Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: dirtboy
If you're going to argue law, learn a little about it.

First, your contention that the EPC does not apply because of Selective Service is just wrong. There are a number of legal tests relating to application of the EPC - the fact that your example involves the military trumps almost all of those considerations. The Supreme Court has determined that Selective Service does not violate the EPC. It has not decided that private consensual sexual behavior is not subject to the EPC.

Texas can't say the law applies only to some people. Period. If they want to tell everyone they can't have oral or anal sex, that may be constitutional in Texas. But let them try to enforce that.

171 posted on 04/23/2003 2:18:55 PM PDT by lugsoul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies ]


To: lugsoul
If you're going to argue law, learn a little about it.

I know a fair amount about it, but it seems your knowledge is limited.

First, your contention that the EPC does not apply because of Selective Service is just wrong.

I was simply providing an example of the government discriminating by gender. You had implied that the government could do no such discrimination under the EPT, which was incorrect.

There are a number of legal tests relating to application of the EPC - the fact that your example involves the military trumps almost all of those considerations. The Supreme Court has determined that Selective Service does not violate the EPC. It has not decided that private consensual sexual behavior is not subject to the EPC.

You are raising a gender issue here - that there is a separate standard between male sodomy and female sodomy. Gender issues before SCOTUS generally take the middle-tier - and here is a summary of the approach used at that tier:

2. MIDDLE-TIER SCRUTINY (The government must show that the challenged classification serves an important state interest and that the classification is at least substantially related to serving that interest.):

So the question becomes, does the Texas sodomy law reach that level of serving an important state interest? I personally would disagree, but my opinion doesn't matter here, nor does yours - now only nine opinions matter. But the EPT is not the automatic disqualifier that you have made it out to be.

Texas can't say the law applies only to some people. Period. If they want to tell everyone they can't have oral or anal sex, that may be constitutional in Texas. But let them try to enforce that.

They did. That is why the case is before SCOTUS.

211 posted on 04/24/2003 7:01:47 AM PDT by dirtboy (Tagline under construction, fines doubled for speeding)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson