Seperate but Equal-For Bunge
Before I wandered off into the wilderness for several weeks, bunge had posed a question to me in the one of many gay marriage threads around here. He asked me to come up with any other instances where people are considered seperate but equal. I did give it some thought and came up with four examples that we could hash out here.
I'm not claiming to be the ultimate authority on all these examples, but they were asked for and I am trying to fulfill that request. In my views, some are also unequal, but the law considers them as equal.
The first is affirmative action. The court has ruled that applying different criteria for different people based on gender or sex is okay. It is even okay in lieu of the equal protections clause of the Constitution.
The second is registration for the draft. Men and women are considered to have seperate but equal roles in the military. Women want upward mobility and have sued to get into any job that restricts their ability to advance. They also want VA loans, college tuition and things of that nature. It doesn't appear they want to be in ground fighting combat troops, nor does it appear that some men want them there either. They have seperate but legally equal roles in the military and as a result are also not required to register for the draft.
A third matter is rape shield laws. These are odd in a number of ways because the Constitution has clear definitions of equal protection, due process and also the right to confront your accuser. In any other matter you are allowed to go into the past of both the defendent and his or her accuser. However in rape you generally cannot do so. They are allowed to go into the past of the defendent, but not the person accusing them of rape. In my view they are considered to have seperate but equal roles under the law.
The last is of course the choice to parent. (Which Bunge and I went round and round about) Both parents are considered to be equal with regard to their choices. However the man is considered to have made his choice during the act. After that he is powerless to give up his parental rights or responsibility. The woman however is given the ability to have an abortion, abandon the child without legal ramifications and finally, in almost all instances, can put up the child for adoption without notifying the father of his rights or allowing him to exercise them.
They are again considered equal under the law, but their roles are very seperate.
Nick
I'm not claiming to be the ultimate authority on all these examples, but they were asked for and I am trying to fulfill that request. In my views, some are also unequal, but the law considers them as equal.
The first is affirmative action. The court has ruled that applying different criteria for different people based on gender or sex is okay. It is even okay in lieu of the equal protections clause of the Constitution.
The second is registration for the draft. Men and women are considered to have seperate but equal roles in the military. Women want upward mobility and have sued to get into any job that restricts their ability to advance. They also want VA loans, college tuition and things of that nature. It doesn't appear they want to be in ground fighting combat troops, nor does it appear that some men want them there either. They have seperate but legally equal roles in the military and as a result are also not required to register for the draft.
A third matter is rape shield laws. These are odd in a number of ways because the Constitution has clear definitions of equal protection, due process and also the right to confront your accuser. In any other matter you are allowed to go into the past of both the defendent and his or her accuser. However in rape you generally cannot do so. They are allowed to go into the past of the defendent, but not the person accusing them of rape. In my view they are considered to have seperate but equal roles under the law.
The last is of course the choice to parent. (Which Bunge and I went round and round about) Both parents are considered to be equal with regard to their choices. However the man is considered to have made his choice during the act. After that he is powerless to give up his parental rights or responsibility. The woman however is given the ability to have an abortion, abandon the child without legal ramifications and finally, in almost all instances, can put up the child for adoption without notifying the father of his rights or allowing him to exercise them.
They are again considered equal under the law, but their roles are very seperate.
Nick
Comments
Maybe we should re-instate it as policy with regards to other issues . . . hunh?!?!
you missed the point entirely.
Affirmative action. Is not a seperate but equal law.
Military service... there's plenty of women who would be happy to go into combat... and many do.
Rape Shield laws... there's still is a stigma attached to rape...
and considering defense lawyers often using the "she's a slut, she deserved it... she asked for it" defense you can see why. But as you can see with the Kobe Bryant case... it's on a case by case basis, and depends on the state. They can absolutely look into her conduct right before and right after the accused attack. AS well as her mental condition.
And for parenting... unless they're married the man doesn't really have many rights to the child... that makes complete sense. The participation of the man and the woman are completely different when it comes to pregnancy... she should get different treatment and have different rights.
Rape laws protect the victims, how is this separate but equal or, in your mind, are all rape victims female?
Originally posted by chu_bakka
And for parenting... unless they're married the man doesn't really have many rights to the child... that makes complete sense. The participation of the man and the woman are completely different when it comes to pregnancy... she should get different treatment and have different rights. [/B]
So since the man doesn't have as much of a role in the pregnancy the man should have no say over his child if they aren't married? Ok. Then women don't have the right for support of any kind from their baby's father. No rights, no money.
Sorry folks, as long as you single one group out from another they are seperate. And when you seperate, you discriminate. You want people to be equal, treat everyone the same.
Originally posted by FaydRautha
So since the man doesn't have as much of a role in the pregnancy the man should have no say over his child if they aren't married? Ok. Then women don't have the right for support of any kind from their baby's father. No rights, no money.
Sorry folks, as long as you single one group out from another they are seperate. And when you seperate, you discriminate. You want people to be equal, treat everyone the same.
Agreed.
Originally posted by BR
Nick, I believe that those four cases are unjust and as follows I believe a separate but equal marriage situation would be unjust as well.
I think I said at the beginning that I did not consider all of them equal or just as well. However the law considers them equal since many of them have been challenged under the equal protection clause. I know affirmative action and the draft have been challenged in this manner.
BTW (edit) in the BR world it would probably be very easy to support gay marriage because there wouldn't be worries about protected classes which is exactly what these examples illustrate.
Nick
Originally posted by chu_bakka
He's arguing against laws created to fix inequities or that deal with gender issues...
Affirmative action. Is not a seperate but equal law.
Actually it is. It has been challenged under the equal protection clause and been found to be a seperate but equal form of treatment. This is why people such as myself find race based affirmative action so insulting. It literally is saying we have to give you more because your race is less capable. They consider themselves to be equalizing the chances of the people applying for school/jobs/government bids/etc.
People who advocate income based affirmative action, such as myself don't fall into that same racist trap.
Military service... there's plenty of women who would be happy to go into combat... and many do.
They go into combat in support roles. They are not in direct combat roles. Much like the famous glass cellar jobs, they want the high end, but not the low. They want to be CEO, but don't care if the coal miners are 98% male. Men and women have seperate but equal roles in the military. Any time the women have found a role (like pilot for instance) that they thought was stopping their advancement, they have sued to be allowed into it and won. However they haven't sued for the ground combat troops. (amazingly enough) They prefer their protected status. Men have also sued to force women to register for the draft and been told that seperate but equal is okay there.
Rape Shield laws... there's still is a stigma attached to rape...
and considering defense lawyers often using the "she's a slut, she deserved it... she asked for it" defense you can see why. But as you can see with the Kobe Bryant case... it's on a case by case basis, and depends on the state. They can absolutely look into her conduct right before and right after the accused attack. AS well as her mental condition.
Yes and don't defense lawyers for pretty much any other crime also attack the prosecutions case/witnesses/etc. You've just described how our court system works. That is the point. We would rather let the guilty go free than end up jailing the innocent. The Bill of Rights gives us the right to fully confront our accuser.
And last I check the Bill of Rights wasn't interpreted on a state by state basis. It is another example of seperate but equal under the law.
And for parenting... unless they're married the man doesn't really have many rights to the child... that makes complete sense. The participation of the man and the woman are completely different when it comes to pregnancy... she should get different treatment and have different rights.
The law declares the both parents and hold the man financially responsible well over 90% of the time. Why should he have responsibilities when he has no rights?
Nick
Originally posted by chu_bakka
And for parenting... unless they're married the man doesn't really have many rights to the child... that makes complete sense. The participation of the man and the woman are completely different when it comes to pregnancy... she should get different treatment and have different rights.
This reply is complete NONsense.