California Prop 8

[bodecea]

Wrong. Women have now proven their capabilities in the military and it would be discriminatory to men to NOT include women in the Draft pool....

Thats your opinion. however the consitution allows the draft to be men only.

Really? Where in the Constitution does it address that? I have a copy handy....please point it out for me.

 

[bodecea]

Wrong. Women have now proven their capabilities in the military and it would be discriminatory to men to NOT include women in the Draft pool....

uh huh

whether we're capable or not, the mere fact that our appearance betrays us as female would invite challenge on the battlefield.

I have a lot of admiration for women like Molly Pitcher, over the ages so many women have proved to be courageous and valuable on the battlefield. But our culture's willingness to be blinded to the obvious, (also found at airport screenings), will play a part in our downfall.

Interesting how you denigrate your own gender. Is your self-esteem that low?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Wrong. Women have now proven their capabilities in the military and it would be discriminatory to men to NOT include women in the Draft pool....

Thats your opinion. however the consitution allows the draft to be men only.

No it does not, be so kind as to cite and link to any such statement inside the Constitution.

 

[Cecilie1200]

If a straight judge and ruled it was constitutional, would you have had a problem with that?

Nope. There is no power in the US Constitution that makes this STATE amendment Unconstitutional. It is solely a State matter. And the State ruled it Constitutional.

So, do you agree with people voting to deny a right to a certain class of people?
How exactly is it constitutional to deny someone a fundmental right?

The same way anything is Constitutional, genius: it's written in the Constitution.

What you're trying to say, and badly, is that you think the law is WRONG, or possibly immoral, and no one's ever taught you the difference between "moral" and "legal".

 

[JenT]

uh huh

whether we're capable or not, the mere fact that our appearance betrays us as female would invite challenge on the battlefield.

I have a lot of admiration for women like Molly Pitcher, over the ages so many women have proved to be courageous and valuable on the battlefield. But our culture's willingness to be blinded to the obvious, (also found at airport screenings), will play a part in our downfall.

Interesting how you denigrate your own gender. Is your self-esteem that low?

I'm not denigrating my gender at all. We are the weaker sex when it comes to braun, that's just a fact. But we have other strengths that (IMO) more than make up for it

 

[martybegan]

Thats your opinion. however the consitution allows the draft to be men only.

No it does not, be so kind as to cite and link to any such statement inside the Constitution.

I'm not saying that the constitution says that only men can be drafted. I'm saying that nowhere in the consitution is a ban on DOING a male only draft.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I also don't see how anyone would agree with people being able to vote on what a minority group can and can't do.

Yes, because there are no OTHER laws on the books anywhere that restrict what people can and can't do . . . oh, wait, ALL laws do that.

Can't imagine what makes you think "minority" somehow makes people immune to legal restrictions on their behavior.

 

[martybegan]

Thats your opinion. however the consitution allows the draft to be men only.

Really? Where in the Constitution does it address that? I have a copy handy....please point it out for me.

Since it doesnt ban it, it allows it, or at least leaves it to the legislatures to figure out. An all male draft is constitutional, as a all female or mixed gender draft. Its laws that determine the legality of each, not the constitution.

 

[bodecea]

Really? Where in the Constitution does it address that? I have a copy handy....please point it out for me.

Since it doesnt ban it, it allows it, or at least leaves it to the legislatures to figure out. An all male draft is constitutional, as a all female or mixed gender draft. Its laws that determine the legality of each, not the constitution.

Ah...so women in the draft is allowed....gotcha. So, it would be unwarrented discrimination to not include them....And here I thought you were trying to say that women were not allowed....funny that.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Laws against most things discriminate against some minority.

examples of discriminatory laws......

Laws against rape discriminate against rapists, laws against murder discriminate against murderers , laws against drunk driving discriminate against drunks that drive. Etc Etc etc. All minorities. Almost all laws discriminate against some minority of the population. All created by a majority.

Or to bring this out of the realm of "Ohmigod, you're comparing homosexuals to rapists and murderers!" - because we all know the calm, rational debaters on the other side will take any chance to have a bitch fit and avoid the point - voting laws discriminate against those under the age of 18, marriage laws ALSO discriminate against those under 18, the law concerning who can be President discriminate against those under 35 and not natural-born citizens . . .

 

[bodecea]

No it does not, be so kind as to cite and link to any such statement inside the Constitution.

I'm not saying that the constitution says that only men can be drafted. I'm saying that nowhere in the consitution is a ban on DOING a male only draft.

You aren't up on the 14th amendment much, are you?

 

[bodecea]

examples of discriminatory laws......

Laws against rape discriminate against rapists, laws against murder discriminate against murderers , laws against drunk driving discriminate against drunks that drive. Etc Etc etc. All minorities. Almost all laws discriminate against some minority of the population. All created by a majority.

Or to bring this out of the realm of "Ohmigod, you're comparing homosexuals to rapists and murderers!" - because we all know the calm, rational debaters on the other side will take any chance to have a bitch fit and avoid the point - voting laws discriminate against those under the age of 18, marriage laws ALSO discriminate against those under 18, the law concerning who can be President discriminate against those under 35 and not natural-born citizens . . .

Actually, marriage laws do not discriminate against people under 18...don't know where you got that from.

But please...show us the Constitutional Article or Amendment that clearly states that marriage is restricted based on gender.

 

[martybegan]

Since it doesnt ban it, it allows it, or at least leaves it to the legislatures to figure out. An all male draft is constitutional, as a all female or mixed gender draft. Its laws that determine the legality of each, not the constitution.

Ah...so women in the draft is allowed....gotcha. So, it would be unwarrented discrimination to not include them....And here I thought you were trying to say that women were not allowed....funny that.

Yep. Currently its the law that states only men can get drafted. The consitution is currently neutral on the subject.

 

[martybegan]

I'm not saying that the constitution says that only men can be drafted. I'm saying that nowhere in the consitution is a ban on DOING a male only draft.

You aren't up on the 14th amendment much, are you?

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Evidently you aren't either. Note the use of the term "no state." The draft is a federal law, and therefore is not subject to the 14th amendment.

The equal protection clause is a very interesting case, and has been intepreted very broadly. However I have yet to see a sucessful challenge of the selective service act under equal protection.

To make any form of gender bias unconstitutional one would have to amend it, which is what the ERA tried to do.

 

[bodecea]

Ah...so women in the draft is allowed....gotcha. So, it would be unwarrented discrimination to not include them....And here I thought you were trying to say that women were not allowed....funny that.

Yep. Currently its the law that states only men can get drafted. The consitution is currently neutral on the subject.

And, tell us, what will keep the draft male only? What compelling reason allows the law to discriminate by gender. Share that with us.

 

[bodecea]

You aren't up on the 14th amendment much, are you?

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Evidently you aren't either. Note the use of the term "no state." The draft is a federal law, and therefore is not subject to the 14th amendment.

The equal protection clause is a very interesting case, and has been intepreted very broadly. However I have yet to see a sucessful challenge of the selective service act under equal protection.

To make any form of gender bias unconstitutional one would have to amend it, which is what the ERA tried to do.

How many "unsuccessful challenges" based on gender have you seen?

And equal protection includes by gender....unless there is a compelling reason. With the PROOF that women are functioning in all branches of the military....what compelling reason can you come up with today?

 

[Common Sense]

examples of discriminatory laws......

Laws against rape discriminate against rapists, laws against murder discriminate against murderers , laws against drunk driving discriminate against drunks that drive. Etc Etc etc. All minorities. Almost all laws discriminate against some minority of the population. All created by a majority.

Or to bring this out of the realm of "Ohmigod, you're comparing homosexuals to rapists and murderers!" - because we all know the calm, rational debaters on the other side will take any chance to have a bitch fit and avoid the point - voting laws discriminate against those under the age of 18, marriage laws ALSO discriminate against those under 18, the law concerning who can be President discriminate against those under 35 and not natural-born citizens . . .

those are not discriminating laws. in regards to 18 year olds, that goes to the definition or adult. which up to the point of 18 in the eyes of the law you are considered a juvenile and can not own property, get legally married (without parental consent) hold public legal office or have the same legal standing as an individual over 18. but as soon as you reach 18 years of age, regardless of gender or sexual orientation, you automatically have these restrictions lifted. this is not the case with gays. there is not preset defined parameter as to when a ban on gay marriage would be lifted by reaching some arbitrarily defined point in ones life. (same argument goes for being president or holding any other public office)

these laws do not discriminate, they simply set minimum standards that must be obtained. the same way as their are minimum standards that must be met to get a drivers license, or receive a high school diploma or college degree.

on the natural born citizens clause, i personally believe that this could be challenged in court. I do not know what the outcome would be or what the actual legal argument would be, but I would see that in the future, a citizen will challenge this.

 

[Common Sense]

No it does not, be so kind as to cite and link to any such statement inside the Constitution.

I'm not saying that the constitution says that only men can be drafted. I'm saying that nowhere in the consitution is a ban on DOING a male only draft.

there is actually nothing in the constitution that mentions the word draft.

"The Constitution does not directly mention the word "draft" or even the older "conscription," but its authorization for the Congress to "raise and support Armies" is a clear indication of the same concept - to use the resources of the nation to create or man an army." (Constitutional Topic: The Draft - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net)

the draft was implemented by authorization of congress only.

"Several questions concerning the draft arise each time the United States is threatened with military action, or the United States threatens military action. The first, and most basic, is: "Is the draft constitutional?" The plain answer to this, noted in the introductory paragraph, is that it is. Conscription is clearly anticipated by the Constitution. The Constitution did impose one small but key restriction on a conscripted army - any allocation of funds to support the army can only have a life of two years. Any allocation thereafter must be reauthorized by Congress. Since the House of Representatives is elected every two years, this is a safeguard against runaway armies. If the people are not satisfied with the way a draft is being run, they can elect a House that will not authorize further funding."

hence a draft is constitutional, but nowhere is it defined to include men only.


the supreme court as of 1994 has ruled this:

"The restriction of the draft to just men was challenged in the Supreme Court in Rostker v Goldberg (453 U.S. 57 [1981]). In this case, men brought suit against the SSS, because women were not included in the draft.The Supreme Court ruled against the men, stating that the sole purpose of draft registration is the accumulation of a pool of names of eligible men to serve in combat. Because women were excluded from combat by the armed services, the draft registration as it stood met the need. The Court also said that since the Congress is given exclusive constitutional authority to raise armies, it was disinclined to overrule Congress on this point. The last time the SSS notes that the issue was taken up was in 1994. It concluded that though women, at that time, made up 16 percent of the armed force personnel, and the combat roles for women were expanding, the need to register women for the draft was still not sufficient. It noted that such expansion might be prudent in the future."

several things are mentioned here:

women at the time that this case was brought up, were barred from serving in combat roles in the military. hence being on the front fighting with weapons.

(Women in the military - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

the time are changing in allowing women into combat roles. just read the link.

since the draft has not been initiated since 1971, there has been no legal reason to have these claims revisited. now if the draft were reinstated due to some future war, the supreme court again might take up this issue.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Laws against rape discriminate against rapists, laws against murder discriminate against murderers , laws against drunk driving discriminate against drunks that drive. Etc Etc etc. All minorities. Almost all laws discriminate against some minority of the population. All created by a majority.

Or to bring this out of the realm of "Ohmigod, you're comparing homosexuals to rapists and murderers!" - because we all know the calm, rational debaters on the other side will take any chance to have a bitch fit and avoid the point - voting laws discriminate against those under the age of 18, marriage laws ALSO discriminate against those under 18, the law concerning who can be President discriminate against those under 35 and not natural-born citizens . . .

those are not discriminating laws. in regards to 18 year olds, that goes to the definition or adult. which up to the point of 18 in the eyes of the law you are considered a juvenile and can not own property, get legally married (without parental consent) hold public legal office or have the same legal standing as an individual over 18. but as soon as you reach 18 years of age, regardless of gender or sexual orientation, you automatically have these restrictions lifted. this is not the case with gays. there is not preset defined parameter as to when a ban on gay marriage would be lifted by reaching some arbitrarily defined point in ones life. (same argument goes for being president or holding any other public office)

these laws do not discriminate, they simply set minimum standards that must be obtained. the same way as their are minimum standards that must be met to get a drivers license, or receive a high school diploma or college degree.

on the natural born citizens clause, i personally believe that this could be challenged in court. I do not know what the outcome would be or what the actual legal argument would be, but I would see that in the future, a citizen will challenge this.

What a bunch of horse hockey. As though "goes to the definition of adult" somehow negates the fact that it discriminates against those who aren't, but when a law you DON'T like "goes to the definition of marriage", THAT'S unacceptably discriminatory against couples who don't meet THAT description. Can you be any more hypocritical?

Just for the record, I cannot imagine how you think the Constitution's restriction to natural-born citizens being President could POSSIBLY be challenged in court. On what grounds? What, is Article II of the US Constitution somehow Unconstitutional? Is there some higher law it runs afoul of? Is being President of the United States now a "fundamental right", as government-sanctioned marriage allegedly is? Do tell.

 

[bodecea]

I'm not saying that the constitution says that only men can be drafted. I'm saying that nowhere in the consitution is a ban on DOING a male only draft.

there is actually nothing in the constitution that mentions the word draft.

"The Constitution does not directly mention the word "draft" or even the older "conscription," but its authorization for the Congress to "raise and support Armies" is a clear indication of the same concept - to use the resources of the nation to create or man an army." (Constitutional Topic: The Draft - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net)

the draft was implemented by authorization of congress only.

"Several questions concerning the draft arise each time the United States is threatened with military action, or the United States threatens military action. The first, and most basic, is: "Is the draft constitutional?" The plain answer to this, noted in the introductory paragraph, is that it is. Conscription is clearly anticipated by the Constitution. The Constitution did impose one small but key restriction on a conscripted army - any allocation of funds to support the army can only have a life of two years. Any allocation thereafter must be reauthorized by Congress. Since the House of Representatives is elected every two years, this is a safeguard against runaway armies. If the people are not satisfied with the way a draft is being run, they can elect a House that will not authorize further funding."

hence a draft is constitutional, but nowhere is it defined to include men only.


the supreme court as of 1994 has ruled this:

"The restriction of the draft to just men was challenged in the Supreme Court in Rostker v Goldberg (453 U.S. 57 [1981]). In this case, men brought suit against the SSS, because women were not included in the draft.The Supreme Court ruled against the men, stating that the sole purpose of draft registration is the accumulation of a pool of names of eligible men to serve in combat. Because women were excluded from combat by the armed services, the draft registration as it stood met the need. The Court also said that since the Congress is given exclusive constitutional authority to raise armies, it was disinclined to overrule Congress on this point. The last time the SSS notes that the issue was taken up was in 1994. It concluded that though women, at that time, made up 16 percent of the armed force personnel, and the combat roles for women were expanding, the need to register women for the draft was still not sufficient. It noted that such expansion might be prudent in the future."

several things are mentioned here:

women at the time that this case was brought up, were barred from serving in combat roles in the military. hence being on the front fighting with weapons.

(Women in the military - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

the time are changing in allowing women into combat roles. just read the link.

since the draft has not been initiated since 1971, there has been no legal reason to have these claims revisited. now if the draft were reinstated due to some future war, the supreme court again might take up this issue.

For those of us who remember the last Draft, it was all based on how many new bodies each branch estimated they needed over a 12 month period. The lottery numbers drawn were used based on that need....For example, if the needs could be filled by pulling men from only the first 12 dates drawn...that was the end of it for that year. Obviously, if one does not want to be drafted...it is in your best interest to have as many in the pool as possible. That is why I predict that if the Draft is reinstated, it will be a man who sues to include women....essentially doubling the pool.

Now, still waiting for that compelling legal reason that women would be excluded in the future.