The Religious Right has entirely too much influence on our political system. They have more or less attached themselves to the Republican Party and, while there is dissatisfaction among the RR that Republican politicians more or less just pander to them and don't go far enough in legislating their agenda (a very valid point, and I'm glad about that at least), the Republican Party, particlularly under the Bush Administration, has rewarded them quite nicely in many areas. I wrote a post on the inroads that the RR and its ideology are making into the public health policy arena here. When I write about things like this the point is to call attention to the fact that the RR's influence and agenda affect everyone who doesn't live the way that the RR thinks that they should. Most people who aren't part of a group whose civil liberties the RR explicitly attacks or who have never thought about what it would be like to need or want an abortion or contraception and not be able to obtain them, probably think the RR poses no threat to them. But it really does. For example:


In Ohio, [the Religious Right's] "ban gay marriage" amendment was used to stop a woman from being able to charge her abusive boyfriend with "domestic violence."


Surprise, surprise the consequences of banning gay marriage end up screwing anyone who doesn't have the moral/legal blessing of the RR:


Ohio’s domestic violence law allows unmarried same-sex and opposite-sex couples to obtain protection orders in family court, and requires local police departments to enforce them.
Johnson’s attorney argued that, under Article 15, section 11 of the Ohio Constitution, Phelps could not be given a protection order.


That amendment, passed last year as Issue 1, reads, “Only a union between one man and one woman may be marriage valid in or recognized by this state and its political subdivisions. This state and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unwed partners that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage.”


Celebrezze ruled that the second sentence bars courts from granting protection orders to a member of an unmarried couple.


“In Ohio only married individuals generally have a right to use the domestic relations court as a forum to resolve their differences,” Celebrezze wrote. “The one exception to this general rule was provided by the domestic violence act, which recognized the importance of providing the victims of domestic violence with a convenient and efficient forum for protection, separate from the criminal justice system, even if said victim is not legally married to the perpetrator.”


After describing the mechanisms of the domestic violence law, Celebrezze concluded, “Clearly, the extraordinary access to the domestic relations court, provided by the domestic violence act, is a ‘legal status’ that approximates a status granted to married couples.”


Emphasis mine. So, when you deny the legal and constitutional protections and benefits to gay couples that they are entitled to under the Constitution based on the RR's narrow, ideological definition of "marriage," then you open the door to taking away the legal and constitutional protections of heterosexual unmarried couples. No shit! It shouldn't really surprise anyone because no matter what your opinion on anything, the RR will not be happy unless you think and live according to their interpretation of what God wants. Nothing, not even battered, heterosexual, unmarried women, should be allowed to get in the way of the RR's attempt to legislate their morality.