My niece is starting college in the fall and living in the dorms. The policy in the dorms is no overnight guests on weeknights. However, on weekends, same sex visitors are permitted to stay overnight. Opposite sex visitors must leave by midnight.
Could a heterosexual make an argument that such a policy allows homosexual couples to cohabitate on weekends, but heterosexuals get no such benefit? I wonder if my theory would hold up in court?
I’ve never heard of a college having that kind of policy on overnight guests, whether same or opposite sex. Is your niece going a very conservative/religious school? (In which case the possibility of homosexual cohabitation may not even be acknowledged…)
Short answer – tell her to transfer out of the convent.
But I don’t think there’s a case here – equal protection law typically protects people by focusing on whether disadvantaged, marginalized groups are being treated worse than the norm. Here, the non-marginalized group is the one being disadvantaged; we mostly don’t worry about them because they have the clout to take care of themselves.
–Cliffy
Isn’t case law on sexual orientation fractured at the moment? With certain district courts ruling that sexual orientation is somewhat protected, others providing no protection?
You have to prove first that straights deserve equal protection. It’s not automatic. Felons don’t have an equal protection claim because they’re not able to vote.
Why not just make the case that barring anyone from having transient overnight guests is an unreasonable restriction by the college?
We had something like this in a couple of the female dorms when I was in college. They were all the freshman dorms though and not every one. I’m not sure if it was a hold over or what.
I do think though that they could have one visitor a week over night. I think it was to cut down on people spending all their nights together.
I don’t think that this is accurate. If the policy said no white overnight guests, but blacks were allowed, I don’t think we would be arguing that since white people (who are historically not disadvantaged) are discriminated against, then it is a-okay.
I would argue that Lawrence v. Texas holds that a government (and this is a state school) regulation treating homosexuals and heterosexuals differently violates equal protection.
Aren’t all college girls gay for at least a little while?
You do realize that the rule is written that way for a reason that has nothing to do with sex, right? It is designed to allow for the accomodation of same-gender overnight guests for non-sexualized reasons. Like: having your best friend or a sibling crash with you when they visit or letting a drunk friend stay over to sleep it off. The fact that same sex couples can circumvent the motivation behind kicking out your girlfriend is secondary. The best result you would get from challenging this is that there would be NO overnight guests, not that they would open the floodgates for your wild orgies on the weekends.
The majority in Lawrence was based on privacy/substantive due process, not on equal protection. (O’Connor’s concurrence did involve equal protection.)
The status of sexuality as a protected characteristic in federal law is up in the air at the moment with all the DOMA (and Prop 8) decisions coming out of different courts. The upshot is, right now, unless the state in question has its own protections against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, there’s not much of a case.
People often underestimate the extent to which discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is legal in the USA. In 31 states it is legal to fire someone for being gay (or, hypothetically, for being straight). In a similar number of states it is legal to discriminate in housing. It surprises me how much effort is focused on same-sex marriage and how little is focused on ENDA (the Employment Non-Discrimination Act) and other anti-discrimination measures.
Moved MPSIMS --> IMHO.
Of course it’s discriminatory. Remember, in our society it’s perfectly fine to discriminate against anyone who is white, male, or straight. These groups are simply not allowed to complain or retaliate.
On a scale of zero to also zero, could you estimate for me how interested and how surprised you will be to find out that this is a silly and wrong thing to say if I go to the trouble of pointing it out?
Negative five. But if you really want to, go ahead and start a new thread about it. Hell, pit me if you want.
And here I was thinking you were too quick to see yourself as a victim.
I agree. It’s been close to twenty years since someone complained about cross-visitation privileges at my college–not a formal complaint, just an “it’s not fair” when they explained the new keyless lock system, and the response was “Look–count your blessings that you have cross-visitation privileges at all–students at our school’s biggest rival don’t and won’t because a female student was raped and murdered in her dorm room once.”
Information about the crime, in case you think I’m being flippant, or my informant was.
Are the dorms gender segregated? If so I’d think the purpose of the prohibition against opposite-sex guests would be to maintain the gender-segregation of sleeping quarters, rather then specifically to prevent weekend hanky-panky.
I suppose, but what’s the purpose of gender-segregated sleeping quarters at all if not to prevent hanky-panky?
Some people feel more comfortable in gender-segregated quarters, and that’s their prerogative.
SSM ought to be legal, because there’s no rational basis for preventing it, and allowing it doesn’t interfere with anyone else’s freedom. There’s a rational basis for preventing opposite-sex overnights but allowing same-sex overnights, so it’s a different kettle of fish.
Well, one argument against same-sex marriage is that “gays can already get married. They just have to marry a woman.”
And there have been legislators and Judges, that have bought that. Even Supreme Court Justices.
So they would likely tell you that your theory is no good in court. Because you heterosexuals can cohabitate all you want on weekends, it just has to be with someone of the same sex.