on this issue, but the several courts around the country that have addressed the issue have held that persons in a same-sex relationship qualified for domestic violence protection under various state statutes. See Glater v. Fabianich, 252 Ill.App.3d 372, 192 Ill.Dec. 136, 625 N.E.2d 96 (1993) (affirming domestic violence injunction in homosexual relationship based on statute defining family or household member in part as those who share or formerly shared common dwelling); Ireland v. Davis, 957 S.W.2d 310 (Ky.Ct.App.1997) (2-1 decision) (reinstating domestic violence proceedings in homosexual relationship based on statute defining members of unmarried couple as those who are living together or have formerly lived together); State v. Hadinger, 61 Ohio App.3d 820, 573 N.E.2d 1191 (1991) (<HOLDING>). Affirmed. STRINGER and SILBERMAN, JJ.,
holding as relevant in a murder case a history of domestic violence involving defendant and his victim holding that theft from the person is not a crime of violence holding that previous domestic violence finding did not have res judicata effect in proceeding to modify visitation because domestic violence and visitation modification proceedings are different causes of action holding that domestic violence statute applied to partners in samesex relationship based on statutes definition of person living as spouse to include person who is otherwise cohabiting with offender rejecting trial courts imposition of requirement that such persons must have the ability to marry before domestic violence statute applied holding south carolina crime of criminal domestic violence of a high and aggravated nature was categorically a crime of violence under ussg  4b121 because its lesserincluded offense criminal domestic violence fell entirely within  4b12ls force clause