MAP Forum

I was reading about some of the Supreme Court decisions on gender, sexuality and anti-discrimination. I came across discussion of the term "suspect class", which is a group of people meeting a series of criteria suggesting they are subject to discrimination. Race, being the most obvious one. Federally sexual orientation is not considered a suspect class, but many states do consider it so.

Some of the criteria that have been cited include:

• The group has historically been discriminated against or have been subject to prejudice, hostility, or stigma, perhaps due, at least in part, to stereotypes.
• They possess an immutable or highly visible trait.
• They are powerless to protect themselves via the political process. (The group is a "discrete" and "insular" minority.)
• The group's distinguishing characteristic does not inhibit it from contributing meaningfully to society.

It seems to me pretty obvious that MAPs should fall into this category (whereas convicted criminals would not), however even homosexuals only have partial protection. Lawrence vs Texas which overturned anti-gay sodomy laws had a majority decision based on the right of adults to sexual privacy, rather than equal rights.

Another thing is that MAPs, don't actually face targeted legal discrimination outside of AMSC and PIM. There aren't laws that explicitly target "pedophiles". This means there kind of isn't really anything to challenge. That's one reason that increased visibility is important. We want laws targeting MAPs- preferably positive laws, but failing that negative laws that we can then challenge. Right now we're being ignored outside of AMSC and PIM laws that aren't specifically about orientation, but conduct.

If we had laws that specifically tried to target MAPs we could try and mount a challenge based on Romer vs Evans. Actually the existing exclusion of minor-attracted people from the category of "sexual orientation" that was amendment in Minnesota would've been a good chance. Does anyone know of other states that specifically exclude MAPs from protection in their anti-discrimination laws?