Ohio marriage ban weakens other law
Eric Johnston, PlanetOut Network
Thursday, March 24, 2005 / 05:17 PM
SUMMARY: A judge in Cleveland, Ohio, used the state's constitutional ban against same-sex marriage to declare part of the state's domestic violence law unconstitutional.
Activists' warnings that the broad language of Ohio's constitutional amendment banning gay marriage would have unintended consequences came true on Wednesday. A judge in Cleveland used the ban to declare part of the state's domestic violence law unconstitutional.
Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Judge Stuart Friedman made that determination in the case of Frederick Burk, 42, who last month had been charged with felony domestic violence for slapping and pushing his live-in girlfriend.
Ohio was one of 11 states to pass constitutional bans on same-sex marriage last November. However, the language of Ohio's Issue 1 was the most broad, prohibiting any state or local law that would "create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals."
Ohio's 25-year-old domestic violence law, however, recognizes relationships between unmarried couples. According to Friedman, Issue 1 has rendered that part of the domestic violence statute unconstitutional and thus unenforceable.
On Wednesday, the judge reduced the felony charge against Burk to a misdemeanor assault charge.
"Judge Friedman's opinion misses the point. The Constitution is not an invitation to strip legal protection from the most vulnerable in our community," Cuyahoga County Prosecutor William Mason told the Cleveland Plain Dealer newspaper.
Prosecutors immediately appealed the ruling to the 8th Ohio District Court of Appeals. Legal experts have predicted the legal battle could eventually reach the Ohio Supreme Court.
Camilla Taylor, a staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union, told the PlanetOut Network she thinks Judge Friedman's decision is "wrong."
"In fact, another trial judge in this same county (trying a similar case) reached the exact opposite conclusion, saying that the domestic violence law doesn't create special legal status of relationship for unmarried couples," she said.
"Obviously it's very disappointing that Ohioans wrote discrimination into their constitution, and the courts are now grappling with that," Taylor added.
Cathleen Alexander, executive director of the Domestic Violence Center in Cleveland, told the Plain Dealer, "The troubling part, until the state figures out how to address these unintended consequences, is that a victim can't avail themselves of the full protection of the domestic violence law."
Some opponents of Issue 1 worry that the language of Ohio's same-sex marriage ban could also block other protections, such as parental rights for same-sex couples and domestic partner benefits.
Some are hopeful the conflict over the domestic violence law will result in the gay marriage ban being repealed.
Thursday, March 24, 2005 / 05:17 PM
SUMMARY: A judge in Cleveland, Ohio, used the state's constitutional ban against same-sex marriage to declare part of the state's domestic violence law unconstitutional.
Activists' warnings that the broad language of Ohio's constitutional amendment banning gay marriage would have unintended consequences came true on Wednesday. A judge in Cleveland used the ban to declare part of the state's domestic violence law unconstitutional.
Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Judge Stuart Friedman made that determination in the case of Frederick Burk, 42, who last month had been charged with felony domestic violence for slapping and pushing his live-in girlfriend.
Ohio was one of 11 states to pass constitutional bans on same-sex marriage last November. However, the language of Ohio's Issue 1 was the most broad, prohibiting any state or local law that would "create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals."
Ohio's 25-year-old domestic violence law, however, recognizes relationships between unmarried couples. According to Friedman, Issue 1 has rendered that part of the domestic violence statute unconstitutional and thus unenforceable.
On Wednesday, the judge reduced the felony charge against Burk to a misdemeanor assault charge.
"Judge Friedman's opinion misses the point. The Constitution is not an invitation to strip legal protection from the most vulnerable in our community," Cuyahoga County Prosecutor William Mason told the Cleveland Plain Dealer newspaper.
Prosecutors immediately appealed the ruling to the 8th Ohio District Court of Appeals. Legal experts have predicted the legal battle could eventually reach the Ohio Supreme Court.
Camilla Taylor, a staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union, told the PlanetOut Network she thinks Judge Friedman's decision is "wrong."
"In fact, another trial judge in this same county (trying a similar case) reached the exact opposite conclusion, saying that the domestic violence law doesn't create special legal status of relationship for unmarried couples," she said.
"Obviously it's very disappointing that Ohioans wrote discrimination into their constitution, and the courts are now grappling with that," Taylor added.
Cathleen Alexander, executive director of the Domestic Violence Center in Cleveland, told the Plain Dealer, "The troubling part, until the state figures out how to address these unintended consequences, is that a victim can't avail themselves of the full protection of the domestic violence law."
Some opponents of Issue 1 worry that the language of Ohio's same-sex marriage ban could also block other protections, such as parental rights for same-sex couples and domestic partner benefits.
Some are hopeful the conflict over the domestic violence law will result in the gay marriage ban being repealed.