Christian Conservatives for Domestic Violence?

When a raft of state defense of marriage amendments (DOMAs) passed in 2004, observers (including yours truly) warned that such amendments would not just ban gay marriage but also imperil domestic partnership agreements, next-of-kin arrangements and domestic violence protections for unmarried people. Right-wing backers dismissed such concerns as left-liberal paranoia. Well, I normally love to say "I told you so," but in this case it brings me no pleasure. Nonetheless, I told you so.

Ohio was one of 11 states to pass DOMAs in 2004, and pundits alleged then that "State Issue No. 1," as it was called on the ballot, played a major role in John Kerry's defeat. Whatever the case may be (and let's hope the ballots are still around to see), one immediate fallout is clear: domestic violence protections for unmarried women.

In late August, Ohio's Citizens for Community Values (CCV), a right-wing organization devoted to promoting "Judeo-Christian moral values," filed an amicus brief on behalf of an alleged domestic abuser. For the past 25 years, Ohio's domestic violence law has covered married couples as well as unmarried and divorced individuals. According to CCV, such protections run afoul of Ohio's DOMA, which bars the state from recognizing any legal status for unmarried people that "intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage." If CCV has their way, "persons living as a spouse" (i.e. unmarried, live-in partners) would no longer be protected under Ohio's domestic violence statute. Apparently, it's more important for CCV to preserve the distinction between married and unmarried couples (and pre-empt gay marriage) than it is to prosecute domestic abusers. So much for Judeo-Christian values...

Comments (14)

1. So much for Judeo-Christian values...

   but it's a bright new day for evangelic conservative values

   Posted by Will C. at 09/04/2006 @ 11:41pm

2. it's not fair to say that this organization supports domestic violence; it's merely an unintended consequence of their sorry political agenda.

   Posted by darladoon at 09/04/2006 @ 11:45pm

3. Rio, could you clarify your stance a little better? I don't understand your position at all.

   Posted by MCHureaux at 09/05/2006 @ 12:43am

4. 11 states did the best job of WHAT? 34 states which?

   Posted by MCHureaux at 09/05/2006 @ 01:16am

5. 11 states did the best job of WHAT? 34 states which?

   Posted by MCHureaux at 09/05/2006 @ 01:17am

6. rio doesn't know what he's talking about.

   this is merely an unintended consequence of an extreme legal position.

   what pro-lifers want to do for abortion, homophobes want to do for marriage.

   Posted by darladoon at 09/05/2006 @ 01:36am

7. At the very least, he sounds as though he's aguing that protection from domestic violence under the law is a done deal, that prosecutions for such abuse flow unimpeded, and that all legal protections of those abused in relationships wherein there is no formal marriage are excessive. Moreover, such protections are excessive because a body of voters don't feel like recognizing the rights of people unblessed by the Christian witch doctors.

   And that's nuts.

   Posted by MCHureaux at 09/05/2006 @ 07:24am

8. Posted by DARLADOON 09/04/2006 @ 11:45pm

   Yep....though surprised to see it from you.

   Posted by Mask at 09/05/2006 @ 07:29am

9. Posted by MCHUREAUX 09/05/2006 @ 07:24am

   I like how you think

   :)

   Posted by Will C. at 09/05/2006 @ 08:54am

10. mask, i'm sure you don't agree with the second 1/2 of the statement, though.

    Posted by darladoon at 09/05/2006 @ 10:26am

11. Under evengelical rule wives are given into servitude to their husbands, why should they be protected when single folks are not? What right does a State have to interfere with a husband/wife relationship? Marriage is the very foundation of our countries moral beliefs, right?

    Posted by crabwalk at 09/05/2006 @ 10:43am

12. Posted by DARLADOON 09/05/2006 @ 10:26am

    Uh, yeah...I do. Sorry if I never fully informed you, DARLA, but I'm not "pro-Religious Right".

    Fundamentalists of that sort are atavisms that will eventually pass away. (Polling shows that even their anti-gay attitudes aren't being inherited by their kids).

    You were right on BOTH counts...hence my "Yep".

    Posted by Mask at 09/05/2006 @ 10:47am

13. No where I know of in these 50 states is someone NOT prosecutable under assault and battery charges alone!

    Then why do domestic violence protections exist?

    Posted by leftbehinds at 09/07/2006 @ 1:03pm

14. (because the legal remedies for barfights and for violence against someone you live with are, of course, exactly the same. DEEERRRRRRRR)

    Posted by leftbehinds at 09/07/2006 @ 1:10pm