Introduction
For many years, the United States Army restricted women from being a part of certain
units and having a particular set of roles within its military units. Roles often seen in movies like
that of Military Occupational Specialty 11B, Infantry, or units like that of the U.S. Army
Rangers, were not a possibility for women based on Army Regulation 600-13. To determine
whether Army Regulation 600-13 violated a biblical view of equality, we must first understand
what this regulation entailed, then explore principles from the United States Constitution, case
law, the Bible, and Herbert W. Titus' God, Man, and Law: The Biblical Principles can be applied
to this question. As such, this analysis will explore how the regulation may have conflicted with
the biblical principles of equality (for all).
Background and Military Standing
Before jumping into the discussion in a more comprehensive fashion, it should be noted
that this Army regulation is no longer applicable against women, in accounting for the
Department of Defense’s announcement that all military occupations and positions were opened
to women, without exception, effective January 2016 (i.e., no restriction of combat roles to males
only). In stating this, one can assumed the conditions of Army Regulation 600-13. Titled "Army
Policy for the Assignment of Female Soldiers," AR 600-13 governed the assignment and role of
women in combat positions. In specifically speaking to this, historically, this regulation restricted
women from serving in direct combat roles, but policy changes over the years have expanded
women's roles in combat, especially as military needs evolved. The regulation's stance reflected
both the need for military readiness and debates over gender roles. From here, the applicability
and scope of the regulation will be addressed in a present-view manner to understand the realm
of conflict it had, or did not have, with the biblical perspective of equality.
Legality of the Army Regulation
The Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution contains the Equal Protection
Clause, which guarantees that no state shall "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws." This clause has been central to civil rights litigation and debates about
gender equality. As noted by Titus, “The early view that the Equal Protection Clause did not
prohibit sex discrimination of any kind held through the 1940s and 1950s.1
In terms of military regulations, courts have historically granted deference to the
military's judgment on issues of readiness and operational effectiveness. The rationale has been
that the military serves quite a unique function and operates under different legal constraints than
civilian society. However, constitutional principles of equality must still be applied, and Army
Regulation 600-13 must not arbitrarily discriminate based on gender without a compelling
justification. For this point one may pivot to case law, specifically Craigmiles v. Giles. In this
particular case, the Sixth Circuit ruled that a Tennessee law limiting who could sell caskets
violated the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Constitution2. The court held that
the state law was NOT rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest and that it merely
served to protect a particular economic interest group, more specifically, funeral directors.
In recalling the prior point on not arbitrarily discriminating, the Sixth circuit case is
important as it shows that courts are willing to strike down laws that serve no purpose other than
protecting entrenched interests. While Craigmiles concerns economic liberty, the principle that
laws must have a rational basis and not be arbitrary can be applied to gender discrimination. If
Army Regulation 600-13 were to arbitrarily restrict women from serving in certain military
1 Herbert W. Titus,@God, Man, and Law: The Biblical Principles, 118@(1st ed. 1994)
2 Craigmiles v. Giles, 312 F.3d 220 (6th Cir. 2002)
capacities without a rational or compelling interest, it could be argued that the regulation fails to
meet constitutional standards.
The Biblical Perspective
Aside from the constitutional or legality perspective of equality and the Army regulation,
the intent of the discussion is whether there lies a violation of the regulation and the biblical
perspective of equality. While the above section made mention of the Fourteenth Amendment, in
the discussion of treatment based on sex, Titus recognized that U.S. court systems did not speak
of the biblical perspective. Having come off the detailing of Justice Joseph P. Bradley’s opinion
on Sex discrimination and the Common Law (of England), Titus presented that “The common
law of England was replete with rules that distinguished between males and females, but were
the distinctions always consistent with Biblical perspective?”3 To assess whether Army
Regulation 600-13 violates a biblical view of equality, we must first determine whether the
regulation denies women equal opportunities without just cause.
As a starting point, The Bible upholds the equality of both, men and women in creation
(Genesis 1:27) as well as their spiritual equality (Galatians 3:28). Now if the Army regulation
restricts women from certain roles based solely on gender, it may be seen as violating this
biblical principle, specifically, if it implies that women are inherently less capable or valuable in
military contexts. From a biblical perspective, the principle of equality can be drawn from
several passages that emphasize the inherent dignity and value of all human beings, made in the
image of God. As recognized above, “So God created man in His own image, in the image of
God He created him; male and female He created them.”4 This verse, from Genesis, implies that,
at a fundamental level, both genders are equal in value and dignity. Additionally, in the book of
3 Herbert W. Titus,@God, Man, and Law: The Biblical Principles, 118@(1st ed. 1994)
4 Genesis 1:27 (New International Version)
Galatians it is stated, “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male
and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”5 Deriving from the New Testament, Galatians
3:28 is often invoked to emphasize the spiritual equality of all people, regardless of gender,
social status, or ethnicity. As the Army regulation restricted women from certain roles in units
just for being a woman, the violation of equality from the biblical perspective, can be explained
by Leviticus 19:15, in which it states “Do not show favoritism to the poor or favoritism to the
great, but judge your neighbor fairly.”6 This, as recognized in the beginning, is no longer the case
in the military, as women are no longer restricted, but now there is fair judgement of fit by any
gender provided the meeting of the role’s standards.
Conclusion
Army Regulation 600-13 could be seen as violating a biblical view of equality if it
unjustly restricts women from military roles based solely on gender, without a compelling or
rational justification. The Bible emphasizes the central equality of all people, while also allowing
for distinctions in roles. Similarly, the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution requires
that gender classifications serve a substantial governmental interest, and Craigmiles v. Giles
demonstrates that case laws protecting entrenched interests without rational justification are
unconstitutional. Military regulations should align with principles of justice and equality. Any
regulation that denies women opportunities for service based on arbitrary distinctions would fail
both biblically and constitutionally. Thus, Army Regulation 600-13, if it had been continued in
the limiting of women's roles without a substantial military justification, could have been
recognized as a violation of the biblical view of equality, as well as legal principles derived from
the U.S. Constitution.
5 Galatians 3:28 (New International Version)
6 Leviticus 19:15 (New International Version)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
