During last year's election, proponents of homosexual "marriage" tried to undermine support in South Dakota for Amendment C with the claim that in other states where marriage protection amendments had been passed, women were losing domestic violence protection against live-in boyfriends who beat them up. Ohio was cited as one example where "people have lost domestic abuse protections."
I pointed out then that while some dirtbags were trying to use the marriage protection amendment to escape justice, that it wasn't going to work (besides, South Dakota law provides even greater protection for women who are shacking up than does Ohio).
Those cases in Ohio have now received a ruling from the Ohio Supreme Court, which found that Ohio's marriage protection amendment does NOT negate domestic violence protections for women who are shacking up.
SYLLABUS OF THE COURT The term “person living as a spouse” as defined in R.C. 2919.25 merely identifies a particular class of persons for the purposes of the domestic-violence statutes. It does not create or recognize a legal relationship that approximates the designs, qualities, or significance of marriage, as prohibited by Section 11, Article XV of the Ohio Constitution.
This argument was one of the most powerful in the arsenal of homosexual "marriage" advocates. Despite a full-court press from homosexual activists, apologists and the media for nearly 20 years, most people still understand that for a relationship to constitute "marriage," a man and a woman are required. So homosexual apologists appealed to the self-interest of unmarried heterosexuals by making them believed they were threatened by efforts to protect marriage.
Appealing to the self-interest of unmarried heterosexuals proved very effective, resulting in the lowest-ever passage for a marriage protection amendment of 52% in South Dakota (passage has been in the 80-percentile range in some states), and the failure of a marriage protection amendment in Arizona. People were effectively scared by a scarlet fish into backing away from protecting marriage.
That fear tactic concerning domestic violence protection has now been proven to be the red herring we knew it to be all along. The wind has been taken out of that sail.
Nevertheless, as more marriage protection amendments come before the people next year, expect homosexual "marriage" proponents to exploit other self-interest items such as hospital visits, inheritances, and any other arguments they can come up with. Those committed to protecting marriage from hijacking should be prepared for it.
A battle has been won today, but the war against marriage goes on.
HT to Constitutionally Correct.
2 comments:
It's nice to see that you're still trying to justify your hatred of gay people, Mr. Ellis.
I don't hate homosexuals, John. I'm just not afraid to say that their behavior is wrong and unhealthy, along with their attacks on marriage.
Would you like to debate the accuracy of any of the information of this post, or is an ad hominem attack the best you can do to express your frustration at being on the wrong side of this debate?
Post a Comment