Reply #46: The military is different and you well know it

[dsc]

The military is permitted to ban yamokas which would get any other entity a huge lawsuit that they would lose. I would bet a huge sum you can't find any non military cases from the modern era which doesn't apply intermediate scrutiny. Oh and since you didn't like wiki here is another link which again, agrees with me.

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/genderschools.html

By the 1980s, attention shifted from racial segregation in the public schools to separate education based on gender. In the 1982 case of Mississippi University for Women v. Hogan, the Court narrowly found the female-only admission policy at a state nursing school to be a denial of equal protection of the laws to a male who had sought admission to the program. The Court said the Mississippi could not justify the policy as an affirmative action program because it failed to show Mississippi females were disadvantaged in seeking nursing jobs--in fact, the evidence suggested that the policy had the effect of reinforcing gender stereotypes. The Court hinted that a female-only admission policy for a business or engineering school might have fared better. iThen, in 1996, the Court found Virginia to be in violation of the Constitution in the closely-watched case of United States v. Virginia, a challenge to the male-only admission policy of the Virginia Military Institute. The Court ruled that a somewhat similar program for women, the Virginia Women's Institute for Leadership, was not "substantially equal" to the program of VMI, as required by the Equal Protection Clause.




In Rostker v Goldberg, the Court, by a 6 to 3 vote, rejected the argument that the Fifth Amendment's equal protection aspect was violated by the Selective Service Act in its "authorizing the President tp require the registration of males and not females." Justice Rehnquist's majority opinion emphasized that congressional decisions affecting the military were due great deference. The Court nonetheless applied heightened scrutiny. It found the law substantially furthered the government's important interest in raising a combat-ready military. Accepting the government's contention that women are less suitable for combat, the Court concluded that the "classification is not invidious, but rather realistically reflects the fact that the sexes are not similarly situated."