ALSO TODAY:
> Table Talk Time for one thing - - - - - - - - - -
YESTERDAY:
Hotel of the damned - - - - - - - - - -
Mamafesto Newsletter |
A woman says her husband abused her during their marriage, but the fight isn't in divorce court. She's suing him for violating her civil rights. Join the reader discussion in Table Talk. BY DAWN MacKEEN | It was a quick Las Vegas-style wedding, but the vows were the same. Kenneth Seaton, a wealthy attorney from Knoxville, Tenn., promised to love, honor and cherish. Instead, Laurel Knuckles Seaton alleges, he assaulted her -- mentally and sexually -- during their tumultuous three-and-a-half-year marriage. Instead of just hashing out their marital dispute in divorce court -- where these matters are usually settled -- Knuckles Seaton filed suit in Tennessee federal court, claiming that her husband abused her for one simple reason -- because she's a woman. The Violence Against Women Act, a controversial law passed in 1994 as part of President Clinton's crime package, makes gender-motivated violence a civil rights violation. Knuckles Seaton's case falls on the heels of a string of other cases challenging the constitutionality of the law. While one earlier decision found the law unconstitutional, last week a federal judge in Knuckles Seaton's case "quite reluctantly" upheld the law. U.S. Judge James Jarvis joined two other judges in upholding the law, but in his decision he wrote: "While there is no doubt that violence against women is a serious matter in our society, this particular remedy created by Congress, because of its extreme overbreadth, opens the doors of the federal courts to parties seeking leverage in settlements rather than true justice."
Should the federal government be overseeing domestic disputes? Or are they better off being tried in divorce court? Discuss your views and experiences in Table Talk.
|
MOTHERS WHO THINK | SALON | NEWSLETTER | CONTACT US | ARCHIVES | TABLE TALK