One question, for clarification's sake:

[pegkerr]

Gacked from wicked_wish:

To those of you who voted to pass legislation outlawing gay marriage -- on the grounds that we had to "protect" all those heteros and their sacred institutions, and for the good of humanity, for the peace of the land, so that justice may prevail for straight people everywhere ... are you happy now?

[more].

In the comments to wicked_wish's entry on this, howeird asked:

Someone please educate me. I am strongly in favor of gay marriage, but I don't see how this news article is important. As far as I know, in all 50 states it is illegal to assault someone, and it doesn't matter if it's a spouse or a total stranger.

During my reporter days, I saw the police be much more lenient in cases of spousal abuse than they were with friend-abuse or stranger-abuse. It makes me wonder if gays who are not married would possibly have more protection, not less, than married couples.

What am I missing?

and gigglingwizard replied:

A gay person's partner could still be charged with assault/battery. You're right about that. But the charge "Domestic Violence" carries an enhanced penalty. The sentences are longer, you get strikes that add up against you, and if you're convicted of DV, you cannot legally own a firearm (federal law).

And what you said about police leniency was also true. Often this was less about police tolerance for domestic abuse and more about lazy cops not wanting to do a lot of paperwork. If they could just get the couple to kiss and make up, their work was done. Also, it was frustrating for a lot of officers to get called in by the victim, then have the victim refuse to press charges.

Legislators in some states--Ohio being one of them--passed laws to circumvent these problems. Now if the police go on a domestic violence call, they have a set amount of paperwork they have to do whether they arrest anyone or not. If they don't arrest, they have to do a report explaining why not. More often than not, they arrest someone. If they can't determine which one was the primary aggressor, they'll run both of 'em in. Also, it's no longer necessary for the victim to testify or even press charges. The police press charges in DV cases. Not so for assault. If the police don't witness the assault, the victim typically has to work through the prosecutor's office to get anything done about it.

Private to Mom: You remember that e-mail I sent to a family member on this topic? Could you please make absolutely sure he reads this entry, including all the links? Thanks.

Comments

[naomikritzer]

In terms of precisely who may be protected by these laws, it is worth reflecting on the fact that one of Jeffrey Dahmer's victims escaped alive, but was returned to him by the Milwaukee police department. The victim was young, and Hmong, and had been drugged by Dahmer. Dahmer was able to persuade the police that the young man's obvious fear was because they'd had a minor lover's spat, and his confusion was the result of intoxication. The victim was, if I recall correctly, a minor. The police returned him to Dahmer, who took him home and murdered him. Had the police treated the call as "domestic violence, can't tell who the aggressor is, take BOTH of them in," the victim would have lived, and Dahmer almost certainly would have been caught, and stopped, that day.

Someone might point that one out to the anti-gay crusaders who thought this bill was such a great idea.

[king-tirian.livejournal.com]

I'm not certain that it's worth getting riled up over yet. The story is just that some public defenders have made this argument in court. It hasn't gone to the point of a judge agreeing with it. One hopes that tomorrow morning at 9:00 a judge will tear these lawyers a new one. Even if it does somehow conform with the law, it's hard to imagine legislators resisting a push to protect unmarried cohabitants once it is made clear that the law as it stands is not up to it.

That being said, it is a good morality play illustrating that "protecting" institutions by denying equal protection to all citizens is an ugly specter.

[elisem.livejournal.com]

His name was Konerak Sinthasomphone. The police handed him back to the man who then killed him.

I've never forgotten his name. I probably never will.

[elisem.livejournal.com]

Oh, I don't know about it being hard to imagine that. The same people who say homosexuals are deviants are likely to say that unmarried cohabitants are living in sin, obviously immoral, and deserve what they get. In fact, they'd probably cite it as evidence that sex outside of marriage was being punished by God.

At least, the ones I know would.

Legislators do not generally like being portrayed as being in favor of immorality and sexual promiscuity and sin and all that. I can imagine people knuckling under to that.

Though I wish I couldn't imagine it.

[pixelfish.livejournal.com]

Ugh. The first thing that popped to mind for me was the fourteen and fifteen year old girls that run away from the polygamist colonies in Arizona and other Western states and provinces because they don't want to end up in marriage. TECHNICALLY, they aren't legally married either. Under the logic employed by this law, they wouldn't qualify for "domestic violence" protections either....but I don't know what else you'd call having your father or prospective husband beat the hell out of you because you aren't a "good wife."

Constitutional Ammendment

[lsanderson.livejournal.com]

It's not just a "law," it's an ammendment. It's become the basis for all law in the state. The only work around is if it's in conflict with the US Constitution.

[jhetley.livejournal.com]

In Maine, a "domestic" call means a mandatory arrest if there is _any_ sign of violence. And cops hate 'em, because they often get caught in the middle, with the "victim" obstructing the arrest. Both parties drunk and beligerent. Ain't humans wonderful?

[cmpriest.livejournal.com]

i find the whole subject very interesting, and have devoted a fair amount of thought to it over the last couple of years. don't know if you saw them or not, but i have several posts dedicated to "marriage protection" and whatnot. people occasionally ask me to link them again, so you may have seen them -- but if not:

one
two
three

Re: Constitutional Ammendment

[king-tirian.livejournal.com]

Unless I misunderstand the amendment (which is a distinct possibility), it doesn't target domestic abuse specifically, only that unmarried couples aren't entitled to the perks that marriage affords. If that is the case, then I think it's an open question as to whether domestic abuse protection is something that was legislated only to protect married people. As someone who lives just two states over in NY, that seems like quite a stretch. I suppose I'll find out.

Although, without question, I am disgusted that there are at least two men in the world who are hiding behind the defense of "if she wanted to be protected from my beatings, she should have married me." This doesn't seem to be a winning strategy to promote people to tie the knot.

[http://users.livejournal.com/anam_cara_/]

Perhaps I'm way off base, but the feeling I got from the second article was that this hasn't come up yet, but the public defender is anticipating it- and by getting this out in the media now, it is urging the general public to see the other faults with this legislation. So while this is appalling, it seems that this is a point that could lead to the legislation being thrown out. So, in a twisted way, it's a good thing in that it pokes a huge hole in the legitimacy of such a law.

[jbru.livejournal.com]

One hopes the judges do not allow the motions, but if nothing else, this serves as a warning to all about the dangers of such legislation.

Thank you!

[gwendolyngrace.livejournal.com]

Yes, yes, yes.

I just read all three of your posts, and I heartily agree. I was actually looking for work back during the Democratic National Convention, and I wound up applying for (and being interviewed for) a job with one of the grassroots campaign organizations. I was aksed as part of my interview to write a "letter to the editor" on a campaign issue. Now, tanked the job at that point, because the only issue I could think of about which I knew enough to write with no references was gay marriage. I disagree with Kerry on this one, and that probably came out too much in my letter. Because the point of that letter was basically the same as your post - in *whose* history is our current definition of marriage a constant? No one's! Marriage is a contract - that's all. It's the promise of people to enter into a contract, sworn and entered with witnesses. The terms of that contract and the character of those witnesses are entirely up to the individuals involved. Period.

Here's another one to add to your list: In Wales in the 10-13th centuries, marriages had *term limits* for chrissakes. (Okay, so mainly this was when a man lost his wife and had kids, and basically married another woman to be the "mother" until the kids grew up, but not necessarily.) Couples had *choices* about how long they would marry, under what conditions, and what acts violated those conditions. Pre-nups, incidentally, could be construed as a "violation" of the modern - oops, excuse me, I mean "age-old" - concept of marriage.

Argh. The concept of family, union, and domestic arrangement is one that has pretty well constantly changed over the last 2/3,000 years. The main problem we have here is that people think a tradition that's about a hundred years old has always been around forever and is therefore sacrosanct. :Grumble.

Re: Thank you!

[cmpriest.livejournal.com]

wow -- well, i'm glad you approve ;-)