'Men Only' Law

(Riverside, California) It appears that the "all men are created equal" provision of the U.S. Constitution has been interpreted to mean that women are more equal.

It's about what the definition of 'his' is.

From LATimes.com:

A Riverside County judge dismissed an indecent exposure charge against a woman who allegedly disrobed in front of a 14-year-old boy, saying the law applies only to men.

Superior Court Judge Robert W. Armstrong said this week that the law mentions a person who "exposes his person."

"Usually when a section proscribes conduct, it's 'his or her.' This one is not," Armstrong said. "It's gender specific."

Riverside County Deputy Dist. Atty. Alison N. Norton argued that the lack of a feminine reference in the penal code was a typo and that solely applying the law to men would violate the state Constitution.

Now, this ruling has to create confusion within the legal, as well as criminal, communities. California is known to be quite liberal, delineating special mention of the tweener transgender crowd within state law. The pic-a-sex people are gender non-specific. Consequently, Judge Armstrong's ruling excludes them from living in any legal framework.

Of course, there are other difficulties indicated by the ruling, not the least of which is Judge Armstrong's apparent physical problem of recto-cranial fusion.

Furthermore, without any specific personal knowledge regarding Judge Armstrong, I'd blindly guess that he has had many conversations on the subject of gender with assertive feminist womyn.


[Update]

(Via Don Morgenstern) It's reported that the name of the woman, who had been charged with misdemeanor indecent exposure, is Alexis Luz Garcia, 40. Apparently, she exposed herself to the boy because he was making too much noise playing basketball.

For background, Judge Armstrong retired from the Los Angeles Superior Court in 1997 and now only works part time as a visiting judge.


[Update 09/13/07]

Judge Armstrong's decision overturned.