ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1996, Roanoke Times
DATE: Sunday, February 18, 1996 TAG: 9602160087
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: G-3 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: CAIA MOCKAITIS
THE CLINTON administration has taken a radical position in the case against the all-male Virginia Military Institute that, if successful, will have vast implications for this nation and its families.
In its ideological quest to overrule VMI's policy of not admitting female students, the Clinton Justice Department has asked the Supreme Court to equate gender with race and apply a ``strict scrutiny'' standard to any law or policy that would distinguish between the sexes.
Currently, sex classifications are carefully scrutinized by courts under the 14th Amendment's ``equal protection'' clause, but undergo a slightly less rigorous standard than ``suspect'' classifications such as race. That is because a legislature might have a ``compelling'' reason to treat men and women differently, such as limiting draft registration to men.
According to the brief filed by President Clinton's solicitor general, Drew Days, gender should be looked upon by the courts in the same manner as race since there are ``historical similarities in the treatment of women and blacks.'' Because women suffer from ``political powerlessness,'' according to the Clinton brief, any policy or law that treats women differently from men would be looked at suspiciously by courts and would most likely be unconstitutional.
So it is clear that this case is about much more than preserving the distinctiveness of an all-male military institute. If the court buys the Clinton administration's argument, we will once again witness a revisitation of the controversies surrounding the failed Equal Rights Amendment.
A Supreme Court ruling against VMI that embraces the Clinton-backed legal doctrine regarding gender would make nearly any classification that distinguishes between men and women nearly impossible to defend legally.
As one constitutional lawyer observed, such a decision would impose the ERA on the Constitution ``by judicial fiat.''
This is nothing new - it is what feminist activists and left-wing groups in the legal community have pursued for decades. But this is a first for the U.S. Justice Department. And President Clinton is ultimately responsible for this crusade that the American people repeatedly rejected throughout the '70s during the ERA debates.
The ramifications of such a ruling would be ominous. Hawaii's state ERA is currently being used to push legalized homosexual marriage. In the eyes of the Hawaii Supreme Court, prohibiting same-sex marriage amounts to ``sex discrimination'' and is no different from banning interracial marriage.
Homosexual adoption of children and subjecting women to the draft would no doubt be sanctioned. Taxpayer-funded abortion on demand could be declared a constitutional right. The legality of all-female colleges and academies, and the freedom of organizations such as the Boy Scouts and even churches that do not ordain women, would be potential targets for litigation.
The Clinton adminstration's position is not only radically out of step with the views of most Americans, it is just plain unworkable. Most Americans recognize that equating sex ``discrimination'' with race discrimination ignores fundamental differences between the two concepts. While there is no justification to treat individuals differently on account of their skin color, there are some legitimate and substantial differences between men and women that can be relevant in establishing public policy.
This does not excuse discrimination that women have experienced in preventing them from realizing their potential. But instituting a flawed ERA concept of ``equality'' into the Constitution would initiate an entirely new and far-reaching regime that would be unnecessary, and ultimately, anti-woman.
Remember the Clinton-appointed feminst delegation that trekked to the U.N. conference in Beijing to re-engineer legal and social relationships between men and women? President Clinton's appeal to the Supreme Court for the ERA is icing on the cake.
Caia Mockaitis is director of public policy information for Focus on the Family in Colorado Springs, Colo.
LENGTH: Medium: 77 lines ILLUSTRATION: GRAPHIC: BOB NEWMAN/Newsdayby CNB