Posted on 06/06/2021 7:44:04 AM PDT by where's_the_Outrage?
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court is being asked to decide whether it's sex discrimination for the government to require only men to register for the draft when they turn 18.
The question of whether it's unconstitutional to require men but not women to register could be viewed as one with little practical impact. The last time there was a draft was during the Vietnam War, and the military has been all-volunteer since. But the registration requirement is one of the few remaining places where federal law treats men and women differently, and women's groups are among those arguing that allowing it to stand is harmful.
The justices could say as soon as Monday whether they will hear a case involving the Military Selective Service Act, which requires men to register for the draft.
Ria Tabacco Mar, the director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Women’s Rights Project, who is urging the court to take up the issue, says requiring men to register imposes a “serious burden on men that's not being imposed on women.”
Men who do not register can lose eligibility for student loans and civil service jobs, and failing to register is also a felony punishable by a fine of up to $250,000 and five years in prison. But Tabacco Mar says the male-only requirement does more than that.
(Excerpt) Read more at msn.com ...
Yes, of course it was seen as a duty to serve our country and honorable.
I wouldn't go that far. In my initial post, I should have said they want equal rights and "opportunities". They want to be able to pursue any opportunity men can pursue, such as fighter pilot and special forces and any other position, civilian or military.
And there have been many stories of women pursuing positions traditionally held by men, and often claiming discrimination and even going to court to gain entry into some field.
But I must have missed the big campaign by feminists that women have equal responsibilities and be required to register for the draft the same as men.
Well most every man in my family and generations back have chosen to serve our country in the military. I lost my father and Uncle via war wounds so I well know the cost.
My point was that feminists complain about the pay gap but almost NONE of them are willing to take a lucrative job installing windows on the top of skyscrapers, or installing high voltage equipment, or anything that pays very well because, well, you need to make it appealing to offset the risk. Women simply will not work those types of jobs except as a very rare outlier case. It’s one aspect of their so-called pay gap that is not accounted for and another reason it’s a fraud..
I registered for the draft.....on my 21st birthday. I figured as soon as they were willing to admit I was responsible enough for a beer I would admit I was responsible enough to serve.
feminists never said they wanted to pick up the check
I agree with that as it relates to most women who do not want higher risk jobs, and how that affects the "pay gap". But if such opportunities are not offered to the rare woman who does want the high risk job, then she's the one who'll file a discrimination law suit.
I think women should be allowed to do any job they can do, but I don't believe existing standards should be lowered so women can qualify. Existing standards for many jobs in the military, or fire and police forces and other places, have eliminated many men from consideration. The standards weren't established to discriminate against women.
You can bet these women would be singing a different tune if we were at war with say, China or Russia.
Only when it fits their agenda.
Yep, women have always had some advantages most don't want to give up.
Invalidate the law. The feminists want equal treatment, but don’t want to register for military service. Tough. They want equality? they should get equality.
The duty of all men capable of bearing arms to come to the defense of the nation was long part of common law.
It would be interesting to have a court case as to the constitutionality of sending conscripts out to fight in a conflict that is NOT obviously necessary for the defense of the US.
Bringing up the 13th Amendment brings up a novel point
“Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”
The 13th Amendment does not prevent criminals from being sentenced to slave labor. Indeed, chain gangs were a common feature a century or so ago.
I think World War II would count.
We were attacked by Japan and then Hitler declared war on in 3 days later. Most people on Dec 6, 1941 were against war but that changed when we were attacked.
We did not start it. But we did finish it.
Hawaii wasn’t even a U.S. state at the time of World War II, and its status as a territory was only a function of the corporate globalism that has no place in this free, sovereign nation.
I don’t agree - women are at best, an emergency fill-in when there aren’t enough men left. They should never, ever be anywhere near combat.
This country has sunk too far when men allow women to take their place in war. Women are mothers and it is an atrocity to deploy them and they are forced to leave small children at home. They are a severe distraction to fighting men and could cause your mission to fail and more lives to be lost.
Anybody thinks that women will be excluded from the infantry if they are drafted is deluding themselves.
The only draftee we had in the 2nd Bn, 1st Marines in Vietnam in 1967, our command sent home because he wasn’t mentally able to handle it. We felt bad for him.
Okie dokie, Humpty Dumpty.
It may have been “seen as” a duty but... it wasn’t a duty.
“we just never seemed to hear any demands that women also have equal responsibilities”
Responsibilities exist without compulsion by others.
The responsibility exists, and plenty of opportunity exists to serve.
Responsibility is obligated only when inadequate numbers volunteer.
“Many would take a bad discharge over punitive service”
Yeah, that’s a possibility. But you could disincentivise that by cancelling any offer of Permanent Residency or citizenship without an honorable discharge.
Maybe a lot would still bail as soon as they knew there was even a bad option. But many might stay if the carrot at the end of the stick was enough. It’s a job anyway, right? That’s all they’re here for.
But merely the threat of being pulled in would be a deterrent to many who don’t realize the options once enlisted. Hell, look at all the people here who are upset about the draft, and they’re citizens.
You mean you have issues with the draft being used to provide an endless supply of young men for open ended wars and far flung military adventures with no exit strategies? How else are we going to serve and protect the interests of the elites if we don’t do this? /sarc
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.