Posted on May 14, 2021
Gender Discrimination and Military Spouses: Frontiero v. Richardson
1.06K
27
5
13
13
0
On May 14, 1973, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Frontiero v. Richardson furthering equal rights to females in military. A short excerpt from the article:
"Military Husbands
Frontiero v. Richardson found unconstitutional a federal law that required different criteria for male spouses of military members to receive benefits, as opposed to female spouses.
Sharon Frontiero was a U.S. Air Force lieutenant who tried to get dependent benefits for her husband. Her request was denied. The law said that male spouses of women in the military could only get benefits if the man relied on his wife for more than half of his financial support. However, female spouses of men in the military automatically were entitled to dependent benefits. A male serviceman did not have to show that his wife relied on him for any of her support."
"Military Husbands
Frontiero v. Richardson found unconstitutional a federal law that required different criteria for male spouses of military members to receive benefits, as opposed to female spouses.
Sharon Frontiero was a U.S. Air Force lieutenant who tried to get dependent benefits for her husband. Her request was denied. The law said that male spouses of women in the military could only get benefits if the man relied on his wife for more than half of his financial support. However, female spouses of men in the military automatically were entitled to dependent benefits. A male serviceman did not have to show that his wife relied on him for any of her support."
Gender Discrimination and Military Spouses: Frontiero v. Richardson
Posted from thoughtco.com
American History
Military History
Supreme Court
Housing
Benefits
Posted 3 y ago
Responses: 5
4
4
0
4
4
0
SGT (Join to see)
Legal Scrutiny
The Court concluded:
"By according differential treatment to male and female members of the uniformed services for the sole purpose of achieving administrative convenience, the challenged statutes violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment insofar as they require a female member to prove the dependency of her husband. Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U.S. 690 (1973).s] "
Legal Scrutiny
The Court concluded:
"By according differential treatment to male and female members of the uniformed services for the sole purpose of achieving administrative convenience, the challenged statutes violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment insofar as they require a female member to prove the dependency of her husband. Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U.S. 690 (1973).s] "
(4)
(0)
3
3
0
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google