Proponents of the Marshall/Newman amendment say that concerns expressed about its impact on domestic violence cases have “no validity.”
Funny that’s what the proponents of the amendment in Ohio said, too. During and after the Ohio amendment campaign, the head of Citizens for Community Values, the key proponent of the amendment, dismissed the domestic violence argument as “absolutely absurd”.
So, what are they saying now?
In an Amicus Brief by Citizens for Community Values filed on behalf of an unmarried man appealing a domestic violence conviction in the case Ohio v. Carswell, which the Ohio Supreme Court has just agreed to hear, the very same folks who dismissed these concerns as “absurd” now are arguing that the defendent is right — that the Ohio constitution (which has identical language to one of the three sentences in the Marshall/Newman amendment) prohibits the state from prosecuting unmarried abusers under Ohio’s domestic violence laws.
The intermediate appeals court in Ohio had held that the constitution did not prohibit prosecution of the abuser and it overturned the trial court decision amending his charge to simple assault. This meant that he would face higher penalties, so the abuser appealed.
And, now Citizens for Community Values are there supporting his arguments … arguments that they told voters were “absurd.”
What credibility,then, should we attach to the claims of the proponents of the Virginia amendment that the concerns of 60,000 plus unmarried domestic violence victims are invalid?
No comments yet.