|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I imagine this represents some sort of legislation, does it not? Then it also seems to me that, since reality (and research, by the way) says that there ARE female perpetrators of DV AND statuatory rape, then the enforcement exclusively and explicitly against men ought to be unconstitutional, and thereby relatively easy to challenge.
Am I missing something? Or is it just a matter of not enough people willing to challenge this?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Marc Angelucci on Wednesday September 11, @02:26PM EST (#2)
(User #61 Info)
|
|
|
|
|
Good question Frank. Yes you're missing something but it's something I failed to explain. The text of the county's agenda is not a statute or a law. It just describes what items are on their agenda for approval, usually things like the contract renewals, expenditures, or announcing events like "AIDS Awareness Week," etc. Sometimes their secretary uses gender-specific language in agenda items even when the actual language of the contract or expenditure is gender-neutral (they stopped doing that a year ago after we testified and raised hell, but it looks like they're back to it again). So I'll need to find out whether this money for "Cambodian women" excludes men in the actual contract being proposed for approval. If so, then I would argue there is an equal protection lawsuit (though it's not slam dunk, since this is county expenditures and not a statute) and we will incorporate it into our upcoming suit against L.A. County. I don't mean the already-filed suit for the commission for men, but a new one for discriminating against males in DV funding/shelter/services. Thanks for raising this issue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Marc Angelucci on Wednesday September 11, @02:33PM EST (#3)
(User #61 Info)
|
|
|
|
|
Oh, I forgot to answer the part of your question about statutory rape. It's a great point. I think it probably won't win an equal protection challenge though because they will probably successfully say that the purpose of the discrimination is taylored to the "important government interest" of combatting teen pregnancy, and adult female perpetrators of statutory rape are not causing teen pregnancy. It's a totally deceptive way for them to misuse almost $400K of funds that are earmarked for prevention of teen pregnancy by using it to imprison males and collect child support (to get federal matching funds) rather than use it in ways that will actually prevent the problems associated with teen pregnancy much more effectively, like sex education, awareness, parenting classes, condom distribution (or even investing in research for a male birth control pill!), etc. They will do anything to maintain their "protect women" image even if their method is unfounded, unsound, ineffective, reactionary and irrational. They will pick on men for any political goal they can. They are simply the scum of the earth.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Marc Angelucci on Wednesday September 11, @02:36PM EST (#4)
(User #61 Info)
|
|
|
|
|
But unfortunately the issue of whether the funds are being used wisely and effectively is not relevant to an equal protection challenge. What matters is whether the discrimination itself is taylored to an important government interest. Most likely courts will say it is here, although it's possible they won't. We'll consider including this in our upcoming suit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
