Article

2005-01-17 Home Front: Culture Wars

New anti-gay marriage amendment used to defend domestic violence

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2005-01-17 19:45|| || Front Page|| [4 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 defense attorneys, like trolls, are unaffected by shame or logic.

Posted by Frank G 2005-01-17 8:36:27 PM|| 2005-01-17 8:36:27 PM|| Front Page Top

#2 This is not a problem with the gay-marriage amendment. This is a problem of the police not charging the violent offenders with the plain old charges of assault and battery. Nice twist, Ars.

Posted by Tom 2005-01-17 8:41:57 PM|| 2005-01-17 8:41:57 PM|| Front Page Top

#3 The article doesn't say whether or not it worked... which probably means it didn't.

Posted by Dishman 2005-01-17 10:30:15 PM|| 2005-01-17 10:30:15 PM|| Front Page Top

#4 Notice how the story starts with "in at least two cases" then slides to "in the two cases". Also note that it's an "attempt", not a success; odds are they'll fail.

Also note that it was the PUBLIC DEFENDER'S OFFICE that tried this. Anyone want to bet it was the same lawyer in both cases, and that the lawyer involved is an advocate for a special-interest group?

Ah!!!

I was right. It always helps to go to the original source, something Aris needs to learn. Granted, I have a bit more knowledge of why Cincinnati.com is not the best place to look for news out of Cleveland, but no doubt Aris' original source could have done a bit of digging:

Claim: Unwed abuse victims left unprotected under Issue 1

(You may need to do a stupid age/sex thing to read it)

"The thing is, you can only get a domestic-violence charge now if you are a wife beater, not a girlfriend beater," said Jeff Lazarus, a law clerk for public defender Robert Tobik and chief architect of the motions to dismiss.

*snip*

"Hopefully, instead of the [domestic-violence] statute, it will blow out the constitutional amendment," said Ruden, who co-authored a leading legal text on Ohio's domestic-violence law.

That, Lazarus acknowledged, is exactly why he concocted the public defender's line of attack.

"Personally, when I was brainstorming this, it was with an eye toward, 'How could we make this amendment look not so good?' " he said Wednesday.

Basically, an activist decided he didn't like the result of a referendum, so he's going to play cute with the courts to try to get it overturned.

Justice be damned, democracy be damned, the voters of Ohio be damned, a third-year law student (check the article!) is going to have his way or else women across Ohio are going to be beaten to a pulp!

Posted by Robert Crawford 2005-01-17 10:54:32 PM|| [http://www.kloognome.com/] 2005-01-17 10:54:32 PM|| Front Page Top

#5 Thanks for the additional link, Robert. I'd received the link to the original article from a friend of mine.

I object to such mind-games; I don't believe a public defender's job is to apply laws in *order* to make them look bad -- that feels abusive. But if the article's correct, it does seem accurate, regarding the effect of the amendment: "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"

The previous domestic violence law seems however to recognize cohabitation that approximates marriage as worth. As such: it seems (to me) to have become unconstitutional.

As for "women across Ohio are going to be beaten to a pulp", refer to the suggestion of Tom at #2 about charging the violent offenders with the "plain old charges of assault and battery". If that's sufficient for you.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2005-01-17 11:27:09 PM|| [http://www.livejournal.com/~katsaris/] 2005-01-17 11:27:09 PM|| Front Page Top