American Constitutionalism in Historical Perspective (packet)

But Irrelevant to legit state purpose: Brennan: should have been analyzed under strict scrutiny, and then this distinction c/n be justified b/c (1) military d/n offer justification but Stewart provided it, (2) use of gender to benefit but perpetuates gender stereotype, and (3) once we level the playing field, no longer need affirmative action for gender

Preference for mothers of nonmarital children

1. 
   Caban v. Mohammed p.799 (1979) invalidated NY law granting mother but not father of illegit child, the rt to block the child’s adoption by w/holding consent.
   
2. 
   Parham v. Hughes p.800: (1979) upheld Georgia law denying the father the rt to sue for his nonmarital child’s wrongful death. Mothers and fathers w/n similarly situated. Father can legitimate children while mothers c/n.
   
3. 
   Nygen v. INS p.800: (2001) upheld law that treated children born out of wedlock to one citizen-parent and one noncitizen-parent differently depending on whether it was the mother or father who was a citizen
   

Real sex differences

1. 
   Geduldig v. Aiello, 1974: p. 793 upheld benefits program that excluded benefits for pregnancy. Only women get pregnant so lawmakers have reasonable basis for distinction. Program included some disabilities unique to men, evidence of sexism. Reversed by Congress.
   
2. 
   Michael M. v. Superior Court, 1981: Rehnquist ct upheld CA statutory rape law that punishes male but not the female. Preserving the chastity of women is no longer acceptable justification so ct makes up own justification. Relevant to legit state purpose: gender diff is relevant : First secular purpose: Women are already harmed by pregnancy—this is a natural deterrent so d/n need to impose criminal sanctions on her. Advantaging women, so not unreasonable. Second purpose: incentivizes women to provide proof of the crime (tell on their partner) by immunizing them from punishment.
   
   1.