartvoter.org/2004/11/02/oh/state/issue/1/
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**.
(my emphasis)
Ohio Code § 2919.25. Domestic violence.
(A) No person shall knowingly cause or attempt to cause
physical harm to a family or household member.
(B) No person shall recklessly cause serious physical harm
to a family or household member.
(C) No person, by threat of force, shall knowingly cause a
family or household member to believe that the offender
will cause imminent physical harm to the family or
household member.
(D) (1) Whoever violates this section is guilty of
domestic violence.
...
(1) "Family or household member" means any of the
following:
(snip)
(2) "Person living as a spouse" means a person who is
living or has lived with the offender in a common law
marital relationship, who otherwise is cohabiting with the
offender, or who otherwise has cohabited with the offender
within five years prior to the date of the alleged
commission of the act in question.
Hmm. Let's take a look at that phrase again:
"...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."
And note the very definition (2) is entitled <ahem> "person
living as a spouse" and specifically says that "unmarried
invidivuals", whatever their respective genders, don't
qualify for the same legal recognition as "spouses".
What else does "spouse" mean if you amend the Ohio state
constitution to specifically say that unmarried people can
never be recognized as "spouses"?
Seems a slam-dunk to me.
Only if you stretch the meaning of the terms. Why the judge
bought it is beyond my understanding. I suspect a
Democratic political agenda, myself.
I expect the decision will be overturned on appeal.
Interesting, because I heard that many legal experts predict
that this very thing would happen, well before this decision.
Ever consider that they might know more about the law than
you do?
Of course, I'd be more than willing to invite 'buckeye' to
take a look at it, if you want arbitration.
Secret Squirrel
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: N/A
iQEVAwUBQlhsgT/rA6+b3AyhAQEVPAf8C4V6HgOKhw/cQpFurioXWZg7WadvSfL4
s//sDBpbUSfKHGM+Q0t7QXbiuA2k9//yX9mEoL8cr3h3HhdIUhSNMa7jrujBKZxg
XBOsfd2JZvYaSTqvO62nB6eLP4GDB4xHm0o5vI2mxA5G3yboAfLGPcOY7Z+izPlN
u+CZ5O7gIZsNsHjKIKs5mJADr/9axnMapIyztFxdj9tx3nmLcy7evN1RD3OPSTgK
yow5XDXGoZ1ZCbJPr4QgOz29qoRrjyYUQ+I5gC6oPk2NVjfmNBCff8xOF+Oyr9CJ
WAapDapK+lud90JgKOwPysrv4mutfPYo1di1FmkPhWIwjJ1/ZrLe3A==
=BCtu
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Ohio Republicans legalize domestic abuse |
09 Apr 2005 01:07:52 AM |
|
|
Fred Stone wrote:
The domestic violence law had remedies, but no more, thanks
to the Republicans.
No, thanks to the stupid Democrats who came up with this
ridiculous
foolish and mindless interpretation of the law.
Oh, yes, now are you going to threaten to kill judges?
No.
Strange, since your hero Cornyn says to do so. Fairly jejune
response for a senator, but what are we to expect? This same
party insists that every unsolved murder in the history of
the state of Arkansas (and even a few deaths we can safely
rule accidents, such as a couple teens getting hit by a
train) is Clinton's fault.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Ohio Republicans legalize domestic abuse |
09 Apr 2005 01:35:21 AM |
|
|
wrote in
news:1113008872.346729.276760@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
The domestic violence law had remedies, but no more, thanks
to the Republicans.
No, thanks to the stupid Democrats who came up with this
ridiculous foolish and mindless interpretation of the law.
Oh, yes, now are you going to threaten to kill judges?
No.
Strange, since your hero Cornyn says to do so.
Uh, no, he's not my hero. I never heard of him before some hysterical
Democrat spun his remarks that way. But I'm not surprised that you would
fall for such a transparent bit of moonbat propaganda.
Fairly jejune
response for a senator, but what are we to expect? This same
party insists that every unsolved murder in the history of
the state of Arkansas (and even a few deaths we can safely
rule accidents, such as a couple teens getting hit by a
train) is Clinton's fault.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"You know you're over the target when you start receiving flak."
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Ohio Republicans legalize domestic abuse |
09 Apr 2005 05:47:21 PM |
|
|
Fred Stone wrote:
The domestic violence law had remedies, but no more, thanks
to the Republicans.
No, thanks to the stupid Democrats who came up with this
ridiculous foolish and mindless interpretation of the law.
Oh, yes, now are you going to threaten to kill judges?
No.
Strange, since your hero Cornyn says to do so.
Uh, no, he's not my hero. I never heard of him before some hysterical
Democrat spun his remarks that way. But I'm not surprised that you
would
fall for such a transparent bit of moonbat propaganda.
"I don't know if there is a cause-and-effect connection but
we have seen some recent episodes of courthouse violence in
this country. Certainly nothing new, but we seem to have run
through a spate of courthouse violence recently that's been
on the news and I wonder whether there may be some
connection between the perception in some quarters on some
occasions where judges are making political decisions yet
are unaccountable to the public, that it builds up and
builds up and builds up to the point where some people
engage in - engage in violence."
How can you spin that?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Ohio Republicans legalize domestic abuse |
09 Apr 2005 06:35:36 PM |
|
|
wrote in
news:1113068841.302417.245950@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
The domestic violence law had remedies, but no more, thanks
to the Republicans.
No, thanks to the stupid Democrats who came up with this
ridiculous foolish and mindless interpretation of the law.
Oh, yes, now are you going to threaten to kill judges?
No.
Strange, since your hero Cornyn says to do so.
Uh, no, he's not my hero. I never heard of him before some hysterical
Democrat spun his remarks that way. But I'm not surprised that you
would fall for such a transparent bit of moonbat propaganda.
"I don't know if there is a cause-and-effect connection but
we have seen some recent episodes of courthouse violence in
this country. Certainly nothing new, but we seem to have run
through a spate of courthouse violence recently that's been
on the news and I wonder whether there may be some
connection between the perception in some quarters on some
occasions where judges are making political decisions yet
are unaccountable to the public, that it builds up and
builds up and builds up to the point where some people
engage in - engage in violence."
How can you spin that?
You tell me. How do you get that he's saying to go kill judges out of
that?
I mean, he's a stupid git, the recent spate of courtroom violence has
nothing to do with political judges, but it still doesn't read like he's
advocating violence.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"You know you're over the target when you start receiving flak."
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Ohio Republicans legalize domestic abuse |
11 Apr 2005 07:37:52 AM |
|
|
Fred Stone wrote:
"I don't know if there is a cause-and-effect connection but
we have seen some recent episodes of courthouse violence in
this country. Certainly nothing new, but we seem to have run
through a spate of courthouse violence recently that's been
on the news and I wonder whether there may be some
connection between the perception in some quarters on some
occasions where judges are making political decisions yet
are unaccountable to the public, that it builds up and
builds up and builds up to the point where some people
engage in - engage in violence."
How can you spin that?
You tell me. How do you get that he's saying to go kill judges out of
that?
Well, since it happened in the wake of a guy killing the
judge who sentenced him for rape and murder, you tell me.
Personally, I'd just be happy if judges stopped going out
duck hunting with the defendants.
I mean, he's a stupid git, the recent spate of courtroom violence has
nothing to do with political judges, but it still doesn't read like
he's
advocating violence.
In this case, it's advocating. Otherwise, he wouldn't have
said as much.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Ohio Republicans legalize domestic abuse |
11 Apr 2005 02:05:05 PM |
|
|
wrote in
news:1113205072.748360.37830@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
"I don't know if there is a cause-and-effect connection but
we have seen some recent episodes of courthouse violence in
this country. Certainly nothing new, but we seem to have run
through a spate of courthouse violence recently that's been
on the news and I wonder whether there may be some
connection between the perception in some quarters on some
occasions where judges are making political decisions yet
are unaccountable to the public, that it builds up and
builds up and builds up to the point where some people
engage in - engage in violence."
How can you spin that?
You tell me. How do you get that he's saying to go kill judges out of
that?
Well, since it happened in the wake of a guy killing the
judge who sentenced him for rape and murder, you tell me.
So the cause came after the effect?
Personally, I'd just be happy if judges stopped going out
duck hunting with the defendants.
I mean, he's a stupid git, the recent spate of courtroom violence has
nothing to do with political judges, but it still doesn't read like
he's advocating violence.
In this case, it's advocating. Otherwise, he wouldn't have
said as much.
No, I'm afraid not. The charge of incitement to violence requires a
clear directive to commit violence, not merely noting a correlation,
however feeble.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"You know you're over the target when you start receiving flak."
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: Ohio Republicans legalize domestic abuse |
11 Apr 2005 12:09:40 PM |
|
|
On 11 Apr 2005 00:37:52 -0700, wrote:
Fred Stone wrote:
"I don't know if there is a cause-and-effect connection but
we have seen some recent episodes of courthouse violence in
this country. Certainly nothing new, but we seem to have run
through a spate of courthouse violence recently that's been
on the news and I wonder whether there may be some
connection between the perception in some quarters on some
occasions where judges are making political decisions yet
are unaccountable to the public, that it builds up and
builds up and builds up to the point where some people
engage in - engage in violence."
How can you spin that?
You tell me. How do you get that he's saying to go kill judges out of
that?
Well, since it happened in the wake of a guy killing the
judge who sentenced him for rape and murder, you tell me.
Personally, I'd just be happy if judges stopped going out
duck hunting with the defendants.
I mean, he's a stupid git, the recent spate of courtroom violence has
nothing to do with political judges, but it still doesn't read like
he's
advocating violence.
In this case, it's advocating. Otherwise, he wouldn't have
said as much.
It's a moment that will no doubt go down in a.a history, but for once
I'm going to have to agree with Fred.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kate " |
|
| Title: Re: Ohio Republicans legalize domestic abuse |
09 Apr 2005 06:11:02 PM |
|
|
On 9 Apr 2005 10:47:21 -0700, wrote:
Fred Stone wrote:
The domestic violence law had remedies, but no more, thanks
to the Republicans.
No, thanks to the stupid Democrats who came up with this
ridiculous foolish and mindless interpretation of the law.
Oh, yes, now are you going to threaten to kill judges?
No.
Strange, since your hero Cornyn says to do so.
Uh, no, he's not my hero. I never heard of him before some hysterical
Democrat spun his remarks that way. But I'm not surprised that you
would
fall for such a transparent bit of moonbat propaganda.
"I don't know if there is a cause-and-effect connection but
we have seen some recent episodes of courthouse violence in
this country. Certainly nothing new, but we seem to have run
through a spate of courthouse violence recently that's been
on the news and I wonder whether there may be some
connection between the perception in some quarters on some
occasions where judges are making political decisions yet
are unaccountable to the public, that it builds up and
builds up and builds up to the point where some people
engage in - engage in violence."
How can you spin that?
Even the republicans are backing away from this idiot - except for
their leader Delay who thinks it's just ducky.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
