« Ind. Decisions - Is there a right to make a statement in allocution? Yes, but ... | Main | Law - More on: GAO releases report on signing statements »

Wednesday, June 20, 2007

Law - Status of same sex marriage in Ohio and Michigan

During the legislative session earlier this year, there was much discussion about the constitutional bans on same sex marriage that have been approved in Ohio and Michigan and how they are being interpreted.

Under the heading "Impact of same sex marriage ban in Ohio and Michigan Constitutions may portend Indiana issues," the ILB has posted several entries over the years, including entries from March 24th and April 4th, 2005. See also this entry from Feb. 1st of this year, and this one from March 22nd. This entry from April 3rd tells the outcome in Indiana, at least for this year.

All this is but a preamble to introduce two stories today from USAToday. The same concerns about the impact of the Ohio and Michigan amendments continue in those states.

"Legal loophole could let abusers off the hook" is the title to this story by Marisol Bello that reports:

A constitutional ban on gay marriage in Ohio has led to a new defense for unmarried people who are charged with domestic violence for abusing their live-in partners.

At least 80 defendants have challenged the state's domestic violence law, claiming it is unconstitutional because it is based on a status that no longer exists: domestic partnership.

A state constitutional amendment in 2004 prohibited legally recognizing any union other than a marriage between a man and a woman. Defense lawyers say the domestic violence law violates the amendment by creating a domestic status for unmarried partners.

Now, the Ohio Supreme Court is considering the question. * * *

Since Ohio passed its amendment in 2004, two of the state's 12 appeals courts have agreed that the domestic violence laws are unconstitutional. Ten found the domestic violence law legal.

When the Second Appeals Court ruled in May 2006 that the laws were unconstitutional, Montgomery County, the largest in the district and home to the city of Dayton, had 18 domestic violence cases affected. Of those, the prosecutor's office dismissed seven, substituted other felony charges in two cases and reduced nine to misdemeanors, says Greg Flannagan, a spokesman for the office. * * *

Other states, including Wisconsin and Virginia, are watching the Ohio case. Since Wisconsin's amendment took effect in January, at least one defendant unsuccessfully challenged a restraining order citing the amendment.

"Michigan domestic partners face tough choices" is the headline to a second story today by Marisol Bello. Some quotes:
A Michigan court ruled in February that public employers may not offer benefits to same-sex partners of employees because the state's constitutional ban on gay marriage recognized only a marriage between a man and a woman. Michigan public employers offered domestic partnership benefits only to same-sex couples. * * *

[JoLinda] Jach is one of 21 public employees in Michigan with same-sex partners who have sued the state to keep their health benefits.

Their case, which they are appealing to the state Supreme Court, will set a standard for other states with similar amendments over whether public employers can offer benefits to their employees' domestic partners, advocates on both sides of the issue say.

For gay rights advocates, the pullback on benefits was an inevitable consequence after a flurry of states approved amendments banning gay marriage.

"These amendments are clearly intended to go way beyond the question of who can get married," says Matt Coles, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's lesbian and gay rights projects. "We expect these issues to come up in more states, particularly now that the Michigan Court of Appeals has given this extremely broad interpretation

Posted by Marcia Oddi on June 20, 2007 05:47 PM
Posted to General Law Related