The acerbic and scaldingly inhumane treatment of the relationships of gays and lesbians came into legal relief this week, albeit obliquely, in a case decided on appeal by the Supreme Court of Ohio, in my opinion.
The decision makes it plain that "partnerships" may be denied "benefits", yet caused to suffer "costs", on the very same basis. The court ruled (6-1) that it was o.k. to prosecute a member of an unmarried couple under a "domestic violence" law, despite the mean spirited, broad-ranging, Dobson-pushed, constitutional amendment in Ohio that refuses any legal recognition of relationships that are marriage-like.
In doing so, the court overturned a lower court ruling. The couple happened to be heterosexual.
Some may think this is nothing - perhaps even "commonsense", compared to the larger issue of equality; but it opens the door to a society that 'lives comfortably' with a deeply-seated and cruelly construed codification of prejudice, I think.
In some limited respects, it follows an old pattern.
Consider the ban on homosexuals in the military (cf. the UCMJ). Of course, the injustice is that qualified, motivated, openly gay or lesbian citizens cannot serve their country in the armed services. They are denied a "benefit" that is the "right" of the non-gay citizen compatriots.
But one of the very bitter parts of it is that government can, in fact, require people who are gay to serve, at will. It's an open hypocrisy. One doesn't have a "right" to serve, but neither does one have a "right" to avoid costs of serving.
update: some thoughtful people are taking the Court's opinion with more emphasis on the possibility that future favorable rulings could be made under the Court's logic, for instance, such things as domestic partnership benefits.
I'd be cautious (but hopeful that such optimism is warranted).
If one focuses on paragraph 13, you can get there: "...causes us to conclude that the second sentence of the Amendment that the State cannot create or recognize a legal status for unmarried persons that bears all [my emphasis] of the attributes of marriage - a marriage substitute."
Of course, the Amendement itself says "approximate", not "replicate" [para 2], so ... well, one would be less optimistic if you just looked at the structure (in part) of their argument:
1. Marriage is a "status" - comes with "rights, duties, and liabilities". [para 12]
2. This statute [domestic violence law] confers no benefit, no status .. just a "subset of victims" [para 33]
3. Therefore, domestic violence law is not in conflict with the Ohio Constitution.
