Press "Enter" to skip to content

Homophobic House Kills Sensible Domestic Abuse Legislation

Last updated on 2014.03.06

The South Dakota House killed SB 141 yesterday. The bill, sponsored by Senator Deb Peters (R-9/Hartford), intended to recognize intimate partner violence in our domestic abuse laws. Senator Peters's intent was not some sneaky tentacle of the dreaded homosexual agenda; a large part of the bill's intent was to secure federal funding by clarifying our domestic abuse protections.

But itchy GOP culture-war trigger fingers in the House slapped on an amendment to specify that domestic abuse in homosexual partnerships doesn't exist, at least not in the eyes of the law. (That puts amendment sponsor Rep. Mark Venner (R-24/Pierre) and his fellow travelers just one step left of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.)

The Senate cried foul, and we got a conference committee consisting of three House members who voted no on the amendment and three Senators. Five of the committee members were women, which had to be hopeful, since ladies aren't as afraid of homosexuals as the gents are, right?

Indeed, the conference committee rightly booted the line defining intimate relationships as solely between persons of the opposite sex. But extending legal protection to anyone who suffers domestic abuse was just too much for the House to stomach: they killed the bill, 39-25,

Rep. Charlie Hoffman (R-23/Eureka) justified his nay by saying there was enough doubt about SB 141 to justify killing it and coming back next year. That's funny: just the day before, constituents and colleagues in Pierre expressed much more substantial and wide-ranging doubts about the unproven education reforms in HB 1234, yet Rep. Hoffman had no problem siding with those who said we could not wait for next year, that we had to act now for the sake of action, change now for the sake of change. The rationalizations of bad votes in Pierre this week are astounding.

Regular reader Troy Jones attempts to defend the original Venner amendment by claiming that we Democrats (and evidently Republican Senator Peters?) are missing the merits of the particular policy by exploding it into a big ideological issue. He says marriage is unique and deserves special protection:

A lot of people live together, whether it be buddies sharing a house, hetero or homosexual couples-habitation couples, or married couples. Those who are married have a unique challenge when faced with abuse (they can't as simply just move out as the others). This simple reality may justify a unique need for unique and separate treatment.

I think it wholly reasonable to consider special focus on this segment without calling such people homophobic or bigots [Troy Jones, blog comment, Madville Times, 2012.03.02].

Mr. Jones's comment shows exactly the problem: the Republican effort to make their narrow, religious definition of marriage their cause célèbre spills over to do harm in other areas of the law.

The House Republicans are making a simple matter of physical protection into a big ideological issue. Whatever our philosophical or religious views of marriage, the practical fact is that there are cohabitating same-sex couples engaged in intimate relationships. Those relationships involve strong bonds independent of their legal status that make crimes within those relationships unique. Just like legally married couples, same-sex partners have emotional and financial bonds of which a partner who turns abusive can take advantage. People in intimate relationships deserve certain extra protections against domestic abuse, regardless of our ongoing debate about "marriage".

The Venner amendment said, essentially, "You got beat up by your domestic partner? That's ter— oh, but you have the same genitalia as your partner? Gee, then that's not really domestic abuse. At some level, you had it coming."

The defacement and defeat of SB 141 by House conservatives is just one more embarrassment for South Dakota.

85 Comments

  1. Joseph Nelson 2012.03.02

    Well, this amendment was a bit of an "effectively do nothing" amendment anyway. Call any Sheriff's Department in South Dakota, and they will be more than happy to tell you that there is no difference in punishment or emplacement of a restraining order whether I beat up my wife or beat up a random strange. If I were in a homosexual relationship, and my partner beat me up, the expansion of the definition doesn't give me any more recourse; it just means a different check box is checked and a different metric is calculated.This was not a simple matter of physical protection, as this amendment did nothing to give anyone more protection than what they already have. It very much is an ideological issue, and an example of how language is being used in the ongoing conflict between cultures.

  2. John Hess 2012.03.02

    Troy was off the mark this time. Gay people buy houses together, have leases together, and get just as co-dependent and screwed up as everybody else. Even if it's not legal to marry in this state (YET!) these relationships will form.

  3. John Hess 2012.03.02

    Then Joseph, they should have killed the bill as a bad bill, not attempted to amend it first in a discriminatory way, then when their discrimination didn't go through, kill it. That's telling.

  4. Roger Elgersma 2012.03.02

    It is fine to try to be fair to everyone, but compairing an American to that Iranian guy is just not fair.

  5. Bill Fleming 2012.03.02

    Roger, Cory's comparison was apt. Ahmadinejad denies there are any gay people in Iran, so why should they have any rights. Venner obviously is at least winning to admit SD might have gays (thus he's to the left of the Iranian) but still doesn't appear to care enough about them protect them in their homes.

  6. Steve Sibson 2012.03.02

    "It very much is an ideological issue, and an example of how language is being used in the ongoing conflict between cultures."

    Joseph, your analysis is right on. The conflict is between Satan's New Agers and Christ's true Christians. And there are New Agers within Christianity as Fleming demonstrates with throwing the word Christain around as if it has no meaning.

  7. Troy Jones 2012.03.02

    Joseph,

    I'm not a lawyer. Maybe you are. But I think you are exactly correct. Crimes of a domestic nature are crimes in a non-domestic nature. In other words, if I beat my wife or I beat my neighbor, it is essentially the same crime. However, it is my understanding that domestic disturbances are treated by law enforcement slightly different with regard to response and remedies. And, it is my understanding the difference is related to the unique legal matters (matters which are complicated BECAUSE of the State's laws on marriage that doesn't apply to people cohabitating) surrounding people who are married.

    No matter what one's view of marriage, today, in South Dakota, a married person (male/female only) suffering abuse has complicating factors that one in a co-habitation sexual relationship (hetero or homo) or just between non-sexual roommates (whether siblings, friends or just roomies by convenience) does not have. This difference does warrant possible different treatement and to attribute it to homophobia or compare one to the Iranian madman is over the top.

    This criticism of Venner is blatant ad hominem attack. You are criticizing his view on this matter, attributing a negative personal characterization to him because he doesn't support non-hetero marriage without any consideration of the merits of Peter's bill except to lump it into the gay marriage debate.

    We really have two choices:

    1) Live with the reality we only have hetero marriage in South Dakota and customize laws if needed with recognize this difference.

    2) Or eliminate all "domestic abuse" laws because as Joseph says practically we would have to encompass all people living under the same house as "domestic abuse" which opens up a bigger can of worms to include "frat/sororiety house" situation making it so generic as to be meaningless.

  8. Bill Fleming 2012.03.02

    The way you use words, Sibby, none of them have any meaning.

  9. Bill Fleming 2012.03.02

    "...suffering abuse has complicating factors that one in a co-habitation sexual relationship (hetero or homo) or just between non-sexual roommates (whether siblings, friends or just roomies by convenience) does not have"

    And what exactly would those be, Troy?

  10. Steve Sibson 2012.03.02

    Troy, nice analysis. Also nice we get to agree on something for once.

  11. Bill Fleming 2012.03.02

    False dichotomy, Troy.

    There are more than two options.

    Here's a third one.

    3) Recognise that the nature of a homosexual long-term committment, the promises made and kept, the raising of, and participitation in family and the corresponding risks and physical dangers of such emotional intimacy are exactly the same as they are for heterosexual couples.

    Your comment reminds me of the line that goes:

    There are two kinds of people in this world:
    1) Those who think there are two kinds of people in this world, and
    2) Those who don't.

  12. Bill Fleming 2012.03.02

    ...when you find yourself agreeing with Sibby, Troy, it might be time for a reality check. I'm just sayin'.

  13. Bill Fleming 2012.03.02

    p.s. homophobic people are those who don't want to give any thought whatsoever to the idea of a homosexual relationship. It's usually more a state of denial than it is active hatred, although there are both kinds, one based on hate, the other ignorance, and other flavors as well. None of them are rational. All of them are neurotic in that they refuse to accept he reality of certain longstanding biological and social aspects of the human condition in favor of a narrowminded, primarily religious cultural bias.

  14. Troy Jones 2012.03.02

    Bill,

    Exactly? Well, you are asking beyond my pay grade.

    First, the reason DV was ever singled out for special treatment is the vast preponderence of its occurrence was men doing it to women, especially where the threat is grave. Keep in mind, anything I do to my wife is also a crime if I do it to you.

    Second, the options (or perception of options) of married women is significantly less because of financial concerns, lack of potential support from extended family (married him, live with it), difference in physical strength and the like.

    Talk to any law enforcement officer with regard to domestic violence calls and they will tell you calls to married houses has a significantly higher chance of post-call grave physical threat. The purpose of the laws is for law enforcement to be on higher alert, more aggressive protection protocols, etc. This doesn't mean they aren't concerned on other calls as they can result in grave consequences too. But statistically the threat is significantly less likely.

    Don't get me wrong. I don't condone this violence on anyone. Nor do I want to dismiss the other incidences. I just believe we have to concentrate efforts where the greatest potential for grave harm to occur. I fear diluting the focus to all incidences will lessen protection for those most likely to be physically threatened.

    If someone were to show me another type of cohabitating relationship had a equal or greater statistical threat of grave harm to victims, I'll be for it. But, right now, my intuition and the little bit of information I found by reading two domestic violence websites, the incidences are nearly entirely a husbands abusing wives, especially with grave consequences. (Granted, they both had an appearance of a pro-women bias but I think that is because the statistics support the bias of incidence is against women from men).

  15. Steve Sibson 2012.03.02

    "Recognise that the nature of a homosexual long-term committment, the promises made and kept, the raising of, and participitation in family and the corresponding risks and physical dangers of such emotional intimacy are exactly the same as they are for heterosexual couples."

    BF, that is BF. There are two major differences, one is legal and the second spiritual. And from a legal standpoint, no one can legally abuse a gay person because they are in fear. This homophobic line is New Age propaganda. And you want to continue blaming others for being "paranoid"?

  16. Steve Sibson 2012.03.02

    "BF, that is BF."
    Should be, "BF, that is BS."

  17. Jana 2012.03.02

    Troy, "especially where the threat is grave." Cue Colonel Jessup..."is there another kind?"

    Troy, so beating the hell out of a domestic partner has to have more incidences before it is statistically worthy of being legally wrong and bearing the same consequence of man on woman violence? What's the magic number you are looking for?

  18. Steve Sibson 2012.03.02

    Perhaps the most abusive person on this thread is Fleming, so what is your phobia...Christ? So Cory, should we go around calling atheists "Christophobics"?

  19. Troy Jones 2012.03.02

    P.S. Bill, get off trying to make this about homosexuality. You know better. I don't like it when every idea from a liberal gets knee-jerk opposition from some conservatives. You are falling into the same trap.

    Bottomline: It appears based on what I can find, the gravest statistical threat is to women from men. Intuitively, wives are potentially more controlled (financially and other reasons) than live-in girlfriends (give me info if this isn't true). Thus, dilution of focus to incidents where the risks are less is imprudent.

    My position is solely based on statistics and life observation (bigger people are a greater physical threat to smaller people and seem to more often be able to "pull off" emotional threats). If you give me information the biggest statistical threat of grave harm is in the lesbian community, I'll support specific legislation to insure the protocols/attention is proportionate to the threat.

    Regarding agreeing with Sibby, I don't change my views because they agree with or disagree with you. I don't with Sibby either. Give me good arguments, I will change my mind.

  20. Erin 2012.03.02

    SD codified law's definition of domestic abuse already extends to persons living in the same household. What it does not include are those in a relationship who do not live together unless they have previously lived together.

  21. Steve Sibson 2012.03.02

    "Abuse can be physical, sexual, emotional, psychological, and involve verbal behavior used to coerce, threaten or humiliate."

    That is from one of Fleming's links. So should I be protected fron his "domestic abuse" (for purposely trying to humiliate me verbally), since it is being done within a "blog family"?

  22. Bill Fleming 2012.03.02

    Troy, I didn't make this about homosexuals, Venner did.

    That's the whole point of this thread.

  23. Bill Fleming 2012.03.02

    p.s. the good arguments are on the table, Troy.

  24. Bill Fleming 2012.03.02

    You're not my type, Steve. (I'm hopelessly hetero.)
    But if I recall, Larry Kurtz is interested.

  25. John Hess 2012.03.02

    Troy seems to be saying if there are two homosexuals, they are likely to be evenly matched so things cancel out. Not hardly! Probably things are more likely to escalate. Bill gave you links to the stats. But the point of the law was to expand the definition of domestic abuse. Why wouldn't intimate partners of the same sex fit the definition?

  26. John Hess 2012.03.02

    So isn't it just back to the white guys in the legislature don't want to in any way legitimize homosexual relationships?

  27. larry kurtz 2012.03.02

    While ip is indiscriminate, kurtz is hopelessly hetero, too, boys.

  28. John Hess 2012.03.02

    What a shame. Everyone around here is so hopeless.

  29. larry kurtz 2012.03.02

    Flee the chemical toilet, John: check out Missoula or Santa Fe.

  30. Steve Sibson 2012.03.02

    "You’re not my type, Steve."

    So Bill, are you saying the only way one man can abuse another is if they are in a sexual relationship?

  31. Steve Sibson 2012.03.02

    Notice Fleming spinning like a top.

  32. Bill Fleming 2012.03.02

    John not hopeless exactly. I'm not making a value judgement, but rather an observation.

    "Don't know, don't even want to know" = "Homophobic."

    That's just a fact.
    Being homophobic isn't necessarily immoral.
    It's just a phobia like all other phobias.

  33. larry kurtz 2012.03.02

    @rcjMontgomery
    On the Teach for America bill, Sen. Bradford worries about reference to tribal schools as "public schools."

    Sen. Bradford worried about the $3000 fee tribal schools have to pay to get Teach For America Teachers (1/2)

    Sen. Adelstein: If $3k is what stands between tribal schools & TFA, "I will personally give that school the $3k for each teacher next year."

    The TFA grant bill, which I believe will have $250k in funding, passes 21-2. 12 senators absent.

  34. Bill Fleming 2012.03.02

    No, Steve, I'm not. A man can abuse another man any number of ways. And himself as well. You seem fairly skilled at doing both, but especially the latter. Your favorite thing is to play the victim, even when there is absolutely no reason for it. That's narcissistic self abuse. You should stop it. You'll grow hair on your palms.

  35. Troy Jones 2012.03.02

    Jana,

    Yes. The law, protocols for handling incidences, etc. should be based on probability. I'm making up numbers here to make a point:

    First, remember the purpose of domestic abuse laws are more about stopping a future more serious incident than what prompted the call. If an violent actually occurs, the domestic realities (who harmed who) doesn't much matter. Beating someone is against the law.

    If it is more likely a wife will be beaten in the future (vs. another domestic situation), I think it appropriate the protocols and protections afforded should be more aggressive. Law enforcement discretion is fraught with making judgment calls. None of us want a law enforcement environment where the worst case is always assumed as it will lead to civil rights violations.

    Bill referenced some information which raises a possibility the statistical problem might be more likely in gay households. If this is actually the truth, it should cause us to examine whether or not we need to be less concerned about abuse against married women and put the focus where the bigger problem is.

    And, maybe it should cause us to consider our adoption protocols whereby gay households shouldn't be adopting or at minimum have more diligent standards? Those are pretty big discrepencies. More violence, shorter duration of marriages. As a society we can't prevent which homes babies are born into but we can control where they are placed under adoption.

  36. Steve Sibson 2012.03.02

    Bill, thanks for proving my point so now answer the questions based on that point:

    So should I be protected from his “domestic abuse” (for purposely trying to humiliate me verbally), since it is being done within a “blog family”?

    and:

    This homophobic line is New Age propaganda. And you want to continue blaming others for being “paranoid”?

    and:

    so what is your phobia…Christ?

  37. Troy Jones 2012.03.02

    Jana: accidentally hit send. The numbers I was going to integrate:

    Say 50% of domestic calls later lead to violence against the wife and 10% against one of the gay partners, I think we should treat the former situation differently. However, based on what Bill referenced, maybe it is the other way around and law enforcement should have more aggressive protocols when called to a gay domestic incident.

  38. Steve Sibson 2012.03.02

    "Your favorite thing is to play the victim"

    Now you have a fourth question: isn't using the term "homophobic" implying victimhood?

    And another: Are those who are abused victims?

  39. larry kurtz 2012.03.02

    My guess is the South Dakota legislature would hire the Westboro Baptist Church as law enforcement and call it the Alpha Center.

  40. Bill Fleming 2012.03.02

    There is a very easy way to protect yourself from your imagined persecution Sibby. First is to stop showing up in places where you might be tempted to imagine it happening. Second is to stop baiting people with annoying lies, distractions and other crackpottery so as to prevent robust derision and rebuttal. Third, take a deep breath and relax before listening to anything anyone at all has to say to you. This will allow you to detach from your overwrought, hyperemotional state into a more neutral, objective mind space. And finally, seek professional psychological counseling and therapy.

  41. Steve Sibson 2012.03.02

    "imagined persecution"

    That would include those who believe they are being abused by what they term "Homophobics". And Fleming is promoting that fear, along with Cory and the rest of you New Agers.

  42. Steve Sibson 2012.03.02

    "while the topic is what to do about real, criminally violent domestic abuse"

    This is from one of your links Bill:

    “Abuse can be physical, sexual, emotional, psychological, and involve verbal behavior used to coerce, threaten or humiliate.”

    When a spinner gets boxed into a corner, he starts bouncing off the walls.

  43. Steve Sibson 2012.03.02

    And Bill, this came from your Wiki link:

    "Although the suffix -phobia normally refers to irrational fear"

    I now rest my case. Bill adn Cory, you two need to stop sprending irrational fears and causing paranoia in your political pawns.

  44. Donald Pay 2012.03.02

    In the 1980s and 1990s when domestic violence and child abuse statutes were being put in place the cuckoo factor was brought into these domestic and child abuse issues by the Concerned Women for America. They believed, and still do, that it goes against God's law for the state to interfere in the rightful "punishment" of women and children by God's appointed head of household, the Man.

    It's really a sign of the sexual degradation of the Republican Party that they have descended into sexual sadism. It's not just that they appear ready to offer up their own sons and daughters to the sexual deviants of the Concerned Women for America, but they try to degrade and defile God, who I suspect views Christian right's belief that Man the right to beat the hell out of any female, child or suspected gay person he wants as mortal sin.

  45. John Hess 2012.03.02

    No Troy, laws should be based on fairness. Now you show a willingness to take some stats on gay domestic problems to restrict adoptions? What's the probability of gay adoption in SD anyway, if probability matters? Ha. One every ten years? People are basically people. Gays have a generally more difficult childhood and sometimes adulthood. Maybe more problems, maybe less support, maybe more stress. So how about concentrating on treating people EQUALLY and seeing if the results change. The long term view. We've come a long way baby, even in South Dakota, but it's clear there's still a lot to overcome become there's anything close to equality.

  46. Steve Sibson 2012.03.02

    Donald, so you join in with more Christophobia.

  47. John Hess 2012.03.02

    Bill, I was making a joke about all of you hopelessly straight guys.

  48. Bill Fleming 2012.03.02

    Got it John. Thanks, bro. What can I tell ya? Must be a gene thing.

  49. John Hess 2012.03.02

    Who knows the cause, but it's definitely not a choice. Could your force yourself to enjoy something you just don't want to do? Course not.

  50. Bill Fleming 2012.03.02

    Yes, John, I never made a decision to be straight (nor a choice not to be gay.) It was always just obvious to me.

    Similar to my being left handed. I didn't choose it. I just have to deal with it... being different from most everyone else.

    It's not a problem, just a thing.

    I did decide that I'm not going to try to change my "handedness" just so I could be like everybody else. That was about 55 years ago. Fortunately, no one else around me had much of a problem with it either.

    That's the big diff, I think. It's not so much the gay person's problem as it is the problem other people in his community have with his unique nature.

    But you know what John?

    That's THEIR problem. LOL.

  51. Bill Dithmer 2012.03.02

    Donald Pay that sounds a lot like the religions practiced in Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. Who knew that the fundamentalist in both the Christian and Muslim religions are so close to the same. Why so much hate when they could just swap spit.

    The Bible and Koran seem to have a lot in common, both the good and bad in each book. It’s the people that read them that want something for nothing, your soul. Some want to be able to buy and sell souls, some want to own them, and some would be happy to control them.

    The only difference between a homophobe and a regular person is arrogance and the assumption that they “the homophobes” are superior in some way.

    Men beating women, women beating men, men beating men, women beating women and everyone getting to beat up on little Jimmy. I guess it doesn’t really make any difference if it says its right in the holy book does it?

    The Blindman

  52. D.E. Bishop 2012.03.02

    I managed the DV shelter in Spearfish for something like three years in the late 80s. I went from there directly to RC and managed the WAVI shelter for another couple of years.

    One of the important things to know about DV is that it is precisely the relationship that makes it different from other incidences of violence. Troy is correct that men are nearly always the perpetrator.

    One of the biggest obstacles still to overcome in DV cases is "Why doesn't she leave?"

    First, of course that's not something that is considered in other violent crimes.

    Second, there are several excellent reasons for not leaving: 1. The likelihood of him murdering her goes up 75% - that is SEVENTY-FIVE percent - if she leaves. 2. He may threaten to kidnap the children and disappear. (It does happen, and not rarely.) 2. He may threaten to kill the children, grandparents, and/or himself. (It does happen, and not rarely.) 3. He may threaten to destroy priceless mementos, family heirlooms, or other precious things. 4. She may lose all financial means, insurance, transportation, housing, clothing, furniture, etc. 5. He may destroy her reputation. There is more, but I'm sure you get the gist.

    None of that is relevant in a non-domestic violent crime.

    Domestic violence requires different laws because of the time span that is involved too. A random criminal act is usually, though not always, one incident. DV can go on for years and even decades. It does not have to include physical violence to be horrific.

    The women who came to our shelter always ALWAYS said that the physical part was much easier, because in a month or so a broken arm heals. Not so with a cruelly damaged soul. To those of us who met these people on a daily basis, that was apparent.

    The attack on an individual's soul is at least as great a crime as a physical beating, and needs to be harshly punished.

    All of these things, and more that are not coming to mind right now, differentiate domestic violence from other violent crimes.

    In our work, we did not see a difference if the parties were married, living together, or same sex. The results were the same, the damage was the same.

    It is a travesty to omit some people from all of the protections that DV laws provide. No one, NO ONE, deserves to live such a horror without legal redress and support.

  53. John Hess 2012.03.02

    In 2012 people are still arguing about women's reproductive rights, Obama's birth certificate, health care for everyone, and who people should love. Not very impressive.

  54. Troy Jones 2012.03.03

    John,

    Law-making is the reconciling of multiple goals, some of which are often in conflict. What is equal is not always fair and what is fair is not always equal.

    And in the case of law enforcement, it is sometimes the setting of priority toward the most harm. As we will never have enough police to stamp out all crimes (who really wants that big a police anyway because of civil liberties), should cops be focusing on speeders, home invasion crime, or drug dealing? All are crimes for good reason requiring setting of priorities based onpotential for harm, especially grave harm.

    If the statistics showed a home with a parrot indicated a high likelihood of domestic violence, police upon seeing a parrot should be on alert to take extraordinary precaution. I know a parrot is absurd but my point I don't care what the indicator is or need to know the why. I just want proper action based on the indicator.

    Domestic abuse is like racketeering in that it is less about a single incident but a pattern of actions that cumulative into serious harm. DE Bishop outlined some reasons why the victim doesn't take action to stop the accumulation of harm.

    Rep. Peters bill and the Venner amendment is an attempt to deal with a problem to set priority where they believe is the greatest harm.

    Fleming cited some stats which appears to conflict with conventional wisdom. But the fact Peters/Venner acted on conventional wisdom (domestic abuse most commonly occurs between husband and wife) does not make the homophovic or like the Iranian madman.

    And, even when I read Bill's stats and compare them to DE Bishops post, I think the right answer is unclear and hard to discern. Sometimes we just have to set a priority and go with it remaining open to future reconsideration. I just know when we try to make everything a law enforcement priority, nothing becomes a priority.

    Dithmer, nobody is saying beating anyone is acceptable. Once that occurs, a crime has been committed. The question is what pre-violence situation is the most likely to lead to grave harm (as Bishop pointed out it doesn't have to be physical) and set the policies/protocols in place to stop/mitigate it.

  55. larry kurtz 2012.03.03

    "I just know when we try to make everything a law enforcement priority, nothing becomes a priority."

    But the chemical toilet holds its nose and does it time after time after time anyway,Troy: good thing you're rich and don't have to deal with it.

  56. JohnKelley 2012.03.03

    Glad this bill went in the recycle bin where it belonged. DV is not about sexual status and never was. It's about people who live together: dorm roommates, adult kids caring for their parents, spouses, kids, other relatives or non-relatives living together, etc. It's generally in society's best interest for these folks to get along and continue living together least they become the taxpayers' problem. DV statutes and measures are means assisting with maintaining domestic tranquility in an environment statistically leading to the most bodily harm on persons, so the state is less encumbered with enforcing the domestic peace over the long run. The Peters/Vetter bill and arguments for it are childish - as shown by the nonsenses demise.

  57. Bill Fleming 2012.03.03

    Troy, don't look now, but aren't you making a statist argument? The point is, INDIVIDUALS in domestic relationships need additional protection regardless of their gender or sexual preference. To specifically exclue a class of them for whatever reason via a change in existing law is structural, legal, institutional discrimination and prohibited by the 14th Amendment.

  58. Bill Dithmer 2012.03.03

    Troy Jones that is not what I said at all. But, the Bible and Koran both say such things are OK according to those religions. Its wrong no matter who does what to whom whether it is mental or physical as long as that person doesn’t want it to happen to them.! Trying to twist words to fit your argument doesn’t help that argument.

    The Blindman

  59. Troy Jones 2012.03.03

    BD, I thought you were inferring I thought beating some people was acceptable. Wasn't trying to twist anything. And, only used last name to shortly distinquish you from BF. But, you seem to infer I think it again in your last statement.

    BF, LOL, yes there is statism. Domestic abuse legislation to some degree is to defend people who for whatever reason choose not to protect themselves. Guilty as charged.

    JK, you are correct that SOME need protection. Not all. And, my only point is to try to direct additional protocols and protections where the greatest risk exists. If we strive for perfect enforcement and protection, we end up with a police state.

    In the end, there is a myriad of reasons for and against certain legislation. I don't know enough specifically about the merits of the bill, the amendment etc. based on real problems in our homes, and neither do I suspect to anyone posting on here (except DEBishop who worked in the field) and don't feel strongly about the right resolution. But, to cry homophobia or characterize someone as like the Iranian madman (I don't even try to spell his name) serves no purpose except to cheapen discussion.

  60. caheidelberger Post author | 2012.03.03

    No, Troy, in this case the comparisons I have made serve to illuminate the irrational fear and loathing that drive too many of our legislators.

  61. Bill Fleming 2012.03.03

    Sidenote:
    I heard Jeff Greenfield once explain that the proper way to pronouncee "Ahmadinejad" was to think: "Come on-na my house"
    Ah-MA-din-eh-jad.

    Like this:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mriXncI96lw

  62. larry kurtz 2012.03.03

    The Montana judge email scandal is rocking the MTGOP.

    Troy is doing a fine job keeping Democrats focused on minutiae while his legislators, use and disseminate equally nauseating pornography on publicly owned information systems.

    If the South Dakota legislature makes the laws intended for scrutiny by the courts, why would dialogue between elected public officials not be open to the public?

  63. John Hess 2012.03.03

    Crying homophobia would cheapen the discussion?

    From Aberdeen News: Defenders of traditional family structure blocked passage of a broader definition of domestic violence today in the state House of Representatives.

    “I’m not afraid to say it. They want to include gay and lesbian relationships,” Rep. Shawn Tornow, R-Sioux Falls, said.

    They voted against this bill because they don't want to accept gay relationships. How much more clear does have to be?

    Even Dick Cheney speaks out for gay rights and lobbied for the recent passage in Maryland: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/01/cheney-offers-his-support_n_209869.html

    http://www.aberdeennews.com/news/aan-sd-house-defeats-broader-definition-of-domestic-violence-20120301,0,6133269.story

  64. D.E. Bishop 2012.03.03

    In addition to some general education about Domestic Violence, a major point I perhaps didn't make clearly enough, is that the genders of the principals is completely irrelevant to the act. John Kelley is correct when he states that it is simply about two people in a relationship.

    If excluding same sex relationships becomes law, I imagine the 911 call would have to go something like this:

    "Help, help! He's going to kill me!"
    "What is your gender caller?"
    "He's got a knife!"
    "Caller, I must have your gender."
    "I'm a man. Hurry! Please hurry!"
    "So you are both men? Is that correct?"
    "Yes. I'm hiding in the bathroom but I can hear him looking for me. He's getting closer!"
    "I'm sorry sir, but law forbids us from responding to your call." Click.

    The next day is the newspaper - "Brother fatally stabs brother in dispute over inheritance. Mail carrier finds body next morning."

    -or-

    "Business partners in murder/suicide over bankruptcy."

    -or-

    "Man kills life partner of 30 years due to untreated dementia." (Because, of course, he couldn't get health coverage since they are not Married.)

  65. D.E. Bishop 2012.03.03

    I heard a good way to pronounce Amadinejad: "I'm a dinner jacket." Whoopie Goldberg

  66. D.E. Bishop 2012.03.03

    Oh, and also, some legislator in the Mitchell Daily Republic article was quoted as saying:

    "Rozum presented the bill Thursday as a change to protect the funding stream for South Dakota shelters and centers that receive more than $7 million annually in federal grants."

    I used to assist the shelter directs in grant-writing. I don't remember any issues about the genders of our clients other than questions about services to men.

    We did serve men, although they were not allowed to stay at the shelters. We put them up in motels and went to them there. Grantors did not ask about the gender of the victims in relation to the gender of the perps.

  67. D.E. Bishop 2012.03.03

    Oops. No "e" in "Whoopi." My bad.

  68. John Hess 2012.03.05

    It was interesting to listen to the audio clip of the legislature. It did seem proponents of this bill wanted to slip recognition of gay relationships in the back door (as conservatives charged) rather than acknowledging it right up front. There's no shame here, but almost all danced around the issue! One guy quoted the MN law which does recognize gay relationships. The women in the legislature may have felt a need to try to be sneaky, but it failed miserably. Maybe they felt it wouldn't pass if they said straight up that domestic violence should include people of the same sex who are in a romantic relationship, but should exclude people of the same sex who may live in close quarters (like a dormitory). Nelson, who I take to be Stace Nelson, ended the discussion before the vote by saying other laws cover these circumstances adequately. Maybe. Maybe not. Romantic, intimate relationships bring out the same type of domestic violence these laws need to protect regardless of sex. Certainly they know that, don't they?

  69. Bill Fleming 2012.03.06

    John, my hunch is many of them know as little about intimate relationships among people with sexual preferences different from their own as is humanly possible. I know a person who has an irrational phobia of snakes for example. If that person ever even sees a picture of a snake in a book, it's the last time that book ever gets picked up. That's why they call them "phobias." People who have them aren't trying to be mean, necessarily. They're just neurotic, not psychotic.

  70. Troy Jones 2012.03.06

    John,

    I haven't listened to the testimony so my comments are not about that in particular but a general comment.

    Abuse of people we know or people we don't know is a crime. Domestic abuse legislation doesn't make anything more illegal or provide protections not provided to the entire public. It is about remedies and protocols that give greater focus and more aggressive/proactive protocols and actions for people who are likely to be unable to protect themselves.

    Focus inherently requires "profiling" of the situation and information by law enforcement to know when they should take action. And, to ensure we have the right focus, we need good statistics such that it doesn't become ubiquitous and every domestic call gets the same treatment (it will either be too aggressive such it violates civil liberties or too passive that it leaves people in danger).

    If it is true as Flemings stats indicated that gay relationships has an inordinate amount of violence as compared to married situations, I think it prudent law enforcement be instructed to take extraordinary precaution, even if it opens them up to "profiling" or "discrimination." Conventional wisdom is certain married women need extraordinary protections/protocols because of certain inherent circumstances that diminish the perception to take action and if that is true, we shouldn't water down the law to the detriment of those deemed most statistically at risk.

    What I don't want is we treat every domestic call the same without regard to actual risk based on statistical analysis. Will this mean some might fall through the cracks? Yes. But the alternative is others will fall through the cracks or we will overwhelm our domestic abuse shelters and jails to the detriment of those who really don't need protection. Life is a balancing act and we can't have perfect law enforcement without becoming a police state.

    If in the end in an effort not to be non-politically correct we water down the protocols or are so careful we violate civil liberties and lock up everyone, we will have done the wrong thing.

  71. Bill Fleming 2012.03.06

    Troy, I'm afraid you are missing the whole point, my friend. Domestic violence is in different in context, motivation, and social perception than other non-domestic forms of violence, and as such are often overlooked or given short shrift because, after all "it's a family affair." Taken to the extreme, you get islamic practices of a brother or a father murdering a daughter or a sister who was raped because she is no longer a virgin worth marrying and as such has disgraced the family.

    The point is we shouldn't turn a blind eye to abuse just because of the intimate relationships of the people involved. It doesn't make any difference what the sexual preferences of the parties is. What matters is that everyone gets equal protection.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_violence

  72. Bill Fleming 2012.03.06

    Typo... above should read "Domestic violence is different in context..." not "..in different..." Sorry.

  73. John Hess 2012.03.06

    If the word "romantic" were used (regardless of sex), and the protocols Troy talks have a greater chance to lead to intervention, then that's the right step. You'll remember the Daphne Wright case, the lesbian who dismembered her romantic rival. In that case and others, people usually know a bad situation is brewing. If law enforcement has initial contact knowing the nature of a relationship, and that helps prevent escalation, then so be it. Gay people feel reluctant to report for many reasons, one being they don't think law enforcement will be responsive. Give them the protocols.

  74. John Hess 2012.03.06

    And the word romantic would clear up a lot of the issues the legislature had with the bill. They thought domestic should mean family, living together, and not apply to dating. This kind of abuse is not restricted by physical location. They were so concerned a charge of domestic abuse would lead to the immediate loss of hunting privileges. And that people sharing a dorm room would be an intimate relationship. They can do better!

  75. Troy Jones 2012.03.06

    Bill,

    I must not be making myself clear as I think we agree.

    My whole point is there is certain situations where the risks are greater. I couldn't care less what the situation is. If the risk is greatest in gay relationships or an Islamic home, they need the greatest focus. And, I couldn't care less about accusations of profiling or discrimination. A person at greater statistical risk deserves extraordinary protection.

    The purpose of domestic abuse laws is to identify those situations most likely to accelerate in a subsequent to the call and take action. My only reason for engaging in this is I don't want gay relationships included if statistically they aren't a high risk situation just to serve a political agenda outside domestic violence.

    Now this analogy isn't perfect so don't beat me up on it. Try to get what I'm trying to say.

    Law enforcement has protocols for searching a car without a warrant (or stopping someone suspected of another crime). Civil rights law requires extra-ordinary evidence. Identifying domestic abuse and taking action requires certain protocols/ extra-ordinary evidence of potential future incidents. The purpose of the domestic abuse laws is to give focus (and "cover") for law enforcement to take extraordinary action.

    Again, if gay relationship is a metic indicating extraordinary risk, I support it being a metric and oppose it being excluded because of one's views about gay marriage. Similarly, if gay relationship is not a metric of extraordinary risk, I oppose it being a metric or being included because of one's view toward gay marriage. If we add low risk metrics or don't add high risk metrics (regardless of perceptions of political correctness), we defeat the purpose of domestic abuse laws (as you said "Domestic violence is in different in context, motivation, and social perception").

  76. Bill Fleming 2012.03.06

    Okay, yes. Thanks for the clarification, Troy. I got it. And we agree. Now to convince the legislators.

  77. Troy Jones 2012.03.06

    John,

    I think we generally agree. This said, I'm reluctant to include dating relationships without some greater information/statistics. My support for domestic abuse laws is to protect those who in reality have complicating challenges in protecting themselves. Dating on the surface doesn't do it for me even though I know there times it leads to problems. Secondly, one of the actions is to separate the two parties against the wishes of one or both parties. They already live separately.

    I'm sure I'll be accused of being uncaring of those dating who get abused. But, I'm about focus in this regard. Everytime the metrics are expanded, the focus becomes less where the greatest risk exists.

  78. Steve Sibson 2012.03.06

    "Who knows the cause, but it’s definitely not a choice. Could your force yourself to enjoy something you just don’t want to do? Course not."

    Sins of the flesh are always choices.

  79. Bill Fleming 2012.03.06

    Domestic implies "domicile" to me too, Troy and John. People living in close proximiity to one another on a regular basis... especially those who are in a "familial" relationship with one another and percieve themselves to be physically and psychologically bound by it. (This is not true of me and Sibby for instance, despite his protestations to the contrary. LOL.)

  80. larry kurtz 2012.09.16

    Let's review: Republicans really hate individual freedoms...except when a man hits a woman or kills with drones.

    Iran argues that her nuclear program is for peaceful purposes: containment of Israel, just for instance.

    South Dakotans: DC works best when one party controls the Executive and Legislative Branches.South Dakotans appear destined to vote, not just for a white guy they don’t like very much, but against a President looking unstoppable by today’s numbers, who happens to be a Democrat (not to mention a guy with closer genetic ties to Mother Africa), while returning a distracted, ineffectual opposition member back to the US House just because she’s a Republican in a year when that party is imploding.Why?Kristi Noem and Mike Rounds represent a culture of conspicuous consumption, waste, and entitlement at the expense of aquifers, watersheds,and wetlands: for a handful of billionaires.

    South Dakota: cast off your desires to send mere politicians to DC to misrepresent us and embrace strong progressive, intellectual leaders with vision to speak with strong voices.

    Control the federal bench, Dems: crush the GOP and scatter its remains.

Comments are closed.