|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This should be interesting. I wonder how they are dealing with the religious aspect of this? Will they criminalize those religions that circumcize? If so, you can bet congress won't touch it with a ten foot pole.
The worst that can happen is that the issue will get some well deserved publicity.
Mens Rights 2004 Congress
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
IMHO, religion shouldn't even factor in. Correct me if I'm wrong, but no provisions for religion were made in the FGM bill.
Likewise, no religious provisions should be made for MGM.
Again, it goes back to the equal protection clause. If the law is going to provide such-and-such protection for females, then it damn well better offer the same protection to males.
Has anybody seriously considered challenging the FGM law in court on the grounds that it violates the equal protection clause?
"Existence exists. A is A." -Ayn Rand
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
... is there any chance that exclusive protection of girls could be challenged as unconstitutional, since it violates the equal protection clause?
This has already been done, several years ago, precisely on the basis of the "14th Amendment," in South Dakota as I recall. (Sorry, I don't remember more details.) The judge laughed the case out of court. (Personally, I wouldn't base any legal appeal on the "14th Amendment," since it is also the basis of the modern version of chattel slavery -- papers please! -- to which we have all been made subject. Beware of false friends!)
Will they criminalize those religions that circumcize? If so, you can bet congress won't touch it with a ten foot pole.
Note that the religion which circumcises females is Islam (never mind that there is nothing in the Quran on the subject, it has become part of the culture by long history), and Congress clearly feels no reluctance to foment hatred in that direction. All part of the Plan.
Circumcision of males, on the other hand, though practiced in many cultural traditions, is identified with Judaism, the most sacred pig in our current political landscape. Nothing done by any Jew can be criticized -- that would be anti-Semitism. The one single person responsible more than any other for the adoption of infant-male circumcision into mainstream American Protestant culture was a 19th-century Jewish physician.
The worst that can happen is that the issue will get some well deserved publicity.
To be sure. Raise the issue early and often -- but only if you're confident of your ability to endure ridicule and abuse.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:33 AM March 10th, 2004 EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
|
A case like you describe was dismissed in North Dakota for "lack of standing". The 8th Circuit's Court of Appeals wrote:
this case must be dismissed for lack of standing. Even if we were to declare the Dakota statute invalid because
it is underinclusive, and even if, in addition, as plaintiffs request, we could enter some kind decree that would criminalize male circumcision, there is no assurance at all that the injury claimed by Fishbeck, either on her own behalf or on behalf of her son, would be redressed. The legal victory would be wholly abstract, so far as Fishbeck concerned. There is no claim for damages, a claim apparently, in any case, be
barred by the Eleventh Amendment.
However,
- laws that discriminate based on gender should be strictly scrutinized (United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S., 135 L.Ed.2d 739, 116 S.
Ct.(1996)).
- The U.S. Constitution garantees equal protection (14th Amendment).
I'd be interested in a constitutional lawyer's opinion of what it takes to "have standing.
Thanks,
Kingsley G. Morse Jr.
Reproductive Rights Chairman
National Center for Men
Protect Voluntary Fatherhood
http://www.choiceformen.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:15 AM March 12th, 2004 EST (#12)
|
|
|
|
|
To have standing in federal court you generally need a case or controversy - an actual case where a plaintiff can plead an actual injury - though there are some exceptions and in some cases you can even have standing as a civil rights tester.
In some states, like California, under their state laws, you can have standing for a constitutional civil rights challenge against a state or local government simply as a citizen or a taxpayer if you are challenging the government's unconstitutional expenditure of money.
We can eventually find plaintiffs who have standing but the ultimate obstacle will be convincing appellate judges that: 1) males and females are "similarly situated" with regard to the types of circumcision at issue (I'm not an expert but I'm told that one of three types of FGM - removal of the clitoral hood - is medically equivalent to male circumcision) and that, 2) the sex classification in the law fails to meet "scrutiny." The applicable "scrutiny" can differ based what law is being applied. Under federal law, sex classifications in the law must meet "intermediate scrutiny," i.e. "the party seeking to uphold a statute ... must carry the burden of showing an 'exceedingly persuasive justification' for the classification . . . . The burden is met only by showing at least that the classification serves 'important governmental objectives and that the discriminatory means employed' are 'substantially related to the achievement of those objectives.'" ( Mississippi University for Women v. Hogan (1982) 458 U.S. 718, 724 [102 S.Ct. 3331, 3336, 73 L.Ed.2d 1090].)
But under California state law, sex classifications in the law must meet an even tougher test - strict scrutiny - which means the sex classification in the law must be "narrowly tailored to a compelling government interest." But California judges often don't *really* apply strict scrutiny to anti-male classifications in state laws; there are tons of them in California law and NCFM-LA is currently taking on a huge uphill battle by challenging them on appeal.
Given all the religious and cultural pressure to the contrary as well as alot of bias and ignorance among the judges themselves, this will take a very strong, sympathetic case, and alot of educating, probably even a change in cultural attitudes, before this change will occur at the judicial level. But it can be done with the right resources and the right case.
To some extent it can also be risky to take such a case up the federal court chain too early because it could, potentially, set bad precedent where a better case might be brought when public education has made the issue more ripe. But of course we can't always just sit around waiting for that to happen.
NCFM member Steven Svoboda, founder of Attorneys for the Rights of the Child www.arclaw.org/
is helping to bring some light to the circumcision issue. He actually spoke before the (very biased) United Nations on the issue, and he's been getting some excellent articles published in top-notch legal journals and even medical ethics journals. The guy is a genius and has seriously sacrificed his legal career to take on this cause that he believes so strongly in. I'm hopeful that he'll be insrumental in future change.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 05:19 PM March 13th, 2004 EST (#14)
|
|
|
|
|
Do people understand that circumcision takes away 80% of a male ability to feel sexual plesure? I was circumcised when I was 13 y/o and I was old enough to tell the difference.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anon - Can you tell us more? I have spoken with men who were circumcised as adults and they talk of the differences they feel but I have yet to hear one speak of as strong a difference as you have stated. Can you tell us more of your experience?
thanks
Mens Rights 2004 Congress
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A person shouldn't be alowed to have this done until they are eighteen. I don't care about the religious aspect. They do not have the right to cut up babies and children. This issue burns my ass and makes my penis feel maimed. Dammit! I like my penis and cannot stand to see it hurt in any way shape or form.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 06:39 PM March 10th, 2004 EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
this is going to go nowhere. people just don't care when it's a male who is a victim.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"this is going to go nowhere. people just don't care when it's a male who is a victim."
I don't see the harm in trying, do you?
bg
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When it comes to men's issues in general, and intactivism in particular, victory is often best counted simply in terms of raising the topic, thereby demonstrating that it's socially acceptable to buck the norm of denial and silence.
To paraphrase Farrell, people can't hear what men don't say.
No, it probably won't get on the floor of either the House or Senate anytime soon. So what? That's not the only objective involved; that's just one of the many objectives on a long, long list.
Now more people know that there's a serious issue involved here. That there is a blatant and direct and inarguable violation of the Constitution already written into law, which this bill seeks to repair.
And our elected officials are being put on notice about it. As the years pile up and people keep pushing, it's going to look worse and worse for their records -- how they knew perfectly well that the Constitution was being blatantly and directly and inarguably violated by a bad law, and did absolutely nothing to repair the situation.
All these things are somewheres that have been and are being further gone to. And people *do* care when it's a little *boy* that is a victim.
Not much, of course. Nowhere near the way they care when it's a little girl. But they do care, at least just a little. And the more of them who know about it. . .the fewer little boys who will undergo routine or ritual male genital amputation.
And that's worth working for in its own right. . .
. . .don't you agree?
Ack!
Non Illegitimi Carborundum, and KOT!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, yes, and yes.
This bill may not go anywhere but it gives us ample opportunity to hold our elected officials to the fire. CALL YOUR CONGRESSMAN and ask him or her specifically where he or she stands on this bill. Make them take a stand for or against. Far too long our reps have been able to hide behind a curtain of inaction only to claim they are friendly to boys and men when questioned. Force them out into the open where we can see if they are with us or against us. This is exactly what they don't want to do. They are cowards and want to hide and please women and get re-elected. Smoke em out!
Mens Rights 2004 Congress
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes we have to keep on keeping on. But I know how anyone can get discouraged in this and we have to help keep thier spirits up. I get discouraged about this subject alot. How can people take men for granted so much and treat them so bad and act like men owe women something and then on top of it have to listen to women complain all the time about how hard they have it? I don't know. And it burns my ass. But what can you do but move forward everyday for truth?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Routine male circumcison is a stupid medical habit picked up in the latter part of the 19th century I believe to prevent masterbation which at the time was thought to cause insanity. I guess female masterbation didn't exist then? However, I believe more progress would be made in stopping this dumb habit though education rather than getting big government to do something for us which always seems to carry a price tag.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
-- Education is only ONE answer.
Education will not stop it completely. As long as it not criminalized, thousands of little boys will be SEXUALLY MUTILATED at birth and suffer the serious, permanent consequences for the rest of their lives.
Ecucation can and will do a lot. But it can't and won't do it all. The sooner we start pushing for the equal protection of little boys' basic right to genital integrity, compared to that established for little girls in anti-constitutional gender exclusivity, the sooner ALL little boys will be free of the threat of genital mutilation.
Education may very well do more, at this point in time. But in the END, only criminalization will do it ALL. And the longer we put that criminalization off, the more little boys will be genitally mutilated in the long run.
If you don't want to work on the bill process, then don't.
And if you don't want ANY little boys to be at risk of routine and ritual genital mutilation, someday, then don't run down the efforts of those working for the legal establihsment of equal rights where children's genital integrity is concerned.
We don't need your nay-saying, thank you very much.
Ack!
Non Illegitimi Carborundum, and KOT!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I totally agree. We need a law. What is so wrong about a law against child abuse? Acting like this is unimportant is unhuman in my opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Routine male circumcison is a stupid medical habit picked up in the latter part of the 19th century I believe to prevent masterbation which at the time was thought to cause insanity. I guess female masterbation didn't exist then?
They didn't even think the female ORGASM existed back then. However since this is a Civil Rights case, education is not a solution to laws to protect the innocent. Probably a good start would be to form class-action suits against hospitals on the behalf of victims of circumcision, as well as a complaint-suit declaring circumcision unconstitutional as a denial of equal protection to males. If there is any law which prevents female sexual mutilation, then clearly equal protection applies-- particularly since the medical benefit of circumcision is to avoid "feeling unfresh."
I believe that bodily integrity can be pretty well argued as the phsyical basis of the Right to Life; likwise, the constituional provisions that "no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law" is undeniably violated by circumcision.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
