NationStates Jolt Archive

(I will find a link to the news story soon just heard it on the nighly news but cant find link yet)

Ohio a man sucessfully argued against his domestic abuse charge of beating his live in girlfriend.
Basing his defense on gay marrige ban legislation stating "the governemnt shall not make any laws pertaining to relationships outside of marrige"
origionaly intented to block civil unions has turned out to block the domestic abuse charge sucessfully

If anyone can find a link to the story please post

Edit
Link ... thank you for providing it kind sir
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1039697,00.html

Wow, what a great precedent. I live in Ohio (Cleveland area, thankfully) and have to say that this is terrible. This ban has set a lot of dangerous precedents, and I hope this isn't one of them. Ah well, what does one expect from the "family values" crowd?

Wow, what a great precedent. I live in Ohio (Cleveland area, thankfully) and have to say that this is terrible. This ban has set a lot of dangerous precedents, and I hope this isn't one of them. Ah well, what does one expect from the "family values" crowd?
I am just amazed they left that big of loop hole in there ... amazing

If you hear anthing please post CNN fox nor MSNBC have nothing up as far as I can see (tried lots of the bigs) lol

If you hear anthing please post CNN fox nor MSNBC have nothing up as far as I can see (tried lots of the bigs) lol
So what does that suggest?

So what does that suggest?
Not sure the news story was on FOX news as well as CNN on tv just not on their website

That is sick. I am certainly glad we don’t have that problem in New Zealand.

Not sure the news story was on FOX news as well as CNN on tv just not on their website
Not to have anything against you, but until you source it I'll have to assume you're misremembering it.

Here's the story:

wireservice.wired.com/wired/story.asp?section=Breaking&storyId=1009020&tw=wn_wire_story (http://)

The link doesn't work properly. Instead, just type this in:

http://wireservice.wired.com/wired/story.asp?section=Breaking&storyId=1009020&tw=wn_wire_story

That link apparently doesn't work.

Ah nevermind.

Not to have anything against you, but until you source it I'll have to assume you're misremembering it.
Was almost dead on :) (link above posted by Vetalia)

Here is a relevant link

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1039697,00.html

Why not recharge him with assault?

holy crap - so they cant punish anyone for anything if it doesnt happen between two married individuals.

I am gunna go rob a bank in Ohio and kill a few of the tellers because I am not married to the bank owner or any of its employees.

Here's the story:

wireservice.wired.com/wired/story.asp?section=Breaking&storyId=1009020&tw=wn_wire_story (http://)

The link doesn't work properly. Instead, just type this in:

http://wireservice.wired.com/wired/story.asp?section=Breaking&storyId=1009020&tw=wn_wire_story
Thank you kind sir :) still looking for some of the big sites ... they just had it on the news but yeah (did a search for the defendent too ... they dont have it on fox or cnn lol)

holy crap - so they cant punish anyone for anything if it doesnt happen between two married individuals.

I am gunna go rob a bank in Ohio and kill a few of the tellers because I am not married to the bank owner or any of its employees.
You missed the point. It only voids the domestic abuse laws for couples not married, and in Ohio domestic abuse carries stiffer penalties than assault.

Why not recharge him with assault?
They did ... but I beleive it is a reduced sentince (domestic assult almost always has a heavier penalty's ... at least here)

Fox probably won't even mention it...

holy crap - so they cant punish anyone for anything if it doesnt happen between two married individuals.

I am gunna go rob a bank in Ohio and kill a few of the tellers because I am not married to the bank owner or any of its employees.
No, they can't charge him with beating his spouse. He's getting charged with assault. Which is what it should be.

Fox probably won't even mention it...
My dad has it on ... thats the first place I heard about it in the backround (they are over visiting) lol

You know what? Serves them right. Serves them god damn right.

You missed the point. It only voids the domestic abuse laws for couples not married, and in Ohio domestic abuse carries stiffer penalties than assault.


just having fun :p

They should just call it assault and battery

No, they can't charge him with beating his spouse. He's getting charged with assault. Which is what it should be.

I think the point is, his sentence would be greater if he was charged with domestic abuse rather than assualt. Which seems a little wrong, doesn't it?

No, they can't charge him with beating his spouse. He's getting charged with assault. Which is what it should be.
Why does the marrige licence carry stiffer penalties at all ... your crime was the same thing (theoredicaly) ?

I think the point is, his sentence would be greater if he was charged with domestic abuse rather than assualt. Which seems a little wrong, doesn't it?
Not really. If she wants the protections of a spouse she should be one.

Why does the marrige licence carry stiffer penalties at all ... your crime was the same thing (theoredicaly) ?
Why shouldn't it? If you don't like the penalties, don't get married.

Why shouldn't it? If you don't like the penalties, don't get married.
But should not the penalty be placed on the crime not the situation? seems strangly close to different laws based off of things like sex or race

Here's another link, an editorial from Columbus alive. Towards the middle are a list of issues the writer brought up, drawing them from the poorly worded text of the ban:

http://www.columbusalive.com/2004/20040929/092904/09290411.html

But should not the penalty be placed on the crime not the situation? seems strangly close to different laws based off of things like sex or race
Your sex and race are forced on you. Your marital status is not. It's like joining the military and complaining when they send you to war, if you don't like the contract, then don't sign it.

Here's another link, an editorial from Columbus alive. Towards the middle are a list of issues the writer brought up, drawing them from the poorly worded text of the ban:

http://www.columbusalive.com/2004/20040929/092904/09290411.html
Thoes are good enough to post


• If a man beats his live-in girlfriend, will she be protected by Ohio’s domestic violence laws (as she currently is)?



• If a 72-year-old woman has medical power of attorney for her 77-year-old partner, and he’s hospitalized with a serious illness at Ohio State, will the hospital allow her to make any decisions in his healthcare (even though that’s what he wanted)?



• Will the hospital even allow the woman to visit him (since she’s not his next of kin and they aren’t married)?



• Will the state of Ohio recognize last wills and testaments that leave the property of one person in a relationship to the surviving partner if they aren’t legally married? Or will those wills now be open to challenges from family members, thus leaving the grieving survivor out in the cold?



• Will unmarried people be allowed to adopt children?



• Will the state still be able to go after deadbeat dads who never married their child’s mother, for economic support?



• Will employees of the state of Ohio get maternity leave if they are single?



• Since a large number of Fortune 500 companies offer domestic partnership rights to their employees, do you think they will see Ohio as a friendly place to bring new jobs?



• What’s going to happen to all of the companies in Ohio that already offer domestic partnership benefits to their employees (like the three largest private employers in Franklin County: the Limited, Nationwide and J.P. Morgan Chase)? Can they still offer the benefits? Or will they, at the behest of their employees, start to look to other states to relocate?



• How many people who now have health insurance will suddenly lose it? (And guess who ends up picking up the tab when these newly uninsured folks come down with a catastrophic illness—Ohio taxpayers.)



• Will an unmarried couple even be allowed to purchase a home together?

Not really. If she wants the protections of a spouse she should be one.

Assault is assualt, relationship shouldn't enter the equation.

Assault is assualt, relationship shouldn't enter the equation.
Assault is assault, yes. What is happening is that the penalty is not being raised to domestic abuse. Not that his punishment is being reduced.

Why does the marrige licence carry stiffer penalties at all ... your crime was the same thing (theoredicaly) ?

More rewards equals more responsibility, I would imagine. Not that I agree with it. Assault is the same thing whether it's on a complete stranger or a loved one.

Assault is assault, yes. What is happening is that the penalty is not being raised to domestic abuse. Not that his punishment is being reduced.

Yes. And I am saying that domestic abuse laws are silly and should not exist. If you assault somebody you should be punished to the fullest extent of the law - end of story.

Yes. And I am saying that domestic abuse laws are silly and should exist. If you assault somebody you should be punished to the fullest extent of the law - end of story.
The fullest extent is different if you assault someone random as opposed to assaulting your spouse. The same way the fullest extent is different if you assualt a child as opposed to an adult. The same way that the fullest extent is different if you shoot someone with a rifle or with a handgun.

I agree acompletely The Naro Alen. It doesn't really make sense that the punishment for a crime increses based upon the relationship between the victim and and attacker. They should recieve equal punishment.

holy crap - so they cant punish anyone for anything if it doesnt happen between two married individuals.

I am gunna go rob a bank in Ohio and kill a few of the tellers because I am not married to the bank owner or any of its employees.

That doesnt seem to be the case. From the article in the links, the ban would prevent state and local authorities to make laws for or against people where their relationship is axproximate to marriage but not a mn and wife legal marriage. In this case, the guy was charged with the underlying assault but could be charged under the states domestic violence laws. The domestic violence aproximated a marriage like relationship.

I dont think this is such a bad thing. Why should should the law view an assault differantly based on whether the people knew each other or lived together? Why is slapping and pushing a stranger not as bad as doing the same thing to your bf/gf?

Same thing can be said of Hate crimes laws. Why is worse that a person killed another because he hated that persons race or sexuality? Isnt it as bad if he just hated the individuals view on say the minimum wage or something else? Why is one murder treated so differently?

WAIT A MINUTE BART-BART. One drunk idiot manages to beat the whole Ohio legal system and all you can complain about is gay marraige block laws as opposed to, oh I don't know maybe trying to figure out how some drunk dumbass managed to beat the whole ohio legal system. I garauntee that would never fly in good old Virginny.

Hilarious, absolutely hilarious. I for one am for gay marriage. I find it truly funny that in there attempt to deny basic civil rights of gays they in affect have granted abusive boyfriends/girlfriends a viable defense.....Stupid lawmakers.... :headbang: ( at least in ohio)

I agree acompletely The Naro Alen. It doesn't really make sense that the punishment for a crime increses based upon the relationship between the victim and and attacker. They should recieve equal punishment.
So would you want the guy who rapes your 8 year old daughter to receive more or less punishment than the guy who rapes his 35 year old male cell mate?

WAIT A MINUTE BART-BART. One drunk idiot manages to beat the whole Ohio legal system and all you can complain about is gay marraige block laws as opposed to, oh I don't know maybe trying to figure out how some drunk dumbass managed to beat the whole ohio legal system. I garauntee that would never fly in good old Virginny.
Read my time link Sherlock Holmes

The gay marriage ban in Ohio is so open ended and strenuous is it can be used to void parts of their domestic abuse law. Even those gun-toting Virginians can't make laws that contradict each other work together

The fullest extent is different if you assault someone random as opposed to assaulting your spouse.

I understand this, and that is why I am speaking in terms of how I believe the law should be. Not necessarily how it is - and bare in mind that the laws of our two countries differ in many ways. I believe that the 'fullest extent' should be the same whether you assualt somebody at random (and I doubt that many assaults take place at 'random', they largely seem to be over some sort of brawl), or whether you beat your wife.

The same way the fullest extent is different if you assualt a child as opposed to an adult. The same way that the fullest extent is different if you shoot someone with a rifle or with a handgun.

Of course. A child is entirely different to an adult, and when an adult assaults a child there should come with greater penalties. A married woman, on the other hand, is not really any different to a non-married woman - other than in title. So to say that she should receive greater rights over her body than the non-married woman, seems quite unresonable to my mind.

EDIT: Bare in mind that children have special rights anyway.

Of course. A child is entirely different to an adult, and when an adult assaults a child there should greater penalties. A married woman, on the other hand, is not really any different to a non-married woman - other than in title. So to say that she should receive greater rights over her body than the non-married woman, seems quite unresonable to my mind.
A married women loses her ability to sleep with whoever she wants, loses autonomy in her finances, in her medical decisions, in just about every aspect of her life. In order to make that palatable, you need to compensate her for what you're taking away.

I agree with Jrv here.

So would you want the guy who rapes your 8 year old daughter to receive more or less punishment than the guy who rapes his 35 year old male cell mate?

Completely differant, you are not factoring the age and sex of the two victims.

A better analogy would be to compare a guy who forciblely rapes another adult(of sex a, but a stranger) being treated the same or differant thatif he forcibly raped another adult(of sex a but whom he knew)

I would say it should be the same punishment in that case.

So would you want the guy who rapes your 8 year old daughter to receive more or less punishment than the guy who rapes his 35 year old male cell mate?

Regardless of relationship. Age is a different matter. The 8 year old wouldn't know what the guy was doing enough to dispute or allow or what. The 35 year old knows full well what is going on.

If it were a 35 year old daughter (mine or his own) and a 35 year old stranger, sure, give both rapists 25 years or more.

I agree with Jrv here.
Oh, well you've convinced me. Good thing you did it without cluttering the thread with facts or reasoning.

Completely differant, you are not factoring the age and sex of the two victims.

A better analogy would be to compare a guy who forciblely rapes another adult(of sex a, but a stranger) being treated the same or differant thatif he forcibly raped another adult(of sex a but whom he knew)

I would say it should be the same punishment in that case.
What about if a guy forcibly rapes a stranger or forcibly rapes a person whose financial situation, living quarters, and motor vehicle are completely controlled by him?

Welcome arammanar :-D. But seriously. If a woman is married. She can still sleep with whomever she pleases, so long as she is not caught:-P. She can still make any decision she wishes on her finances, it's her money after all. Unless she doesn't work. And as far as losing her medical decisions, please. Is her husband going to force her to not go get tested for AIDs or whatever it happens to be? Also by agreeing that would usually mean I share the same views as him so I see no point in reitterating it. But since you insisted.

A married women loses her ability to sleep with whoever she wants, loses autonomy in her finances, in her medical decisions, in just about every aspect of her life. In order to make that palatable, you need to compensate her for what you're taking away.

I really don't see these as being relevant.

A married women loses her ability to sleep with whoever she wants, loses autonomy in her finances, in her medical decisions, in just about every aspect of her life. In order to make that palatable, you need to compensate her for what you're taking away.

How does a married women lose these rights?

How is prevented(by the govt) from sleeping with whom she chooses? Her partner might object and it might end up in a divorce(having a right doesnt mean you are immune to the consequences of exercising it).

How does she lose autonomy over her finances? She can choose to have a joint account with her husband or not. They can file taxes jointly or not.

She can give her medical choice rights to whomever she pleases. If she decides to give it to no one, then the state presumes it resides with her spouse.

Welcome arammanar :-D. But seriously. If a woman is married. She can still sleep with whomever she pleases, so long as she is not caught:-P. She can still make any decision she wishes on her finances, it's her money after all. Unless she doesn't work. And as far as losing her medical decisions, please. Is her husband going to force her to not go get tested for AIDs or whatever it happens to be? Also by agreeing that would usually mean I share the same views as him so I see no point in reitterating it. But since you insisted.
As long as she is not caught. If she is, she gets divorced and loses her money, and her kids. She doesn't have to worry about that if she isn't married.

It generally isn't. Most women give up their jobs when they get married, and most open joint checking accounts with their husband. Thus, they lose autonomy in finances, since half the money isn't theirs.

How's she going to pay for medical things if she's on his insurance?

How does a married women lose these rights?

How is prevented(by the govt) from sleeping with whom she chooses? Her partner might object and it might end up in a divorce(having a right doesnt mean you are immune to the consequences of exercising it).

How does she lose autonomy over her finances? She can choose to have a joint account with her husband or not. They can file taxes jointly or not.

She can give her medical choice rights to whomever she pleases. If she decides to give it to no one, then the state presumes it resides with her spouse.
There is no consequence to sleeping around when you are single. There is when you are married. That is the difference.

They can, but they usually do. She usually gives up her job. Generally they're entered as one entity in the tax system.

She usually has his insurance and has to use his money. Maybe she doesn't want him making her medical decisions, but when she goes comatose for 15 years, who knows?

if if if if if.First statement was a joke, chill. She doesn't need to give up her job. If she does she deserve to lose some of the rights afforded to her be the lose of that money.

I really don't see these as being relevant.
Then don't get married. Then they aren't.

if if if if if.First statement was a joke, chill. She doesn't need to give up her job. If she does she deserve to lose some of the rights afforded to her be the lose of that money.
Why? What if they don't want their kids to grow up and be misanthropes? The reason that it's considered worse to abuse a spouse than a stranger is that it's more heinous, you're betraying trust, you're damaging them more. Think about it, if you beat some stranger and you beat your spouse, who has to do more stuff to put their life together? Both have counsueling, but the stranger doesn't need to go through a messy divorce, get a restraining order against the kids' father, etc.

What about if a guy forcibly rapes a stranger or forcibly rapes a person whose financial situation, living quarters, and motor vehicle are completely controlled by him?

1)Forcible rape is forcible rape.

2)how exactly are all these things controlled by him? I think you need to consider the differance between a person consciously choosing their arangement with another and being forced to physically. The former does not entitle the govt to give or take any special priveleges, the latter is a crime all by itself(kidnapping) and carries quite a stiff penalty already.

Arammanar, what exactly does women's rights to finance, sleeping around, and medical insurance have to do with Ohio men getting off of domestic abuse charges because they're not married to the abusee? Where is the connection? That's where I'm confused.

I think you need to consider the differance between a person consciously choosing their arangement with another and being forced to physically.
EXACTLY! When he got married he signed a paper saying that he now had new rights and responsibilities. No one put a gun to his head and said get married. He did so by his own damn self. And in doing so, agreed to receive an increased punishment if he ever abused his spouse. If that wasn't ok with him, then he shouldn't have gotten married.

There is no consequence to sleeping around when you are single. There is when you are married. That is the difference.

They can, but they usually do. She usually gives up her job. Generally they're entered as one entity in the tax system.

She usually has his insurance and has to use his money. Maybe she doesn't want him making her medical decisions, but when she goes comatose for 15 years, who knows?

Like you say, she has a choice (he does too). She isn't forced to do these things when married, if she chooses the right man. Also beware that some couples do a bit of 'swinging' and allow each other to sleep around.

These issues aside, I don't see how they are relevant to assault.

Arammanar, what exactly does women's rights to finance, sleeping around, and medical insurance have to do with Ohio men getting off of domestic abuse charges because they're not married to the abusee? Where is the connection? That's where I'm confused.
There is no connection. That's why it's not domestic abuse.

How often does someone just snap? I mean come on there is usually a whole serious of events that lead up to that beat down. Probably including some midly abusive moments. They should have gotten out then. As far as a stranger getting beat. You can't tell me that there isn't a broken trust there. People trust the fact that they aren't going to get assaulted right there in the street.

How often does someone just snap? I mean come on there is usually a whole serious of events that lead up to that beat down. Probably including some midly abusive moments. They should have gotten out then. As far as a stranger getting beat. You can't tell me that there isn't a broken trust there. People trust the fact that they aren't going to get assaulted right there in the street.
Does it matter when they get out or that they do?

No, there is no broken trust there. You don't know the assaulter, so clearly you have no basis of trust.

There is no connection. That's why it's not domestic abuse.

And beating up a stranger isn't as bad as beating up someone in your household?

Don't you think that the stranger has to go through the same counseling that the loved one has to? Maybe even more because now he's afraid to go outside of the house because another stranger is going to beat him down.

I'm sorry but just because I don't know you doesn't mean I don't trust that you won't just come and beat me down for no reason or atleast try to resolve it verbally if there is a reason. So yea there is a broken trust.

There is no consequence to sleeping around when you are single. There is when you are married. That is the difference.

There is the same exact consequence, sleeping around while you are single might end your relationship with your steady partner(if you have one)


They can, but they usually do. She usually gives up her job. Generally they're entered as one entity in the tax system.

What people usually do means squat. Why is the govt give special protection to what is an individuals choice. The law is about justice for all, not for some people who make lifestyle choices.


She usually has his insurance and has to use his money. Maybe she doesn't want him making her medical decisions, but when she goes comatose for 15 years, who knows?

How do you know he isnt on hers? once again the choice thing and how this isnt reason enough to distinguish between groups. If she doesnt want him making medical choices for her than she writes a little note and gets it notarized and gives it the person whom she does want to have that choice. Hardly a difficult thing to do.

And beating up a stranger isn't as bad as beating up someone in your household?

Don't you think that the stranger has to go through the same counseling that the loved one has to? Maybe even more because now he's afraid to go outside of the house because another stranger is going to beat him down.
It isn't as bad! Then people in your house know you, they assume you're not going to beat them. The stranger has no logical basis to assume this. Afterwards, the stranger doesn't have to divorce you. He doesn't have to move. He doesn't have to hide his children. He doesn't have to lie about their crappy father. There are so many differences that's it's downright deranged to call them the same. Again, I rape your kid, do you charge me with rape since after all, rape is rape?

Does it matter when they get out or that they do?

Apparently it does. If they see the signs, they can get out alive and unharmed, or they can wait until the abuser pulls a gun to his/her head.

No, there is no broken trust there. You don't know the assaulter, so clearly you have no basis of trust.

Every time you walk outside, you have to have a certain amount of trust that the rest of the world isn't going to attack you. Otherwise, you'd be cowering in the corner of a room afraid that someone is going to throw rocks through your window. Knowing someone has nothing to do with it.

There is the same exact consequence, sleeping around while you single might end your relationship with your steady partner(if you have one)

What people usually means squat. Why the govt give special protection to what is an individuals choice. The law about justice for all, not for some people who make lifestyle choices.

How do you know he isnt on hers? once the choice and how this isnt reason enough to distinguish between groups. If she doesnt want him making medical choices for her than she writes a little note and gets it notarized and gives it the person whom she does want to have that choice. Hardly a difficult thing to do.
No there isn't. Infidelity is grounds for divorce. Surely you'd concede the consequences of divorce are different than a breakup?

The governement isn't giving anything, the man is accepting it. He's breaking more than one law.

Not all rapes are done by men, but darned if it isn't safe to assume that's generally the case.

umm. One question. Why is it always the guy that is violent. Or at least the only argued point of view. Women are abusive to, but I digress. Sorry.

Not all rapes are done by men, but darned if it isn't safe to assume that's generally the case.

Um yes they are, unless I am misinformed it is not legally possible to charge a female with rape. Please inform me of a law that says they can be If you see it.

Every time you walk outside, you have to have a certain amount of trust that the rest of the world isn't going to attack you. Otherwise, you'd be cowering in the corner of a room afraid that someone is going to throw rocks through your window. Knowing someone has nothing to do with it.
Then you're a fool. Do you walk down dark alleys at 2 am in the city? Do you feel safe everywhere? Do you pick up hitchhikers? If you answered no to any question, then you don't trust the outside world, and thus you're being hypocritical, and thus your argument is irrelevant.

Um yes they are, unless I am misinformed it is not legally possible to charge a female with rape. Please inform me of a law that says they can be If you see it.
Rape is forcing someone to perform sexual acts against their will. Females can be charged, typically against other females. The law doesn't say that rape is the act of sticking your dick somewhere it doesn't belong, that'd be sexist.

I find your arguments interesting, Arammanar. You mentioned about there being a difference between assaulting a stranger in the street, and assaulting a person whom you are in a trusting/loving relationship with. Yet you seem to be against domestic abuse laws being extended to include non-married couples, even though they too may be in equally trusting/loving relationships as married couples.
You seem quite comfortable with the fact that the man in Ohio cannot be charged with domestic abuse, even though the woman he assaulted was 'not some stranger' whom he had no relationship with. Thus I don’t really understand your position, and tend to see it as somewhat hypocritical.

I think I'll make this my last post. The argument/s are quite repetitive on both sides, so let's agree to disagree.

umm. One question. Why is it always the guy that is violent. Or at least the only argued point of view. Women are abusive to, but I digress. Sorry.
Why is it always that quantum physicists are men? Why is everyone in the KKK white? They're not, but it's safe to make that generalization.

I find your arguments interesting, Arammanar. You mentioned about there being a difference between assaulting a stranger in the street, and assaulting a person whom you are in a trusting/loving relationship with. Yet you seem to be against domestic abuse laws being extended to include non-married couples, even though they too may be in equally trusting/loving relationships as married couples.
You seem quite comfortable with the fact that the man in Ohio cannot be charged with domestic abuse, even though the woman he assaulted was 'not some stranger' whom he had no relationship with. Thus I don’t really understand your position, and tend to see it as somewhat hypocritical.

I think I'll make this my last post. The argument/s are quite repetitive on both sides, so let's agree to disagree.
If she trusted him, she'd have married him. Clearly, she has some reservation.

EXACTLY! When he got married he signed a paper saying that he now had new rights and responsibilities. No one put a gun to his head and said get married. He did so by his own damn self. And in doing so, agreed to receive an increased punishment if he ever abused his spouse. If that wasn't ok with him, then he shouldn't have gotten married.

Marriage is essentially a contract between two individuals. The govts only role in this should be to enforce the contract. People are also bound by the social contract. It is appropriate to view breeches of the marriage contract as a civil matter, while criminal is more appropriate to the social

When a person beats his wife, he is violation of the social contract(its the one that says we cant harm each). Same thing if he beats a stranger. Same contractual violation, the govt should enforce the same remedy.

Are you comfortable with the govt imposing criminal penalties on other parts of the marriage contract? Should infidelity be punished as a crime instead of a civil matter?

Ok, I now see that you bring up the female raping female thing. My bad. But I am going to have to agree with JRV once again and say lets agree to disagree on this one.

It isn't as bad! Then people in your house know you, they assume you're not going to beat them. The stranger has no logical basis to assume this. Afterwards, the stranger doesn't have to divorce you. He doesn't have to move. He doesn't have to hide his children. He doesn't have to lie about their crappy father. There are so many differences that's it's downright deranged to call them the same. Again, I rape your kid, do you charge me with rape since after all, rape is rape?

Says who? If you get assaulted in a certain neighborhood, chances are that you are going to move to a safer one. And what if the couple doesn't have children, but the stranger does? Won't he worry that his children aren't going to be safe with a maniac running around assaulting random people on the street?

You put spread trust out in more strangers everyday than you do with your family. Every time you walk along the sidewalk, you have to trust that every person driving by isn't going to ram his car into you. You have to trust that the person riding next to you on the bus isn't going to pull a gun on you. You have to trust that the cab driver is going to take you to the right location and not kidnap you. You have to trust that the designers and builders of your very house did a good enough job that it won't fall to pieces on your head. You trust strangers whether you know it or not. Assault of a total stranger breaks that trust the same way assault of a family member does.

Marriage is essentially a contract between two individuals. The govts only role in this should be to enforce the contract. People are also bound by the social contract. It is appropriate to view breeches of the marriage contract as a civil matter, while criminal is more appropriate to the social

When a person beats his wife, he is violation of the social contract(its the one that says we cant harm each). Same thing if he beats a stranger. Same contractual violation, the govt should enforce the same remedy.

Are you comfortable with the govt imposing criminal penalties on other parts of the marriage contract? Should infidelity be punished as a crime instead of a civil matter?
More than two people are involved in marriage. The entire federal government gets involved as well. That's why your legal rights change, that's why your taxes change. If you're not comfortable with that, don't get married.

Says who? If you get assaulted in a certain neighborhood, chances are that you are going to move to a safer one. And what if the couple doesn't have children, but the stranger does? Won't he worry that his children aren't going to be safe with a maniac running around assaulting random people on the street?

You put spread trust out in more strangers everyday than you do with your family. Every time you walk along the sidewalk, you have to trust that every person driving by isn't going to ram his car into you. You have to trust that the person riding next to you on the bus isn't going to pull a gun on you. You have to trust that the cab driver is going to take you to the right location and not kidnap you. You have to trust that the designers and builders of your very house did a good enough job that it won't fall to pieces on your head. You trust strangers whether you know it or not. Assault of a total stranger breaks that trust the same way assault of a family member does.
Who do you think is more likely to assault you, a total stranger, or a spouse? So who do you trust more? Now shut up and stop being facetious.

If she trusted him, she'd have married him. Clearly, she has some reservation.

I don't think you can make the generalization. Perhaps she doesn't believe in marriage, I know plenty of couples who don't - and some have been together for over 20 years. It's just part of living in a diverse society, you have to know and respect the fact that not everybody shares your beliefs.

Anyway, I think that's my last post now.

I don't think you can make the generalization. Perhaps she doesn't believe in marriage, I know plenty of couples who don't - and some have been together for over 20 years. It's just part of living in a diverse society, you have to know and respect the fact that not everybody shares your beliefs.

Anyway, I think that's my last post now.
Alright then, that's a reservation is it not? The point is, why should she get that protection if she WILLINGLY REFUSED IT?

Who do you think is more likely to assault you, a total stranger, or a spouse? So who do you trust more? Now shut up and stop being facetious.

Well, considering there are probably more occassions of robbery and mugging and murder by friends, than spousal abuse, I'd have to go with the stranger.

And don't you dare tell me to shut up. I'll speak my opinion just as you will. Whether you agree with it or not, whether you like it or not. If you don't like it, you don't have to listen to it, but don't dare tell me to shut up.

Well, considering there are probably more occassions of robbery and mugging and murder by friends, than spousal abuse, I'd have to go with the stranger.

And don't you dare tell me to shut up. I'll speak my opinion just as you will. Whether you agree with it or not, whether you like it or not. If you don't like it, you don't have to listen to it, but don't dare tell me to shut up.
I don't care about your opinion. What I care about is you deliberately avoiding something with irrelevance and calling it debate. Clearly you trust your family more than person X. Where do people feel safest? In their homes. Where do they feel the most threatened? In an unfamiliar place with unfamiliar people. You can't trust something that you've never interacted with. What you're doing isn't giving an opinion, it's being an ass, and it isn't appreciated.

Alright then, that's a reservation is it not? The point is, why should she get that protection if she WILLINGLY REFUSED IT?

And what if the couple happens to be engaged? Most abuse cases don't occur until well after a relationship is established. Perhaps the abuser even waits until engagement or marriage before s/he begins the abuse. Do you still think an abuser should get off on assault instead of domestic abuse on a technicality?

No there isn't. Infidelity is grounds for divorce. Surely you'd concede the consequences of divorce are different than a breakup?

The governement isn't giving anything, the man is accepting it. He's breaking more than one law.

Not all rapes are done by men, but darned if it isn't safe to assume that's generally the case.

So what if breakups and marriages entail differant things? The differance in consequences does not justify govt enforcing criminal penalties.

The man is accepting the same things the woman is. I have no problem with the civil penalties, but we talking about criminal penalties here ard how 1 persons lifestyle choice entitles them to greater protection than someone else's lifestyle choice. Should the penalty for rape of your wife be differant than the penalties for raping a prostitute? They have made very differant lifestyle choices(especially with regards to the offender) But the government should view the criminal part of the offense the same way.

While it is safe to assume that more men commit rape than women, are you arguing it is less of a crime when a woman commits rape? Should the penalties be differant according to JUSTICE who is supposed to be blind?

And what if the couple happens to be engaged? Most abuse cases don't occur until well after a relationship is established. Perhaps the abuser even waits until engagement or marriage before s/he begins the abuse. Do you still think an abuser should get off on assault instead of domestic abuse on a technicality?
He wouldn't get off...he'd get domestic abuse if they were married which you just implied if I read your statement correctly. And as such I have no idea what you just asked.

More than two people are involved in marriage. The entire federal government gets involved as well. That's why your legal rights change, that's why your taxes change. If you're not comfortable with that, don't get married.

I am not comfortable with the way marriage is set up. The govt should not be a in position to grant special status to a group.

The differance in consequences does not justify govt enforcing criminal penalties.
I'd love for you to explain the diffference between consequences and penalties.

The man is accepting the same thing the woman is. I have no problem with the civil penalties, but we talking about criminal penalties here are how 1 persons lifestyle choice entitles them to greater protection than someone else's lifestyle choice. Should the penalty for rape of your wife be differant than the penalties for raping a prostitute? They have made very differant lifestyle choices(especially with regards to the offender) But the government should view the criminal part of the offense the same way.
Yes, they are different. You're in a war, you shoot your commanding officer. Your brother, at home, shoots his boss. Both have committed murder. Do you expect them to be treated the same way? The only difference was a lifestyle choice, after all.

While it is safe to assume that more men commit rape than women, are you arguing it is less of a crime when a woman commits rape? Should the penalties be differant according to JUSTICE who is supposed to be blind?
No, they're both equally wrong. The conversation you were referring to stemmed from referring to abusers as he's or husbands. I do that simply because it's easier than typing s/he and husbands or wives.

I am not comfortable with the way marriage is set up. The govt should not be a in position to grant special status to a group.
Then don't get married. You're fine. Although I disagree with the institution of marriage, but that's neither here nor there.

Alright then, that's a reservation is it not? The point is, why should she get that protection if she WILLINGLY REFUSED IT?


No. The point (for me) is: if you believe that ‘special protection’, or domestic abuse laws, should exist, then they should also extend to defacto couples. Otherwise I think there is some hypocrisy in the reasoning, (and I hate to say it) probably arising from certain prejudices.

From your posts, I gather that you are a conservative Christian who probably doesn't take kindly to the supposed 'attacks' on the institution of marriage. Fair enough. Just come out and say it...

He wouldn't get off...he'd get domestic abuse if they were married which you just implied if I read your statement correctly. And as such I have no idea what you just asked.

Engaged, not married. Read it again.

Engaged, not married. Read it again.
Would you rather me shoot you or point a gun? Or is that just a technicality, and you're still dead?

No. The point (for me) is: if you believe that ‘special protection’, or domestic abuse laws, should exist, then they should also extend to defacto couples. Otherwise I think there is some hypocrisy in the reasoning, (and I hate to say it) probably arising from certain prejudices.

From your posts, I gather that you are a conservative Christian who probably doesn't take kindly to the supposed 'attacks' on the institute of marriage. Fair enough. Just come out and say it...
Defacto is nothing. It isn't binding. She isn't committed to him. She is just a somebody. Maybe she's banging him. But she's just a somebody. She's not a spouse. She hasn't signed anything.

You'd be completely wrong. I want government out of marriage completely, no tax incentives, no medical directives, no variations in punishment, nothing. I want it to be a word and nothing more.

at the very least, those ridiculous laws will be repealed.

then we can finally make some headway in the civil rights department, and not let the rightwing nutjobs impose their outdated beliefs of the normal people.

again.

I'd love for you to explain the diffference between consequences and penalties.

Sure, legal costs to unwind a contract is a consequence. A fine imposed for breaking the contract is a penalty, though it is also a consequence. As far a divorce goes, I have no problems with splitting assets ect. even though one party might have contributed more or less. I also have no problem with prenuptuals because like the marriage contract, it is an arrangement between private parties. My issue comes in when you are advocating the govt to step in with criminal penalties for what is a civil matter.


Yes, they are different. You're in a war, you shoot your commanding officer. Your brother, at home, shoots his boss. Both have committed murder. Do you expect them to be treated the same way? The only difference was a lifestyle choice, after all.

The military operates under a different set of rules(for good reason, more peoples lives are at stake). Why dont you compare two military individuals or two civillians.

The consequences of these two actions is also very different. In the military case you are not only committing a crime against the individual(commander) you are also committing a crime against your government(treason) and putting more peoples lives in jeopardy than if you just woke up one day and shot you boss.

It is also my understanding that treason for a civilian carries the same range of penalties as it does for military personel. Same goes with murder.


No, they're both equally wrong. The conversation you were referring to stemmed from referring to abusers as he's or husbands. I do that simply because it's easier than typing s/he and husbands or wives.

Fine, we agree on something. So why are you advocating that the same crime should carry different penalties based solely on whether they were married or not?

Good thing I voted against that thing, my conscience is clear.