Doe v. State – SC Supreme Court Issues New Domestic Violence Decision

The S.C. Supreme Court has reissued its July opinion in Doe v. State, this time finding that South Carolina’s domestic violence laws (civil and criminal) are unconstitutional as applied to same-sex couples.

The difference is that their July opinion, in this case, would have completely struck the definition of household member as unconstitutional which would have resulted in removing domestic violence protections from more alleged victims. The new decision keeps SC domestic violence laws in place and does not deny standing to alleged victims based on their sexual preference.

The Doe v. State saga reeked of anti-gay bias from the beginning and presented horrible optics for both the legislature and the Supreme Court. Chief Justice Beatty is the only member of the Court that showed integrity and a lack of bias, and I think that we have him to thank for the final decision that got it right.

SC’s Domestic Violence Laws were Intended to be Discriminatory

Prior to 1994, South Carolina’s domestic violence laws, including criminal domestic violence (CDV) and the laws covering when an abused spouse or partner can seek a protective order, applied to same-sex couples.

In 1994, our legislature amended the statutes to specify that criminal charges for CDV could only be brought or a protective order for domestic violence could only be issued for heterosexual couples by defining a household member as:

  • A spouse or former spouse;
  • Two persons who have a child in common; or
  • A male and female who live together or formerly lived together.

At the time of the amendment, gay marriage was illegal in South Carolina and most of the country. There was no reason to change the italicized language in the domestic violence statutes other than to exclude same-sex couples from their protection.

A Majority of our Supreme Court Would Have Continued the Discrimination

In the Court’s July opinion, all of the Justices except Chief Justice Beatty would have either: 1) continued to exclude same-sex couples; or 2) pretended that the laws did not discriminate.

The Court’s July opinion held that the definition of household member violated the Equal Protection Clause. Their remedy would have been to strike the offending definition of household member – continuing to exclude same-sex couples at the expense of also excluding non-married heterosexual couples who did not have a child in common.

Equal denial = equal protection was their rationale, it seemed.

Beatty issued a separate opinion in July that would have found that the definition of household member is unconstitutional as applied to the plaintiff (and other same-sex couples), which is what the new opinion also decided.

Justice Few stayed the course, arguing then and now that there was no discrimination because the laws do apply to same-sex couples. Although the plain language of the statutes exclude same-sex couples and the family courts were actually denying protective orders based on the statute.

The new opinion found what may have been the only path to undoing the legislature’s purposeful discrimination without continuing to discriminate against same-sex couples. I applaud Chief Justice Beatty who saw it clearly from the beginning and whose efforts prevented a miscarriage of justice by our Supreme Court.

Columbia, SC Criminal Defense Lawyer

The Thompson Defense Firm only accepts criminal defense cases in the Columbia, Lexington, Conway, and Myrtle Beach SC areas. We will get your case dismissed, find an acceptable resolution, or try your case to a jury. Call at 843-444-6122 or fill out our online contact form if you have questions or to set up a free initial consultation.

 

One Response to “Doe v. State – SC Supreme Court Issues New Domestic Violence Decision

  • Respondent
    6 months ago

    Curious; in a state where the police will not arrest a woman for bigamy — a class F felony, but rush to arrest any man for the same, then how exactly is anything about this state equal or constitutional?

    The fact of the matter is that the CDV laws are unconstitutional on face value. For the instant anyone is arrested for it (be they man, woman, or any variance thereof), they’re a “criminal.” In fact of law, they’re a criminal before they’re adjudicated as such; in spite of state and federal laws which dictate that no person shall be punished without due process. And when you’re subject to the arbitrary restraints of a bond order, then you’re also subject to being ejected from home and property, further life and liberty with no due process whatsoever. Yet, it would seem that the only actual concern here is whether or not some deviants are constitutionally satisfied with it?

    Assault and battery charges, further the right to a restraining order, were quite satisfactory, further gender neutral for anyone who wanted them. However, this law says that women are incapable of making correct decisions, further insist upon it regardless of whether or not she objects; therefore, the state will now make those decisions for them. And in one regard, I’ll agree with that. For if one thinks abortion is a woman’s right to have control over her own body, then it only goes to serve as compensation for the fact that they have no self control in the first place. Thus, do they have the capacity to make a decision to move in with or marry a man? Can we pose an argument that a woman is incapable of entering into a contract, be it verbal or otherwise, and declare the CDV null and void accordingly?

    The irony here is that my argument is actually viable… just not politically correct.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *