Remember this issue from the last legislative session? Domestic partner violence measure brought back for

(4)    ”Temporary protection order,” an order restraining any family or household member an abusing party from committing any act of domestic abuse or an order excluding any family or household member an abusing party from the dwelling or residence of another family or household member a protected person, whether or not the dwelling or residence is shared. A temporary protection order has a duration of thirty days except as provided in § 25-10-7.1.


For purposes of chapter 25-10, when determining whether a relationship is a significant romantic relationship, the court shall consider the following factors:

(4)    If the relationship has terminated, the length of time since the termination.

I note that the qualifying item, “Is or has been in a significant romantic relationship” vaguely dances around the issues that sunk it last year. And chooses to expressly avoid the same-sex/opposite-sex relationship language fight that killed the measure last year.

I suspect that you will have those legislators who care not to leave it up to the judiciary to define it on the fly, one way or the other.

Given that some of the issues that sunk the previous measure don’t seem to addressed, I think we can watch as the legislature gears up for another cultural battle.

What Next?

Related Articles