---~---~--------------------~ Moreover, since sex, like race and national origin, is an immutable characteristic determined solely by birth, the imposition of special disabilities upon members of a particular sex would seem to violate the basic concept of our system that legal burdens should bear some relationship to individual responsibility." 133. Equally in Stanton v Stanton 13 ; the Federal Supreme Court declared unconstitutional a Utah law that required that parents support their female children until age 18, but that male children be supported until age 21. The Court found deplorable the rational of the difference being the 'old notions' the female is destined solely for the home and the rearing of the family, and only the male for the market place and the world of ideas. 134. In Kirchberg v Feenstra 1\ the Court expressly used the doctrine of scrutiny developed in Craig v Boren above to invalidate a Louisiana law that gave a husband, as 'head and master' of property jointly owned with his wife, the unilateral right to dispose of such property without his spouse's consent. 135. Further in the United States v Virginia, 518 U.S. 515 (1996); the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional the exclusion of women by the Virginia Military Institute (VMI). 136. In our law as indicated above, the cases of Wazara v Belvedere Teachers College supra and Cl1adoka supra all outlaid discrimination connected with female students that fell pregnant, in universities and colleges who were being expelled and not the boy responsible for the same. l3 14 421 u.s. 7 (1975) 450 u.s. 455, 459 (1981) Page 45 of 46 Applicant's Heads of Argument in the matter between: Love ness l'v{udzuru & Another v Minister of Justice Legal & Parliamentary Affairs & 2 Others Case Number CCZ 79/2014 Prepared by Tendai Biti Law