Issue.  Did a law that treated children born out of wedlock to one citizen parent and one non-citizen parent differently depending on whether it was the mother or the father who is the citizen violate the equal protection clause?

Background.  Under U.S. law, children born out of wedlock to a citizen mother are automatically considered citizens at birth (provided the mother meets certain residency requirements).  On the other hand, children with a citizen father must meet three conditions to be considered a citizen at birth:  1.)  establishment of the "blood relationship" by clear and convincing evidence, 2.) the father's written promise of financial support, and 3.) fulfillment of one of three formal recognition of paternity before the child turns 18 - legal legitimization, father's declaration of paternity under oath, or a court order of paternity.

The challenge of this law made it to the Supreme Court and the Court upheld the constitutionality of the distinction.

Court's Anaylsis.  The law was basically upheld because of the significant difference between a mother and a father to the potential citizen.  The State had two important objectives in the distinction:  1.) assuring that a biological parent-child relationship exists; and 2.) providing an opportunity for a child to develop a connection with the citizen parent and a connection with the United States.

The distinction promoted the first objective because the mother is always present at birth, but not the father.  In other words, the Court is nicely saying that you always know the mother of the child but not the father.  As for the second objective, the Court believes that the mother is more likely to bond with a child because she is certain that the child is hers.  The same cannot be said of the father who may never bond with the child (especially American servicemen stationed overseas).  The State can legitimately believe that a child of a citizen mother will be raised in the United States, while the same may not be true of a child born to a citizen father (raised by the mother of a different nationality).

The Court held that equal protection does not require Congress to ignore reality of what is happening in society or of our biological differences.

Afterword.  Is the Court assuming that mothers will always support their children while fathers may not?  Why can a mother not be a dead beat?  Why should a citizen father only be require to pledge to support a child?

Maybe, it is okay for Congress to rely on generalities when making such distinctions.  However, must there be some evidence proving these generalities (other than the Maury Povich show)?  Also, how do you prove such generalities (watch the Maury Povich show).