In an article this week regarding the murder of UVA Yeardley Love, it was pointed out that Virginia is one of eight states that excludes unmarried couples from obtaining restraining orders. Although Love never sought one, it didn’t matter because she couldn’t have gotten one, anyway.
Four years ago, we were fighting the passage of the Marshal Newman amendment. One of the issues brought forth was that of domestic violence in the case of unmarried couples. An attorney in Ohio, which passed a similar amendment ahead of Virginia’s, warned about what lay ahead. As we all said back then, in their efforts to “get teh gays,” ridiculous on its face since gay marriage had been illegal in Virginia for more than 30 years, this amendment ensnared all those straight unmarried couples. Among them, Love and her accused murderer George Huguely.
Unfortunately for the writer of the article, it is not as simple as changing the abuse laws already on the books. When Marshall Newman passed, it wasn’t just a law, it was a constitutional amendment. To fix it requires a repeal of the amendment, a rather arduous process requiring that the amendment pass the legislature twice with an election in between, before it would end up on the ballot. If the political will existed, the earliest such a repeal could be put to the voters is November 2012.
I doubt that the political will to fix this exists. And until there is, there will be more Yeardley Loves.
UPDATE: Just in case you think I’m kidding about a law change, take a look at the fate of this bill, introduced by Sen. George Barker.
VIVIAN J. PAIGE | All Politics is Local 
You may hate the law, but this attempt to relate this murder to Marshall-Newman is political ambulance chasing at its worst.
Vivian makes a good, fair and accurate point. That amendment is a dark blemish on the commonwealth constitution, one which it will take time and patience to erase.
But erase it we will. And we will because it related to atrocities like these. Yes, in this case the victim never asked for a restraining order, but the day will come when someone does, and it is denied because of Marshall-Newmann, and that person is killed by their significant other. And on that day, once again in our great Old Dominion, legislated bigotry will have killed.
So yes, Vivian made a good, accurate and valid point, and I am glad she did. Maybe if more of us do, we can prevent someone from dying because they couldn’t get the protection that justice and the law should provide.
Well, Yeardley Love may be dead, but at least her loved ones can cheer themselves up with the fact that at least those dirty gays can’t get married and undermine George Huguely’s future marriage (which HE is still lawfully entitled to). (end sarcasm)
Time for the crazy Libertarian that values individual rights to weigh in:
You do not lose your individual liberties nor your right to be protected from viloence just because you are not married in the manner preferred by those elected to state representation. This is unconstitutional in my view.
The US Supreme Court over ruled the Texas Sodomy law that persecuted only gays and in so doing, negated part of Virginia’s state sodomy law that branded ALL of us as felons if you engage in certain kinds of sex between consenting adults. Currently, oral sex is only a felony in Virginia if it is done in public. The court ruling did not extend to sex in public. This was another law meant to hunt gays with that also branded straight married couples as felons. This is probably responsible for McDonnell’s lack of memory when asked by the press about whether he ever committed this type of felony. He didn’t recall – see the Virginian Pilot Archives
Another example is the travesty of the amendment to Virginia’s constitution that allegedly protected marriage. Civil unions may be effectively close to marriage, but they are not marriage. What is the problem with civil union’s? What makes Republicans think that just because you are gay that you can not enter in contract with your partner.
It’s the 2003 campaign all over again: hiding behind unmarried heterosexual couples to advocate for homosexual couples.
Still disingenous.
Except it was 2006 and no one is hiding behind anything. With or without the amendment, gay marriage was illegal in VA.
All it would have taken is one activist judge to redefine marraige, as had happened in other states. The amendment prevented that.
Henry, gay or not, people are entitled to be free of violence. Gay or not, should an individual prove to be a likely threat to another person, a restraining order should be granted. You don’t have to approve of their life style to agree that they are human beings and shouldn’t be beaten or murdered.
But, you know what Henry? I’m starting to fear that you are right in your point. Some hypocrites don’t give a damn about people. They only care about THEIR people, thus the spitting on the ideals that INDIVIDUALS everywhere should be afforded equal protection under the law. Nevermind the fact that protecting INDIVIDUALS protects them also. They just don’t care about protecting people not of their political leaning. Like I said, they don’t really give a damn about people in general. It is just another path to tyranny and oppression. The difference being that it is a tyranny and oppression that they prefer.
“The oppressed will never truly be satisfied until they themselves are the oppressor” – forgot who to credit for this quote, sorry. Also, sorry that people can’t just settle for an end to oppression period.
As much as I firmly believe that there are many people that do want straight unmarried couples AND homosexual couples protected from violence, you may just be right. This whole push may be disingenuous as you claim. Being that individual protections are being lampooned by many these days, how can I argue against you?
Britt,
You may have hit on a fundamental difference between Libertarians and the Religious Right. For you, it’s about individual rights; for me (a Charter Member of the Moral Majority Coalition), it’s about the moral fabric of society.
As a devout Catholic (just went to 6 P.M. Mass earlier), confering the same rights on unmarried couples as those joined through the sacrament of Marraige is utterly absurd. As the old adage goes, “An ounce of prevention beats a pound of cure.” Better to set baseline moral standards than to later have government have to spend a pile of money to deal with the consequences of the failure to do so.
As a Libertarian, my previous paragraph probably sent you into gyrations. As such, we won’t start to agree on this one.
The Catholic church setting baseline moral standards? To quote an earlier post – LOL.
I am also a Catholic, and I’d be careful asserting the Catholic view on marriage as a universal and inviolate institution.
Take a look at an actual history of marriage from a Catholic perspective, for example:
http://bit.ly/bHh3ze
Basically, marriage has ALWAYS gone through periods of redefinition as church history moved on.
And Governments have to spend money on the consequences of SETTING moral standards as well as not setting them. For example, if we did not set a “moral standard” where pot is bad but alcohol is okay, our local budgets would look very, very different.
In a state where orders of protection are only available through family court and the victim and the perpetrator don’t fit the definition of “family” – where does that leave the sales clerk who is getting stalked by a customer? Where does it leave the person who is being stalked by someone whom they rejected for even a first date?
Good point Liz!
Given that Virginia claims to want to attract the movie industry, how about future Jodi Fosters? Will the courts simply wish them luck?
Good grief, people, this whole thing is nonsense. You can get a protection order if you need one. There is a different section in family law because of the co-habitation aspects.
Warren, if that is the case, why did Newsweek make it look like a protection order was not a possibility?
Having followed the links provided, it kinda looks like Virginia law is sorely lacking. Can you point to evidence that a protective order is a possibility in the case of two co-habitating or formerly co-habitant heterosexuals or/and homosexual couples?
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+19.2-152.8
Two observations.
1. The law you cite does provide for protection orders, on an emergency basis, and for 3-days only. And only in cases where there’s an alleged assault already in the record There’s no mechanism for issuing these orders on a preventative basis BEFORE there’s an alleged incident of stalking or assault.
2. Laws can be unconstitutional, and it is entirely possible this one would be overturned as unconstitutional under Marshall-Newman.
Fine, but that is an EMERGENCY protective order, which requires an allegation only. To get one for up to two years, this section of the law applies: http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+19.2-152.10
As for the assertion that cohabiting people cannot get such orders, please refer to the definition of “family member,” which includes “any individual who cohabits or who, within the previous 12 months, cohabited with the person, and any children of either of them then residing in the same home with the person.” 16.1-228
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+16.1-228
I am also a “Devout Catholic” and I happen to find discrimination immoral. I can’t speak for the Catholic church about any changes to the sacrament of marriage but I don’t believe sanctioning marriage for all would HAVE to be included in the sacrament.
I don’t see this as “hiding” behind hetero couples. I see this as a major problem that needs to be addressed for ALL Virginians. Many couples live together before marriage and all deserve equal protection under the law. Will restraining orders stop domestic violence?
(Cont.) No, in many cases a restraining order will not stop a violent partner, but in many cases it can help diffuse the conflict.
I’m not a devout follower of any religion.
But…isn’t there a difference between the “sacrament” of marriage and the rights granted by the government to married people? I’d think that, if I were religious, only God and the church could consecrate the sacrament of marriage, without any need for the government to be involved at all. Nobody is talking about forcing the church to perform homosexual marriages. What we’re talking about are rights granted by the STATE due to marriage. In the eyes of the state, ALL marriages are civil unions. The state doesn’t care if your ceremony was performed by a priest or a justice of the peace or, as mine was, by a former member of the legislature.
Steve, anyone who thinks marriage is not a legal right granted by the state, try getting a divorce decree from the church!
This is a right granted by the state and failure to allow all consenting adults the same right is just hate based prejudice and discrimination, period and end of discussion.
Does that include polygamists?