Yes, it is, because domestic violence is not limited to violence between married couples.
Also absurd.
But it is certainly limited to “similar arrangements,” which is exactly what the Kansas bill would have considered enough. The distinction between “roommate” and “romantic partner” is the distinction that gives rise to jurisdiction for a Protection From Abuse order in Pennsylvania. In Kansas a court wouldn’t have to treat that distinction as meaningful.
You’ll excuse me if I ask you to show your work.
Not necessarily, the Kansas Domestic Battery law describes “family or household member” as including “persons who are presently residing together or who have resided together in the past”, which covers any basic roommate situation.
The Protection From Abuse act includes “(b) “Intimate partners or household members” means persons who are or have been in a dating relationship, persons who reside together or who have formerly resided together or persons who have had a child in common.”
I don’t think, on its face, that this act would allow police to ignore a dating relationship due to religion.
You’re right. If they weren’t cohabitating I suppose there’d be some potential tension for PFA purposes, but not for the battery.
Well, hopefully there are enough Catholics of character in Kansas state government who can protest this by refusing service to anyone who is divorced.
It’s worth noting that there won’t be any need for that; the sponsors killed the bill already based on backlash like the article linked in the OP.
Well, I’m sure it lasted long to accomplish its purpose - puff up the chests of Kansas Republicans and reinforce their feelings of persecution.
Those who are always for this type of legislation always disguise it in the cloak of religious freedom. They are wrong, but the argument works on some stupider populations of people.
Yes, I agree with you that the argument is absurd. When I said “not absurd” I meant not absurd to the point that a lawyer would be violating his oath by arguing it. If I am a judge, then I throw out all of these ridiculous arguments…it doesn’t violate anyone’s religious tenets to investigate a murder.
But if I were a Kansas lawyer and this bill had passed, and I was representing a police officer charged with a crime or a civil tort because of his alleged failure to investigate a crime against a gay person and he told me that it was religiously motivated, would I not try to use the law? Of course I would. I think you would as well.
That’s why I say the law is poorly drafted. It could have easily simply exempted sexual orientation from state civil rights law, but it tried to draw a broad brush that could encompass other activities. At least to the point that a claim against those other activities could survive Rule 11 sanctions.
Bricker, would Romer v. Evans shed some light, it was subject to strict scrutiny!
Huh? Romer didn’t apply strict scrutiny. It was the genesis of the “rational basis with bite” test.
What he said.