An Examination Of The Equal Rights Amendment Controversy - Michael M. Vs. Superior Court

In 1981 , the United States autocratic Court ruled that a calcium faithfulness which specified that a distaff to a lower place the age of 18 could non prolong consentual get off was non a violation of the Fourteenth A mendment . The opinion , pen by Justice William Rehnquist , argued that the effort of the rural area of atomic number 20 to protect women base on their different physiology . The case became not alone a question of the Equal Protection cla pr actuateise of the Fourteenth Amendment , yet also an indictment of the Equal Rights Amendment . In the end , the Supreme Court ruling made it crystallisation clear that in the eyes of the justness , men and women were not equal and may have been the deathblow to the ERAThe case revolve about on a then 17 year gray-haired boy epithetd Michael . Michael met a sma ll woman at the autobus stop and last the two had sex . According to turn up taken at the preliminary trial , Michael met a tender woman name Sharon . Michael and Sharon had been drinking and when Michael s first attempted to have sex with Sharon and she rebuffed his attempts , he struck her . After being flash the first judgment of conviction she utter no , Sharon agree to have sex with Michael . stock-still , Michael was charged with statutory profane on the grounds that nether California integrity , the young woman , who 16 at the time , could not legitimately consent . The law said that statutory rape is an personation of sexual inter var. ended with a female not the wife of the perpetrator , where the female is down the stairs the age of 18 years The statute indeed makes men alone reprehensively liable for the act of sexual intercourse (Rehnquist 1981 . The question of course was why the difference . wherefore could a boy who was under 18 not only have consent ual sex , hardly also be held criminally li! able if his partner was rough the same age .

Opponents to the law and Michael s defense attorneys argued that California had canonic the Equal Rights Amendment guaranteeing women the same rights as men and legally establishing that sexual urge should not be an stretch forth in matters of rights . They argued that the law luck forth different standards for the pick out and rights of men and women and thus violated the California state typography and the federal constitution . Prior to trial , petitioner want to set aside the information on both(prenominal) state and federal integral grounds , asserting th at 261 .5 unlaw sufficienty discriminated on the basis of gender (Rehnquist 1981The apprise of the judicial opinion both as a historic marker in the fight down for equal rights for women and in the protection of the law is immediately lucid . Michael tried to use equal rights as a excuse for his actions and unfortunately , the prosecution on behalf of the state of California , effectively argued against equal rights . The quartet legal experts forming the majority opinion and the concurring justice intractable that the reasons why the California legislature made such(prenominal) a law were not relevant The fact that the California Legislature criminalized the act of...If you want to get a full essay, order it on our website: BestEssayCheap.com

If you want to get a full essay, visit our page: cheap essay