Marriage amendment’s unintended consequences

The proposed amendment banning gay marriage and civil unions has raised many questions about what unintended consequences it might bring. The vague language of the second paragraph might affect the legal rights of unmarried couples—gay or straight—concerning wills, advance medical directives or domestic violence, according to critics. And at least the concern over domestic violence seems to be legitimate, according to the Ohio Domestic Violence Network (ODVN).
    In 2004, Ohio passed an amendment worded similarly to Virginia’s, whose second paragraph says, “This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage.”
    After the Ohio amendment passed, several defense attorneys there used the amendment to argue that the domestic violence statues were unconstitutional for unmarried partners, says Nancy Neylon, executive director for ODVN.
    “[Victims] would not be able to get protection orders and they would not be able to have criminal domestic violence charges filed against their partner either,” says Neylon. “There’s a whole gamut of remedies that are simply not available any other way.” Nine of Ohio’s 12 appellate court districts ruled that unmarried persons were entitled to domestic violence protections, but two found such protections unconstitutional based on the marriage amendment, according to Neylon. The result? Unmarried domestic abuse victims were prohibited from accessing state laws designed for them.
    “The original domestic violence laws, why do we have them instead of an assault charge? Because nothing happened,” says Neylon. “So now for unmarried partners we’re back to the early ’70s when the response to whatever was going on was sketchy at best.”
    The ODVN raised concerns about the effect on domestic violence laws when the amendment was proposed but were surprised to find that their concerns were validated. “Even though we brought up the possibility that this would happen, we were taken by surprise that it actually passed,” Neylon says.
    The Ohio Supreme Court has accepted a case in order to reconcile the opposing views of the appellate courts in the state. Neylon doesn’t anticipate a decision until the spring. “I have absolutely no way of knowing how they are going to rule.”
    “It’s not a burning issue in this state, I can tell you that,” says Mark Anthony, spokesman for Ohio attorney general Jim Petros, a Republican. “All the burning issues have risen to the surface, and that is not one of them.”
    Will the issue rise to the surface in Virginia? We’ll only know if voters pass the amendment on November 7.