Gender-neutral domestic violence laws, Little believes, are an imperfect solution to the problem of assuring protections to same-sex couples. While a step in the right direction, such laws fall short in several ways, such as failing to recognize "societal homophobia [as] another 'arsenal of terror' in a same-sex relationship" that can manifest either in the types of violence inflicted -- e.g., Richardson v. Easterling, 878 A.2d 1212 (D.C.C. 2005) -- or in the responses from system officials (Rucks v. State, 692 So.2d 976 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997)). New questions have been raised whether such laws violate recent constitutional prohibitions on same-sex marriage, as well as the extension of benefits of marriage to unmarried individuals, as was argued in State v. Nixon, 845 N.E.2d 544 (Ohio Ct. App. 2006) and State v. Ward, 166 Ohio App. 3d 188 (2006). She advocates as remedy the inclusion of language extending these protections to same-sex couples.

Writing from her perspective as a practitioner specializing in the issues surrounding domestic violence in LGBT relationships, the author examines the topic from the state-specific viewpoint of New York. Finding that the lack of legal recognition of same-sex couples "hinders LGBT survivors from protecting themselves from domestic violence and its effects," and that whatever "fragmented relief" that is therefore available is "neither efficient nor effective" and is not without consequences for the victims, she advocates for more "holistic legislation" to redress the shortcomings.