# Fallout from anti-gay marriage laws: unwed abusers not guilty of domestic violence **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [January 16, 2005, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fallout-from-anti-gay-marriage-laws-unwed-abusers-not-guilty-of-domestic-violence/285076 "2005-01-16T21:09:42Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 7\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![levdrakon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@levdrakon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/levdrakon)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2005, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fallout-from-anti-gay-marriage-laws-unwed-abusers-not-guilty-of-domestic-violence/285076/21 "2005-01-17T17:18:49Z")
> [@OtakuLoki](#): > > At the very least, until this legal reasoning is tested in court, I’m not sure that any domestic abuse cases can go forward at all. Good. Maybe people will start thinking. And not thinking as in “oh, well, I guess so, like yeah I guess you have a point, and like, I’m sorta thinking about it and all, but like, it’s not really a priority or anything because it’s like about _them_ and like, well you know, I’ll think about it for sure! No, really, I will.” Maybe they’ll start thinking as in, “we were stupid and we need to do something right now.” ---
**Author:** ![AHunter3](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ahunter3/32/368_2.png) [@AHunter3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AHunter3)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2005, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fallout-from-anti-gay-marriage-laws-unwed-abusers-not-guilty-of-domestic-violence/285076/22 "2005-01-17T18:01:32Z")
> [@samclem](#): > > I’ve been away over the weekend, but I wonder this: > > Perhaps a beating of someone in a “live-in” relationship can be handled as a case of “assault” if this is the result of the new amendment. > > If you’re charged with “assault” rather than “domestic violence” do you stand a better chance of getting jail time? Maybe it’s better. > [@Aspidistra](#): > > …why can’t the courts just charge these batterers with ordinary assault? Beating someone up is still a crime, whether you’re married to them or not, isn’t it? ::raises hand:: Former elder abuse social worker here. I helped seniors get orders of protection against their spouses, sons, daughters, grandsons, nieces, etc., for physical, economic, and other forms of abuse. I also had to deal with cases where the perp was a neighbor or other nonrelative, which meant not being able to deal with it in family court, i.e., I did indeed have to approach it as a regular assault case or equiv. Main difference: in Criminal Court, my clients could get an Order of Protection only if an arrest-worthy crime had been committed. And here in New York that means that simply hitting someone in the face with their fist wasn’t enough. Break some bones or otherwise do some genuine damage and then we’ve got something, but generally speaking the police do not go around arresting people after the fact on the grounds that they hit someone. In Family Court, my clients could get an Order of Protection putting the abuser out of the household if they (the clients) were the owners or official renters of the apartment and had been struck, repeatedly threatened, shoved, etc., as part of an ongoing process of abuse. Additional difference: if one of my clients actually had a Criminal Court Order of Protection and the perp violates it, the perp is in very serious hot water. Arrest, detention until court date, and prosecution for assault on a more serious basis than if no OOP had been issues. If, on the other hand, that same client had had a Family Court OOP, the perp might be arrested then released the same day with no prosecution _if it’s the first time_ (the water gets hotter in a hurry if they go back and violate the OOP again in short order). So as you can see, the Family Court puts a level in place that doesn’t exist in addressing strife between non-relatives, a level in between “we don’t get involved in that petty shit” and “OK, buddy, you are an enemy of the public order and get to live in a cage”. It’s more geared towards separating people and preventing damage than the Criminal Court equiv is. In the absence of Family Court, many of my abuse victims would not have been able to get their abusers out of the house except through Housing Court (i.e., 6 months or more of eviction procedures and absolutely zero built-in protection against physical retaliation) even if the abuser had never been more than an unwelcome parasitic nonpaying houseguest, because the perps hadn’t injured my clients. And in the neighbor-abuse cases it was a real problem. ---
**Author:** ![emarkp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3be4f8/32.png) [@emarkp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emarkp)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2005, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fallout-from-anti-gay-marriage-laws-unwed-abusers-not-guilty-of-domestic-violence/285076/23 "2005-01-17T18:46:14Z")
Here’s a nutty idea–if heterosexual couples want the benefits and protections of marriage, why don’t they get married? > [@Eats\_Crayons](#): > > Arrrrrrrgh! Your quote has my pet peeve: It ain’t “special” rights, it’s _equal_ rights. We don’t don’t want anything more than the same rights that everybody else already has So unmarried couples should have the same rights as married couples? Sounds like special rights to me. ---
**Author:** ![Weirddave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/919ad9/32.png) [@Weirddave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weirddave)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2005, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fallout-from-anti-gay-marriage-laws-unwed-abusers-not-guilty-of-domestic-violence/285076/24 "2005-01-17T18:53:05Z")
> [@emarkp](#): > > So unmarried couples should have the same rights as married couples? Sounds like special rights to me. I think **Eats** was saying pretty clearly that SSM is an equal right, not a special one, and he’s right. Heterosexual couples can get married if they want to, gay couples can not. ---
**Author:** ![Gorsnak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gorsnak/32/7587_2.png) [@Gorsnak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gorsnak)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2005, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fallout-from-anti-gay-marriage-laws-unwed-abusers-not-guilty-of-domestic-violence/285076/25 "2005-01-17T19:59:45Z")
> [@emarkp](#): > > Here’s a nutty idea–if heterosexual couples want the benefits and protections of marriage, why don’t they get married? So lemme get this straight. Guy and Gal are shacking up together. Guy becomes abusive towards Gal - not to the point of breaking bones or anything, but he’s slapping her around and threatening more if she tries to leave. As per **AHunter3** ’s post above, authorities are loath to file regular assault charges against Guy, so in order to receive the benefits of domestic violence legislation, you are seriously suggesting that Gal should marry Guy so that she can be protected from him? Are you out of your fucking mind? ---
**Author:** ![thirdwarning](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ecccb3/32.png) [@thirdwarning](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/thirdwarning)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2005, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fallout-from-anti-gay-marriage-laws-unwed-abusers-not-guilty-of-domestic-violence/285076/26 "2005-01-17T20:55:33Z")
No, I think what he’s saying is that they should have gotten married before they moved in together, rather than expecting the same rights as married couples even though they chose not to avail themselves of the legal structure that guarantees those rights. Protection from abuse should still be extended to anyone who needs it. ---
**Author:** ![AskNott](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asknott/32/5790_2.png) [@AskNott](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AskNott)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2005, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fallout-from-anti-gay-marriage-laws-unwed-abusers-not-guilty-of-domestic-violence/285076/27 "2005-01-18T18:59:29Z")
If you put this crazy bit of law next to the one that says you can’t own a gun if you’ve been convicted of domestic violence, then gay couples and shackers-up have more gun rights than married, hetero folks. Talk about your unintended consequences! [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fallout-from-anti-gay-marriage-laws-unwed-abusers-not-guilty-of-domestic-violence/285076.md?page=1)