|
|
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
Court Cases
|
 |
Many of these court cases concern explicit gender discrimination, the rest concern implicit gender discrimination and the gender the decisions primarily impact are men, one way or another. Some of the cases correct the gender discrimination while others reinforce it. Some of the court decisions here are wholly unbelievable but the law of the land. Scroll down to find your area of interest, that is, general cases of explicit gender biased cases, paternity cases, domestic violence cases, child support, child custody, and so forth. Unpublished cases are so noted; otherwise the case is published and sets a precedent. Cases are regularly added to this list. If you know of other such cases, published or unpublished, please use the "email" button to the left and send them to us.
If you don't want to read the whole case, but just want some general information about it, use your search engine by putting in quotation marks the full name of the case and follow the links to the various articles.
|
|
CASES OF EXPLICIT DISCRIMINATION
|
| |
|
|
Dubay v Wells
|
| |
 Dubay told Wells that if they had sex he did not want a baby. She said not to worry, she could not have children and just to be sure they could use birth control. She got pregnant anyway now the State wants is ten pounds of flesh from Dubay, $500 a month in child support. This may very well turn out to be the most important case concerning children since Roe v Wade, in fact someone nicknamed Dubay v Wells "Roe v Wade for men". This case was filed March 2006 and the media went nuts. It will be talked about and debated for years to come. Dubay brought father's rights center stage and out in the open for all to see. You can get a t-shirt, cup, or whatever with the "Women's Choice Women's Responsibility..." logo here:
http://www.cafepress.com/mensbiz/580779
Related Articles
Father seeks right to cut ties with chile he didn't want, James Langton in Washington, News Telegraph, March 19, 2006.
A Man's Right to Choose, Nancy Gibbs, Time Magazine, March 15, 2006
The Right to Abandon Your Child, Mona Cheran, Townhall, March 10, 2006
Right Cause, Wrong Approach, Wendy McElroy, FOXNEWS.com, March 14, 2006
Read Dubay v Wells
|
|
Woods, Neff, Bowman and Blumhorst v State of California and others
|
| |
Filed in October 2005, this class action lawsuit challenges the State of California and their representatives' policy and practice to deny services to male victims of domestic violence, since to do so is a blatant violation of equal protection provisions of the State Constitution. This case has the potential for changing the inequitable gender biased way domestic violence services are provided throughout the United States, if not the westernized world.
Read Woods, Neff...
|
|
Koire v. Metro Car Wash
|
| |
Helds that "ladies' discounts" at a car wash and a night club violate the California Unruh Civil Rights Act by discrimating against men.
Read Koire v. Metro Car
|
|
Mississippi University for Women v. Hogan
|
| |
Held that a state-sponsored nursing school established by statute that excludes men violates equal protection of 14th amendment under intermediate scrutiny.
Mississippi University for Women v. Hogan
|
|
Rostker v. Goldbert
|
| |
Upheld mandatory draft registration only for men on the ground that, since women are not allowed in combat, men and women are "not similarly situated" with regard to the draft, and thus no equal protection violation exists.
Rostker v. Goldberg
|
|
Stanley v. Illinois
|
| |
Held that unwed fathers’ kids being automatically wards of the court violates equal protection.
Stanley v. Illinois
|
|
Weinberger, Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, et. al. v. Salfi et al.
|
| |
Held that SSI (Supplemental Social Secruity) letting widowed mothers but not widowed fathers receive benefits violates equal protection.
Weinberger v. Salfi
|
|
Kahn v. Shevin
|
| |
Upheld statute allowing property tax exemption for widows but not widowers because marketplace is harder for women (more stupid).
Kahn v. Shevin
|
|
Craig v. Boren
|
| |
Held that law forbidding sale of Near Beer to males under 21 and females under 18 violates equal protection. Establishing intermediate scrutiny.
Craig v. Boren
|
|
PATERNITY AND PATERNITY FRAUD CASES
|
 |
Paternity fraud is also known as "child identity theft". Numerous states are in the midst of reforming paternity laws and many are leaning toward allowing the disestablishment of paternity for men who were duped into parenthood, which is only fair, particularly when they have never seen the mother (that's right never seen her, never had sex, don't even know her name) or children for which the men are required to support. This section is dedicated to important court decisions after January 2005.
|
|
Navarro v County of Los Angeles
|
| |
The court found that the County, in this case Child Support Services, legally followed the letter of the law by refusing to disestablish paternity for Navarro. However, the court was so offended by the onerous tactics of the County that they set Navarro free from wrongful paternity. The Court told the County in no uncertain terms that even though they followed the letter of the law, as a public entity the County had an absolute obligation to protect the rights of all citizens, including Navarro and men like him.
Navarro v County of Los Angeles
|
|
County of Fresno v Sanchez
|
| |
California's Fifth Appellate District basically neutered Navarro in Fresno v Sanchez. In January 2005 California's Governor Schwarzenegger signed AB-252, which made modest paternity fraud reforms and set the stage for many men to become free of wrongful paternity. Navarro in effect strengthened AB-252. Sanchez did the opposite wherein the court ruled that AB-252 superceded Navarro since AB-252 became law before the Navarro ruling. Unfortunately, Sanchez represented himself and it appears that in so doing he inadvertently undermined Navarro.
County of Fresno v Sanchez
|
|
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CASES
|
 |
|
|
Crawford v Washington
|
| |
For years the Domestic Violence Industry thwarted the Constitution by denying a suspect's right to confront his accuser in court. This landmark case put the DV Industry in a tailspin by affirming a person's Constitutional right to confront their accuser. As a consequence hundreds, if not thousands, of questionable cases were thrown out throughout America and the DV Industry set about finding other ways to circumvent the Constitution and deny our inalienable rights and freedoms.
Crawford v Washington
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
