Joe Biden has called his contributions to and passage of the Violence Against Women Act the proudest moment of his career. Barack Obama has voiced his support and pride in his running mate in relation to the act repeatedly, even in presidential debates. But civil rights groups oppose the law, which was dealt yet another blow this week by a California appellate court.
Civil rights have suffered greatly over the past few decades due to over-zealous federal involvement in state and private issues. Acceptance by courts requires a makeshift reclassification to the social policy arena where individual rights no longer apply. The fundamental, formally established features in Constitutional law are replaced by group-oriented culture-war rhetoric and propaganda, managed by political whim.
The title of the act itself advertises its prejudicial nature – a legislative decision regarding guilt and innocence of the people who will come face to face with its force. The act was signed into law by Bill Clinton in 1994; at a time when anti-male, and particularly anti-father propaganda was building to a screeching crescendo. All men are evil. All women are victims. All heterosexual behavior is rape. were among the well-known refrains. The myth of the “deadbeat dad†drove dramatic government expansions and intrusions in a new welfare super-state. States were tasked with implementing the federally defined laws.
This week, a California appeals court found that:
- Male victims of domestic violence are similarly situated to female victims.
- No compelling state interest justifies the gender classification.
- Gender-based classifications in statutes that provide programs for victims of domestic violence violate equal protection.
“We reform the affected statutes by invalidating the exemption of males and extending the statutory benefits to men, whom the Legislature improperly excluded.â€ÂÂ
Had the laws on domestic violence (as well as others in the plethora of gender-war issues) been left to states, the full benefit of ordinary civil rights would still apply. The prejudicial nature of Biden’s law could have been dealt with more quickly and easily as it would not have passed Constitutional muster in any application where individual rights can be applied.
The California decision is the result of a class-action suit brought by a group of fathers and a daughter who suffered years of violence by women who were – in the practical – protected by federal intrusion. They presented on behalf of taxpayers who are forced to support such programs. “Equal protection†is one of the few constitutional options left for dealing with laws that have been pushed into the realm of social policy.
As it stands, the battle is far from over. With support of the decision, citizens and courts will need to oversee transformation of what has become a vast government-sponsored industry that has been a major actor in gender-war politics. It is not merely a question of distribution of funding and disposition of government funded facilities. There is an entrenchment of special-interest politics and the involvement of people with one-sided political loyalties.
Similar problems exist in other states and even the California laws are not yet entirely clean. Ultimately, fixing the problem properly may require a federal retreat from the current practice of classifying laws into social policy in order to allow unwarranted federal intrusion. The United States Supreme Court has already invalidated one part of the act due to lack of Congressional authority; in United States v. Morrison.
See Glenn Sacks’ article for in-depth background on the case and a link to the decision.
