In Raleigh, three current and former district attorneys were among those arguing that the amendment won't change how judges apply domestic violence laws. In Durham, an assistant prosecutor, the head of a state's domestic violence coalition and a family law expert said the opposite: that judges may decide that domestic violence laws don't apply to unmarried people because the amendment is broadly written.
Odd that this is the line of reasoning used by the Lavender Mafia to attack the proposal.
Of course, the culprits in the Lawrence v. Texas case had a history of abusive relationships with their same sex partners and it is not uncommon for a woman to leave her husband only to learn that lesbians can smack a lover around too.
What passes for "reasoning" by activist homosexuals is always odd, to say the least.
When Texas was getting ready to vote for our marriage amendment, the best homo-Einstein narrative was that since marriage was identical to itself (our amendment barred any relationship substantially identical to marriage) then all marriages in Texas would be abolished - I kid you not! This is what passes for reasoning in a sodomite's mind.