Welcome to The Briefcase

Commentary and analysis of Ohio criminal law and whatever else comes to mind, served with a dash of snark.  Continue Reading »

×

June 11, 2006

Gay marriage is back on the front burner, and not only because the US Congress, fresh from solving all the country's other problems, failed in their attempt to remedy one of the Founders' glaring omissions. A few weeks back, the 3rd District in State v. McKinley concluded that the Defense of Marriage Amendment passed by referendum in November of 2004 precludes a conviction of domestic violence where the victim is cohabiting with the defendant, on the theory that this gives non-married cohabitants a "status" equal to marriage, which the Amendment prohibits.


The 2nd District had come to the same conclusion, but that contention has been rejected in the 5th District, the 8th, the 9th, the 10th, and the 12th.  (The 7th District also reversed a dismissal, although only because it felt the facts needed to be developed.)  The 3rd District certified the conflict to the Supreme Court, where the question is ultimately going to be resolved.

I'm not going to sort through the arguments here, mainly because it doesn't matter; anyone who can't guess how the Supreme Court's going to decide this one probably went to see the movie Titanic and was surprised when the ship sank. Frankly, it's somewhat ironic that for all the sturm und drang the campaign on the Amendment engendered, the sole result of its passage to date has been to declare Open Season on Girlfriends in two appellate districts.

Then again, I confess to never having fully understood what the fuss was about. Yes, there are people who will say, "But Russ, if gays can marry each other, why can't someone marry his sister? Or a ten-year-old? Or his dog? Where do you draw the line?" Well, gosh, I don't know. How about we draw the line at marrying your sister or a ten-year-old or a dog?

That's just me, though. As they say in the commercials, your mileage may vary.

Search

Recent Entries

  • July 26, 2017
    Supreme Court Recap - 2016 Term
    My annual review of the Supreme Court decisions from the past term
  • July 24, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    Some things we knew, some things we didn't
  • July 21, 2017
    Friday Roundup
    Computers and sex offenders, civil forfeiture, and phrases that should be put out to pasture
  • July 20, 2017
    Case Update
    A look at the Ohio Supreme Court's decision in State v. Oles, and did you know that Justice Ginsburg has a .311 batting average with runners in scoring position? Oh, wait...
  • July 18, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    Judicial bias, RVO specs, 26(B) stuff, waivers of counsel... And more!
  • July 17, 2017
    No more Anders Briefs?
    I have a case now in the 8th District where I came close to filing an Anders brief the other week. It's an appeal from a plea and sentence. The plea hearing was flawless. The judge imposed consecutive sentences, and...
  • July 13, 2017
    Sex offenders and the First Amendment
    Analysis of the Supreme Court's decision in Packingham v. North Carolina
  • July 12, 2017
    Removing a retained attorney
    What does a judge do if he thinks a retained attorney in a criminal case isn't competent?
  • July 11, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    The court does good work on a juvenile bindover case, and the State finally figures out that it should have indicted someone in the first place
  • July 10, 2017
    Case Update
    SCOTUS ends its term; the Ohio Supreme Court issues another opinion, and likely the last one, on the trial tax