What could make Bakari Sellers and Alan Wilson come to an agreement?

A ruling by the South Carolina Supreme Court Friday is a win for equal rights and prosecutors.

The S.C. Supreme Court ruled that the previous definition of a “household member” in the Domestic Violence Reform Act is unconstitutional and was discriminatory to same-sex couples.

That means going forward, members of same-sex couples and unmarried couples will be granted the same rights and protections as male-female couples, married couples or divorced couples.

“Holy (cow)! We won!” Bakari Sellers wrote, using more colorful language on Twitter. “Supreme Court states that our DV laws are unconstitutional as applied to same sex couples!”

Sellers was one of the attorneys representing a Richland County woman who filed the case, as Jane Doe, and saw it brought to the S.C. Supreme Court.

In the case, Jane Doe v. State, Doe applied for a protective order after she reported to law enforcement that she was assaulted by a former fianceé, who also is a woman.

Prior to Friday’s ruling, a “household member” was defined as only:

• A spouse
• A former spouse
• People with a child in common
• A male and female who live together or formerly lived together

Doe contended she was denied the same protection afforded to opposite-sex, cohabiting couples even though there is no reason to justify this disparate treatment.

This ruling not only offers protection under the law for same-sex couples, it also means many domestic violence prosecutions can go forward. That was welcomed by S.C. Attorney General Alan Wilson, who seemed to agree on the issue with Sellers and the rest of Doe’s attorneys, as well as most of the justices.

“I applaud the state Supreme Court’s ruling today,” Wilson said in a statement reported by postandcourier.com. “It now applies the state’s domestic violence law to all victims of domestic violence, as we argued it should. This is a victory for victims and it gives law enforcement and courts certainty moving forward.”

Friday’s ruling began in a case involving an alleged domestic dispute between a former same-sex couple. Doe claimed she and her former fianceé lived together from 2010-15, when they broke up and she moved to Columbia.

On Aug. 6, 2015, Doe reported to law enforcement that she was assaulted by her former fianceé the day before as she was leaving a Columbia hotel.

On Aug. 10, 2015, law enforcement was summoned to Doe’s workplace after someone called regarding a disturbance in the parking lot. Doe claimed that her former fianceé and another individual followed her from her apartment to work and she felt threatened even though there was no physical confrontation.

Law enforcement filed incident reports for both events, the first was identified as “simple assault” and the second was identified as “assault-intimidation.”

On Aug. 12, 2015, Doe sought an Order of Protection from the Richland County Family Court, but her request was denied because of the definition of a “household member.”

Doe then asked the S.C. Supreme Court to declare that ruling unconstitutional because it “leaves unmarried, same-sex victims of abuse without the benefit of the same remedy afforded to their heterosexual counterparts.”

Doe’s attorneys, the S.C. Attorney General’s office and the justices seemed to agree in 2016 that the points at issue in the Domestic Violence Reform Act were unconstitutional. But they could not agree on a constitutional remedy.

The solution that was offered was to eliminate the points at issue for all couples.

The court stayed that ruling and agreed to rehear the case.

“We decline to invalidate the Acts in their entirety. Such a decision would result in grave consequences for victims of domestic violence,” Chief Justice Donald Beatty wrote in Friday’s ruling. “To leave these victims unprotected for any length of time would be a great disservice to the citizens of South Carolina.”

Beatty concluded that “the family court may not utilize these statutory provisions to prevent Doe or those in similar same-sex relationships from seeking an Order of Protection.”

His ruling passed with a 4-1 majority among the S.C. Supreme Court’s five justices.

Obviously pleased with the court, Sellers, a Democrat, also shared his gratitude for the actions in this case by Wilson, a Republican.

“After the first ruling, the attorney general of South Carolina reached out and wanted to get it right,” Sellers said to postandcourier.com. “Alan Wilson did right by this ruling.”

This story was originally published November 17, 2017 at 11:39 PM with the headline "What could make Bakari Sellers and Alan Wilson come to an agreement?."