Gender equity marches on

Get the State out of intimate personal relations—so goes the slogan. The real point of social liberalism, however, is to abolish intimate personal relations, or at least denature them and make them incapable of interfering with anything serious. Hence the sex ed that trains children to think of sex as a consumer good, the redefinition of “family” as any constellation of human beings temporarily calling themselves such, and the constitutionally favored position granted by the Supreme Court, under the supposedly conservative leadership of the Chief Justice, to legislation designed to remove “the pervasive sex-role stereotype that caring for family members is women’s work.

Out of respect for federalism, the Court has recently held state governments immune from various employment regulations. That principle goes by the board, though, when Congress uses its 14th Amendment power to enforce that amendment’s guarantees of equal protection and due process—which, according to our “right-wing” court, includes destruction of all cultural understandings of masculine and feminine responsibilities, no matter how deep-rooted, long-standing, or even universal. Among a free and self-governing people, the fact that something is a “pervasive stereotype” would be a reason for the government to respect it. In America today it is an overriding reason to suppress it. With conservatives like Chief Justice Rehnquist, who needs Leftists?

2 thoughts on “Gender equity marches on”

  1. When Rehnquist votes with the

    When Rehnquist votes with the liberal justices, as he does from time to time, isn’t it likely that he’s doing so for administrative reasons? If the liberals are going to prevail in any case, with, say, an erratic O’Connor providing them with five votes, the Chief can then assign the opinion or try to write it narrowly himself. If he votes his convictions, Justice Stevens will decide who writes for the Court. For example, I cannot believe Rehnquist really supported the decision in the VMI case.

    By the way, if I’m right about this, I still don’t approve of the practice.


  2. Good point — I’ve been

    Good point — I’ve been told such things sometimes happen. He could have intended to save the pro-federalism line of cases, which Stevens would otherwise have used this case to nuke, at the cost of re-affirming the sexual re-education of the American people as a reasonable interpretation by Congress of constitutional imperatives.

Comments are closed.