If you have "no place to go," come here!

Defense of Marriage Act : License to Beat, Kill Women

Sarah's picture

Ohio murderer released on own recognizance after domestic abuse failed to meet "marriage" test then broke into the home of his former girlfriend and killed her.
Sharia law lives, walks, and kills women in the USA just like it does in Islamist countries. You can thank Mullah Dobson and his armies of "conservative," and "Christian" followers.

No votes yet


This post is a bunch of logic-lacking lunacy.

First, DOMA laws are not a license to beat and kill women. I don't know if you've ever heard of the crimes of assault, battery, murder, etc, but they all exist to deter and prosecute individuals who commit them.

Second, it is really quite despicable that you would associate my blog with the assertion that I support such disgusting acts of violence. I take personal offense to it. My position and my post do not, in any way whatsoever, support abuse of any kind. Neither does my support of DOMA laws equal support for abuse and assault. Your assertion to the contrary is low and uncalled for.

Third, in the case you referenced from the Blade, the murderous thug had not lived with Alicia for quite some time. Actually, if my memory serves me correctly, they hadn't lived together for better than a year. In fact, Alicia was living with her most recent boyfriend. So, even if DOMA didn't affect domestic violence laws, this situation wouldn't have fallen under a domestic violence categorization any way.

Fourth, there is an easy way to fix this problem (as I suggested in my post comments, which you probably failed to read). The state legislature could pass alterations to current criminal laws that mandate increasing penalties for subsequent offenses or add criminal penalties that apply to these types of situations specifically.

Personally, as it concerns the appellate case that made the determination that DOMA made domestic violence laws inapplicable to non-marrieds, the legal reasoning was faulty and I wouldn't be surprised if it is reversed by the Ohio Supreme Court.

Just to provide you some updated info since you failed to look into it yourself (and relied on 8 month old information):

The Ohio Supreme Court did reverse the decision of the Second District Court of Appeals in In re Ohio Domestic Violence Statute Cases, 114 Ohio St.3d 430 (2007).

This case resolved disputes between the 2nd District and the 5th and 11th Districts who both found that DOMA did NOT remove domestic violence protections.
Those two cases were:
State v. Hampton, 2006 Ohio 5995 (Ohio App. 5 Dist., 2006);


State v. Jenson, 2006 Ohio 5169 (Ohio App. 11 Dist., 2006);

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

Craig Daniels was the killer and he’s responsible for what he did, no question. But the community as a whole failed the victims. (Two were killed, the woman and her new boyfriend, a white male and therefore perhaps less deserving of mention but he’s just as dead.) They failed by treating Daniels’ previous behavior as a domestic violence issue and therefore somehow less malicious than a crime between strangers.

To recap: Daniels’ criminal record is a long one including an arrest for beating his then-girlfriend unconscious. In 2000 he’s given a three year sentence for domestic violence. Part of the sentence is a permanent restraining order. Yet, in December of 2006 he shows up at his now-very-ex-girlfriend’s place and ties her up, beats her, holds a knife to her throat and threatens to kill her. He continues to roam free until he again shows up at her place in January and is arrested when she calls the police. At that point, this was his rap sheet:

Daniels, Craig - Disorderly Conduct W/Persistence
Daniels, Craig - Assault
Daniels, Craig - Abduction
Daniels, Craig - Resisting Arrest
Daniels, Craig - Menacing By Stalking
Daniels, Craig - Telephone Harassment
Daniels, Craig - Disrupting Public Services
Daniels, Craig - Domestic Violence
Daniels, Craig - Disorderly Conduct W/Persistence
Daniels, Craig - Felonious Assault
Daniels, Craig - Aggravated Burglary
Daniels, Craig - Hit Skip
Daniels, Craig - Felonious Assault
Daniels, Craig - Aggravated Menacing
Daniels, Craig - Resisting Arrest
Daniels, Craig - Assault
Daniels, Craig - Kidnapping
Daniels, Craig - Aggravated Burglary

A full litany of Daniels’ monstrousness is here.

What was Daniels finally charged with after the last encounter? Stalking, a fourth-degree felony in Ohio. Why? Because the matter was still being viewed by the DA as a domestic issue, never mind that the two principles have not lived together for years. This is the usual view, not just in Ohio but throughout the country, because there is still the common perception that women – and children – are a form of chattel and less than fully deserving human beings. Once a man owns them, they continue to be under his control and domination no matter what has subsequently transpired.

Under Ohio law, the judge was “encouraged” to provide own-recognizance bail for fourth degree felonies and apparently didn’t bother to look at Daniel’s rap sheet. Had the old domestic violence laws still been in effect Daniels would have been charged under those and kept on a cash bail which he could not meet – and his victims would still be alive. Instead, he was released from custody in February and killed them in March.

Michelle Clossick, executive director of the Cocoon Shelter, a domestic violence shelter in Bowling Green, said it best:

“Cases like these aren’t generally the failure of one person but of the entire community.”

Until the entire community (and that would include you, Luke) insists on substantial punishment for repeatedly violent criminals, especially for domestic violence of all kinds, these crimes will continue unabated and innocent people will die.

Luke, if you got caught in a cross-fire here, well, sorry about that but consider that if you put up on your website a defense of eliminating domestic violence enhancement sentencing for unmarried couples then you run the risk of being lumped in with others whose bigotry encourages diminishment of the rights of people who do not conform to your narrow view of domesticity. Further, if you trumpet on your site your support for the political aspirations of an ordained minister who ascribes to the dominion of men over women, again you should expect to be viewed as a supporter of all that that means. Lie down with dogs, get up with fleas.

First, I agree that Daniels should have been in jail for a much longer period. I knew him personally...unfortunately. He was a poor excuse for a human being for a good part of his life. I am not making an excuse for him.

Second, your argument in your reply is the opposite of what you initially posted (unless I simply misunderstood either of them). Your initial post argued that DOMA was bad because it eliminated DV style "protections". But then, in your reply, you talk about how DV protections were inadequate and it would have been better if they had been treated like strangers. Which is it?

Third, the notion that women and children are treated as chattel is really not true least not according to my knowledge of the judicial system in Northwestern Ohio, which I know pretty well since I work in a legal clinic that does many DV cases.

Honestly, I don't think you and I are on very different pages. We both agree that penalties should be graduated and increase with each subsequent act. But I don't think that DV crimes should be any worse than a regular assault. What I believe is that every assault, whether it occurs in the home in a "domestic" situation or between strangers on a street somewhere, should be dealt with harshly and with increasingly severe penalties.

Lastly, Mike Huckabee does not ascribe to the "dominion of men over women" least not in the sort of way you imply. Christianity does not support the master-servant form of male-female relationships, though I admit that there have been plenty of people who have distorted Paul's teachings on the matter.
Smoke If You Got 'Em

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

I tried to be gracious in assuming that perhaps you hadn’t thought this matter through. Your return comment makes it clear that you have been thoughtful, and you choose to be wrong. Speaking only for myself, I see no need now for further graciousness.

The concept of equal does not allow for equivocation; either all human beings are equally human or they are not. Here in America we don’t accept that adult humans of one class are inherently more capable or more deserving of respect or obedience compared to another. Yet that is precisely what Mike Huckabee and a whole lot of other adherents to Paleolithic thinking espouse. He is an ordained Southern Baptist minister, a member in good standing of the Southern Baptist Convention, and in 1998 put his name (as did his wife) to a full-page ad in USA Today proclaiming that:

"A wife is to submit graciously to the servant leadership of her husband even as the church willingly submits to the headship of Christ"

There’s no way around the meaning here. “Submit” means just that, as the church submits to your god; unequivocally, totally, completely, unquestioning, absolutely. You and Huckabee can try and dance around it but the words and the concept are clear: women are to submit to men because men are empowered by your god to dominate women. I find that disgusting, offensive beyond toleration, un- American in the extreme, and no different than the ranting of Wahabbists. This authoritarian, dominationist misogyny continues to permeate cultural behavior and jurisprudence in my country, and I will have it stopped. You and your ilk are my sworn enemies – we have nothing in common.

The “Defense of Marriage” claptrap is another dominationist attempt at enforcing inequality. Who other people choose to love, and live with, and marry, is none of your business. As long as the arrangement is between consenting adults, neither is it the business of the state. For you or anyone to presume to deny American citizens equality under the law is despicable. “Defense” of marriage, my ass. If you want to “defend” marriage then start a movement to ban divorce and see how far you get. These DOM laws you support are purely and solely about discriminating against homosexuals, nothing else; if you had any guts you’d just come right out and say it but instead, like the cowardly and deceitful Huckabee, you hide behind euphemism and false claims. These positions as well as the deceitful behavior are repugnant to me.

Why should domestic violence be treated more severely than stranger-to-stranger violence? Because it is a betrayal of trust on top of the hurt. When we take up living together, we extend a trust that we will not be harmed as a result. The other person accepts that trust and thus carries a higher level of responsibility than does a stranger. We give our domestic relations free access to our homes. We break bread with them. We sleep with them near us, openly exposing ourselves at a level of vulnerability we would (should) never do with total strangers. When they betray that trust through violence or by causing physical harm, then hell yes they should pay a higher price.

If people want to embrace D/s in their private lives, for slap-and-tickle fun or as a serious part of the relationship, that’s their business. When people want to incorporate and institutionalize D/s as public policy, imposing inequality on other citizens based on religious superstitious beliefs or simply from bigotry, that is not acceptable, not decent, not humane, not American and the majority of us are now fed up with it. We are done being nice, and done being tolerant of your intolerance; we are going to drive your bigotry out of the public sphere, once and for all. Pray do not resist, lest you find yourselves the object of our own unstoppable wrath. Taking away tax-exemption from religious organizations would not be unreasonable; they are, after all, nothing more than money-making machines peddling hokum and flim-flam.

We not only are on different pages, Luke, we are reading from different texts. In my country the Constitution trumps the Bible, and it’s going to stay that way; get used to it.

It always amazes me that people who have little or no relationship to an organization or its beliefs claim to understand it better than its adherents.

As to your specific arguments about DOM laws...if you go back and read your first post, then your reply to me, and then your most recent reply, you will see that went from position A to B then back to A. In other words, you talk out of both sides of your mouth.

Seeing that it's your blog, you get the last word. Make it good.

Sarah's picture
Submitted by Sarah on

But you are still wrong, particularly in this case -- because the Ohio Constitution denied protection against domestic violence to the victim AFTER the DOM amendment to that self same constitution.

Many, if not most, "Christian" churches in the US -- including the Catholic, the Mormon, the Southern Baptist, the Assemblies of God, the Pentecostal, and others -- do in fact claim that women should be obedient, nay, subservient, to men. They base this on their interpretation of the laws of the Old Testament and the writings of Paul the Apostle.

The law "defending marriage" was a sham -- it was a way of empowering discrimination and legitimizing hate, and it did not merely do so for the much-hated homosexuals it was supposed to target: it did so for all unmarried couples (aka women "living in sin", aka "unmarried mothers," aka "adultresses, fornicators, sluts and whores, prostitutes and libertines, tarts, tramps, hookers, hos, bitches, loose women, trollops ad infinitum ad godforsaken nauseam). It did so for young women already victimized by rapists, incestuous or not. It did so for older women already victimized by poverty. It does so for women who cannot afford a lawyer, or whose writs against abusers are, as was the case here, denied enforcement because "he hasn't done anything yet and we cannot respond to just a threat".

Unless and until women become kung fu specialists, body builders, or experienced hand-to-hand combat veterans in enough numbers in this country so that they don't have to have a knife, a gun, a lamp or a car to even the physical odds, justice is denied.

Men are afraid of sissies. They're afraid of being thought sissies. They're afraid of being called sissies. They're afraid of their children acting like sissies.

So long as the sissies are male.
Otherwise, they're easy prey.

We can admit that we're killers ... but we're not going to kill today. That's all it takes! Knowing that we're not going to kill today! ~ Captain James T. Kirk, Stardate 3193.0

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

nor is it my post. I just found you to be so annoying that I couldn't resist setting you straight. I've been straightforward all the way along, pity you have had difficulty following. Here are some items in a list, maybe that will help.

1) Try to read the headers where the author names are located so you know who you're talking to.

2) This may not be the last word at all. You have a blog. Perhaps I'll carry on this chat with you over there.

3) Membership in an organization is not required to see what their positions are about and the effects they have. I see what you and your kind are on about with perfect clarity and I don't like it.

4) I'll bet this is not the first time you've been amazed - nor will it be the last.