Warning About Legal Questions
|
Mahalo Answers is a great place to start your research into Legal questions, but it's not the final answer. Mahalo Answers is not a substitute for informed professional advice. If you desire or require professional advice, please consult a qualified provider who is licensed in your state or country. You should always seek independent professional advice before acting on any opinion, advice, or information available on Mahalo Answers. |
Answered Question
Mahalo is adding a tip to all questions that don't offer a tip.
At this point in history, is it legal (constitutional, enforceable, etc) in the USA to enforce old laws prohibiting men from wearing skirts?
Kilts and even skirts seem to be gaining in popularity among men. Women began wearing trousers when they wanted to about 50 years ago. There are still lots of old laws on the books prohibiting cross dressing. Here is a situation that came up in the news today in the local New Orleans (of all places) newspaper:
"In a civil-rights lawsuit filed last month, Kerr describes himself as "a heterosexual male of Scottish ancestry" who was made a victim of discrimination by his choice of attire.
He seeks a declaratory judgment saying that NOPD violated his rights and $1 in damages, along with court fees.
In addition, Kerr wants U.S. District Court Judge Helen Berrigan to bar the NOPD from prohibiting anyone in the city "unfettered access to public facilities because of sex discrimination that is based on gender stereotyping."
The City will lose this lawsuit, New Orleans city lawyers couldn't win a case on a bet, but I'm asking more generally: Do any municipal or state laws have a leg to stand on in this sort of case?
http://www.nola.com/news/index.ssf/2009/05/hemmed_in_over_skirt_man_sues.html
http://images.nymag.com/images/2/daily/fashion/08/07/28_skittedmen_lg.jpg
"In a civil-rights lawsuit filed last month, Kerr describes himself as "a heterosexual male of Scottish ancestry" who was made a victim of discrimination by his choice of attire.
He seeks a declaratory judgment saying that NOPD violated his rights and $1 in damages, along with court fees.
In addition, Kerr wants U.S. District Court Judge Helen Berrigan to bar the NOPD from prohibiting anyone in the city "unfettered access to public facilities because of sex discrimination that is based on gender stereotyping."
The City will lose this lawsuit, New Orleans city lawyers couldn't win a case on a bet, but I'm asking more generally: Do any municipal or state laws have a leg to stand on in this sort of case?
http://www.nola.com/news/index.ssf/2009/05/hemmed_in_over_skirt_man_sues.html
RSS
Best Answer Chosen by Asker
| May 05, 2009 08:25 PM |
I also would have thought that a kilt would be exempt from the cross dressing rule since it is a mans piece of clothing.
It would be nice when debates such as these pop up within the political arena, that they would be updated, eradicated, or changed in some way to reflect our current society. It frustrates me!
| Asker's Rating: |
• I was hoping to start more of a legal discussion but at least your sentiment and illustration are good.
Permalink | Report
Reply
Other Answers (2)
May 05, 2009 02:01 PM
There are plenty of old laws on the books. Any law on the books are enforceable. Will the police enforce them? Probably not... They have other issues to deal with... Is it constitutional? I don't know... I'm not a lawyer, but... I'm SURE we have better laws to look at their constitutionality.
It's a SKIRT for Pete's Sake!
Permalink | Report
Reply
May 05, 2009 02:10 PM
There is simply no way a law like this could hold up in court, unless there were some kind of mitigating circumstances (which I cannot think of). Your choice of clothing is free expression permitted under the First Amendment. Unless there is some kind of obscenity on your clothing while you're at school (in which case the courts have found that the student can be required to change clothing I believe), the law cannot require you to wear a certain type of outfit, or prevent you from doing so.
The main exception is probably public indecency. Pretty sure that nobody (neither man nor woman) can wear an outfit made out of saran wrap, as that would fall under different statutes. But as for the TYPE of clothing, there's no way that can stand.
Permalink | Report
Reply
May 05, 2009 05:45 PM
I don't see how the First Amendment applies. Also, the notions of public indecency and obscenity have long been used to excuse many sorts of laws such as these.
Report
May 05, 2009 07:21 PM
The First Amendment allows for free expression. If I want to wear a shirt that says "Yahoo Answers Sucks," a Congressman representing the Silicon Valley can't pass a law that says I can't wear a shirt like that. Because I'm free to express myself. The same thing applies if I want to wear a dress/skirt/kilt (which, given my legs, I don't). Unless they can make a compelling case that the public is being harmed by a man wearing a skirt, a law like this wouldn't hold up in court.
Report
May 05, 2009 07:44 PM
The First Amendment is usually interpreted to only protect actual speech, writing, and political symbolism. It does not cover fashion or personal taste. Maybe it ought to, but it doesn't.
Report
Answer this Question
Related Questions
Ask a Question
Buy Mahalo Dollars with Credit Card or PayPal
Top Members
Most Popular Tags
Categories
- Anonymous
-
Arts & Design
-
Beauty & Style
-
Books & Authors
-
Business
-
Cars & Transportation
-
Consumer Electronics
- Coupons Deals
-
Education
-
Entertainment
-
Environment
-
Fitness
-
Food & Drink
- From Email
- From Iphone
- From Twitter
-
Health
-
History
-
Hobbies
-
Home & Garden
-
How Tos
-
Humor
-
Jobs
-
Legal
-
Local
-
Love & Relationships
-
Mahalo Answers Community
-
Money
-
Music
-
News
-
NSFW
-
Parenting
-
Pets
-
Science & Mathematics
-
Services
-
Shopping
-
Social Science
-
Society & Culture
-
Sports
-
Technology & Internet
-
Travel
-
Video Games
Welcome New Members
- susanwood, November 25, 2009 01:11 PM
- jinueletarrega, November 25, 2009 01:06 PM
- ranjanrhl, November 25, 2009 11:52 AM
- oticketcpatrick, November 25, 2009 11:18 AM
- simswebdesigns, November 25, 2009 10:54 AM
Mahalo Dollars are the currency of Mahalo Answers.
Each Mahalo Dollar costs $1.
Once you earn more than 40 Mahalo Dollars, you can request to be paid via PayPal. Each Mahalo Dollar is currently worth $0.75 when paid out via PayPal. Learn More
State and Federal courts look at the constitutionality of laws quite often, as they are frequently passed by moronic city councils and state legislatures with little or no concept of constitutional law. It's the Supreme Court that is hard to reach.