Craig v. Boren - Intermediate Scrutiny Case

Craig v. Boren - Intermediate Scrutiny Case In Craig v. Boren, the U.S. Supreme Court established a new standard of judicial review, intermediate scrutiny, for laws with gender-based classifications. The 1976 decision involved an Oklahoma law that prohibited the sale of beer with 3.2% (non-intoxicating) alcohol content to males under age 21 while permitting the sale of such low-alcohol beer to females over the age of 18. Craig v. Boren ruled that the gender classification violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. Curtis Craig was the plaintiff, a resident of Oklahoma who was over the age of 18 but under 21 at the time the suit was filed. David Boren was the defendant, who was governor of Oklahoma at the time the case was filed. Craig sued Boren in a federal district court, alleging that the law violated the Equal Protection Clause. The district court had upheld the state statute, finding evidence that such gender-based discrimination was justified because of gender-based differences in arrests and traffic injuries caused by males and females ages 18 to 20. Thus, the court held that there was justification on the basis of safety for discrimination. Fast Facts: Craig v. Boren Case Argued: Oct. 5, 1976Decision Issued: Dec. 20, 1976Petitioner: Curtis Craig, a male who was over 18 but under 21, and Carolyn Whitener, an Oklahoma alcohol vendorRespondent: David Boren, Governor of OklahomaKey Questions: Did an Oklahoma statute violate the 14th Amendments Equal Protection Clause by establishing different drinking ages for men and women?Majority Decision: Brennan, Stewart, White, Marshall, Blackmun, Powell, StevensDissenting: Burger, RehnquistRuling: The Supreme Court ruled that the statute violated the 14th Amendment by making unconstitutional gender classifications. Intermediate Scrutiny: a  New Standard The case is significant to feminism because of the intermediate scrutiny standard. Prior to Craig v. Boren, there had been much debate about whether sex-based classifications or gender classifications, were subject to strict scrutiny or mere rational basis review. If gender became subject to strict scrutinies, like race-based classifications, then laws with gender classifications would have to be narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling government interest. But the Supreme Court was reluctant to add gender as another suspect class, along with race and national origin. Laws that did not involve a suspect classification were subject only to rational basis review, which asks whether the law is rationally related to a legitimate government interest.​ Three Tiers Are a Crowd? After several cases in which the Court seemed to apply a higher scrutiny than rational basis without really calling it heightened scrutiny, Craig v. Boren finally made clear that there was a third tier. Intermediate scrutiny falls between strict scrutiny and rational basis. Intermediate scrutiny is used for sex discrimination or gender classifications. Intermediate scrutiny asks whether the laws gender classification is substantially related to an important governmental objective.Justice William Brennan authored the opinion in Craig v. Boren, with Justices White, Marshall, Powell and Stevens concurring, and Blackmun joining in most of the opinion.  They found that the state had not shown a substantial connection between the statute and the benefits alleged and that statistics were insufficient to establish that connection.  Thus, the state had not shown that gender discrimination substantially served a government purpose (in this case, safety).  Blackmuns concurring opinion arg ued that the higher, strict scrutiny, a standard was met. Chief Justice Warren Burger and Justice William Rehnquist wrote dissenting opinions, criticizing the Courts creation of an acknowledgment of a third tier, and arguing that the law could stand on the rational basis argument. They remained opposed to establishing the new standard of intermediate scrutiny.  Rehnquists dissent argued that a liquor vendor who had joined the suit (and the majority opinion accepted such standing) had no constitutional standing as his own constitutional rights were not threatened.Edited and with additions by   Jone Johnson Lewis

Free sample - Discussion Board 2 Homosexuality. translation missing

Discussion Board 2 Homosexuality. Discussion Board 2 HomosexualityIntroduction Homosexuality has become a very controversial issue in the past few months. Homosexuality has been defined as sexual behavior, attraction and intimacy among people of the same sex more so people of the male gender. It has to do with experience on sexual, romantic and affection attraction. The society has two views on homosexuality. There are people who look at homosexuality as aberration. That it is a disorder which is a pathological behavior. There is another opposing group of people that see homosexuality as a normal deviation in the human condition.   They say that it is determined before birth and that it is natural and normal for those that are thus oriented. This two opposing sides has had a major fight as to whether the condition should be allowed by the society or not. This paper explains why it should not be encouraged in the society. Discussion The question then is: How is homosexual harmful to the society and to individuals? Is homosexual beneficial to the society in any way? Homosexuality has had both advantages and disadvantages. However the advantages are only for those practicing it whiles the disadvantages have impacted both those who practice it and the rest of the people in the society. Most negative effects of homosexuality has been blamed on the society`s unwillingness to support gay relationships. However even if the society had agreed to support them the negative effects would have been worse because many would commit themselves openly to homosexuality aggravating the situation (Clinard and Meier, 2007). Statistics from a research carried out by Kinsey study indicated that homosexual men are likely to commit suicide six times more than heterosexual men. The rate of promiscuity displayed by heterosexual men are very high for instance 75 percent of the respondents admitted that half of those they had sex with were complete strangers. This exposes them to sexually transmitted diseases. Anal sex is a common practice among the gay people. This causes serious physical injuries because it destroys internal tissues and weakens the anal sphincter resulting to serious medical issues. People in homosexual relationships cannot have children except only if they look for partners who are not of their sex. Thus these relationships do not contribute in any way in providing for the society`s next generations and more so they are short lived. They do not have a complementary aspect that is healthy for individuals, children and the society at large. These individuals put the society at pains treating the illnesses they get especially their family members. Heir family members are disturbed both psychologically and financially. Most people in the society who argue for homosexuality and participate in it are positive about it more on the sexual attachment and satisfaction that they obtain from it. They actually know that the practice cannot bear them children nor fulfill their emotional need. In fact this is why those who practice homosexuality do not have long term relationships. This is because they move from one relationship to another because they are interested in the physical gain and satisfaction they get from it as opposed to emotional satisfaction. They know that the practice is more likely to get them infected with sexually transmitted diseases (Stewart, 2003). The question most homosexuals want addressed is why the society will not accept them the same way it accepts the heterosexual people. The question the heterosexual group asks is why the gays cannot stop that practice yet it is harmful not only for them but for the entire society and how homosexuality can be an in born condition yet it was unheard of in the early years. Conclusion These questions can be addressed by consulting the medical and psychological practitioners. It will be important if people understand that the negative aspects of homosexuality outweigh the positive aspects and that the male and female genders are in this world to complement each other. Therefore people should avoid homosexuality as much as possible and embrace heterosexuality which is advantageous. References Stewart, C. (2003). Gay and Lesbian Issues .Oxford: ABC-CLIO. Clinard, B.M. Meier, F.R. (2007). Sociology of Deviant Behavior. 13th ed. London: Cengage Learning.