The South Dakota Constitution (Article 21, Section 9) deems same-sex marriages, civil unions, domestic partnerships, and other "quasi-marital relationships" invalid in our unfair state. But the Legislature is prepared to extend a little fairness to homosexuals in domestic abuse situations.
Seeming to fly under the radar of South Dakota's family values lobby, Senate Bill 7 has passed both the House and Senate and awaits conference committee. In its latest wording, SB 7 extends domestic abuse protections, including access to protection orders, to folks in a "significant romantic relationship." SB 7 offers the courts the following criteria to pin down that term:
- The length of time of the relationship;
- The frequency of interaction between the parties;
- The characteristics and the type of the relationship.
SB 7 says the courts shall use those criteria "among others." The "vagueries" (Rep. Dean Wink used that exact term in House Judiciary Monday, and I commend him for linguistic creativity) of those criteria were the main source of opposition. Rep. Hajek, who served on the interim Domestic Abuse Study Committee that put forward SB 7 and a package of other domestic abuse reforms, said "significant romantic relationship" was chosen as a deliberate softening of the term "intimate partner" that appears in federal statutes connecting firearms applications and domestic abuse convictions. She and Rep. Jim Bolin stated in committee that they avoided the word "partner" because all heck would break loose if they put that word in a proposal in South Dakota. (They're right: review what happened when the term "intimate partner" appeared in a domestic abuse bill in 2012.)
Speaker Brian Gosch opposed SB 7 out of concern that SB 7 extends domestic protection beyond the domicile. Pennington County States Attorney Mark Vargo praised Speaker Gosch's erudite explication of Latin etymology, then said that domestic abuse law should recognize the unique power and control issues involved in romantic relationships, whether or not the parties involved happen to be co-domiciling at the moment someone swings a fist.
SB 7 got just one nay in the Senate (Ernie Otten, gay-antennae likely all a-twitch). A fifth of the House, mostly the arch-conservative caucus, said no to SB 7 yesterday. Barring conference committee shenanigans, SB 7 seems likely to pass and head to Governor Daugaard's approving pen.
And once it does, South Dakota will find itself in an interesting legal contradiction. We won't recognize the validity of a same-sex marriage for most legal purposes. But we will recognize a same-sex romantic relationship, marital or extra-, for the purposes of protecting one partner from abuse by another.
To protect the delicate sensibilities of wingnuts from having to say(or think about) same-sex intimate clutches,let's agree to call same-sex displays of affection-candy. Sure ought to be tasty enough for delicate sensibilities. Should pass constitutional muster,as well.
Mr. Howie, who is insaner than most and the puppet master of several and who owes me money back is going to get all in trouble again for slob hunterism. Mr. Howie, give up your guns.
geez grud: get a gnu drug.
http://www.kotatv.com/story/24909938/former-sd-gubernatorial-candidate-ticketed-for-illegally-killing-mountian-lion?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed
Mr. Montgomery Argus reported it, Larry. He's a media genius.
it's a big galaxy, mr. anderson.
Domestic violence legislation needs to be broadly worded because it comes in every variety humans have ever created. Living in the same building is certainly not necessary. It can include totally heterosexual, same gender, perfectly platonic, absolutely unrelated roommates. Sexual intimacy is not a requirement for domestic violence to exist.