Via Ann Bartow of Feminist Law Professors points to at least one dim ray of sunshine coming from the recent homophobic “defense of marriage act” fad in various states. After passage of such laws there was an equally distressing fad where criminal defendants sought to use such laws to avoid charges of heterosexual-but-unmarried domestic assault. Evidently the Ohio Supreme Court has nixed that defense and, even better, made it clear such protection extends to lesbian and gay domestic partners as well.

The Carswell case only required the court to determine whether Ohio’s new anti-gay marriage amendment nullified the legal protections unmarried victims of domestic abuse currently receive. The court declares there’s no conflict between the two legal provisions, giving unmarried, heterosexual women comfort – even a boost. Their legal rights against sex-based violence at men’s hands are, happily, secured. But so are the rights of victims of same-sex domestic abuse, including lesbians and gay men. Earlier decisions, undisturbed by Carswell, declared them entitled to the same freedom from domestic violence that unmarried heterosexuals have.

The quote itself is from the Cleveland Plain Dealer, which you can read here.

The immediate effect is, of course, a relief for victims of domestic violence but obviously a disappointment for those of us who hoped the challenge would have even broader results.

The original case made the news back in 2005 and while I can’t find a reference now I distinctly remember that one such appeal (perhaps not Carswell?) was brought by a public defender’s group that was sympathetic with cause of gay marriage. As I recall they predicted the courts would ultimately rule as they did — otherwise I doubt they would have risked it.

In addition to the Plain Dealer’s article there’s additional reporting on the case from the Columbus Dispatch, July 26, 2007; mirrored at lawyers.com