Thursday, March 24, 2005


Yesterday a Cuyahoga County judge ruled that the amendment approved in Nov 2004 made the state's domestic violence law unconstitutional since it recognizes the relationship between unmarried offender and victim as one "approximating the significance or effect of marriage".

Keep in mind that I do not advocate domestic abuse. But on the other hand, I find something ironic, funny and satisfying that all those who voted for Issue 1 for the sole purpose of banning gay marriage in Ohio now have no protection from domestic abuse if they are not married.

Of course this will go to appeal, but a CWRU law professor states, "My own guess is that Judge Friedman is correct because the language in Issue 1 is so clear, it's hard to get around that."

Though I'm sure if this holds up, the law for domestic abuse will just be changed. But for the time being, it is somewhat satisfying to know that shortsightedness in a rush to exclude one group is doing the same for other groups. Maybe lawmakers, or better yet, the lemmings who rush to vote to discriminate, might actually find out that they too can be discriminated against.

No comments: