ERA

[ShapeShifter]

The ERA: A Brief Introduction
 
   Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.
   Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
   Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.

Why would anyone be against this is beyond me?

[ShapeShifter]

Schafley opposed it because she said it would make women open for the draft, stop them from going to a single sex college, and make abortions a part of life.

Response to Schafley belief that ERA will make abortions a part of life:

"Cases in states with state ERAs show that the ERA would not invalidate state laws on abortion which are otherwise constitutional. The constitutional principles by which reproductive laws are upheld or struck down are primarily the right of privacy and equal protection. At present, 19 states have state ERAs or equal rights guarantees in their constitutions, yet many of these states, such as Pennsylvania, still enforce significant restrictions on abortion. Missouri has an equal protection clause similar to the ERA in its state constitution, but this clause has never been used to argue against the state’s abortion restrictions and has not invalidated them. States like Connecticut and New Mexico that have applied a state ERA to an abortion funding decision have required public funding only of medically necessary abortions, not of all abortions. The status of abortion rights in such states has more to do with the progressive nature of their state courts and state politics than with the presence of a state ERA. In fact, most state cases are argued under a combination of privacy, equal protection, and equal rights claims, and the presence of a state ERA is not necessarily the determining factor in those court decisions."

Response to Schafley belief that ERA will stop them from going to a single sex college:

"The ERA would not make all single-sex institutions unconstitutional – only those whose aim is to perpetuate the historic dominance of one sex over the other. Single-sex institutions that work to overcome past discrimination are constitutional now and are likely to remain so."

Source: http://www.equalrightsamendment.org/faq.htm

As to the draft, currently that should not be even an issue because there is virtually no draft. Today military is by volunteer only.

Now, I ask you again, why would you vote NO on the ERA?

[ShapeShifter]

NO.

I'm against messing with the Constitution - whether its the ERA or the "f**ck federalism" gay marriage amendment.

So, when is it OK to admend the Constitution? Are you against all the current admendments since that was "messing with the Constitution"

[ShapeShifter]

The ERA: A Brief Introduction
 
   Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.
   Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
   Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.

Why would anyone be against this is beyond me?

The intention of this amendment wasn't to force any radical social agenda down the nation's throat, but it would've had that effect regardless of the intentions of its proponents.  For example, same-sex marriage would be allowed under the ERA.  After all, aren't prohibitions on same-sex marriage basically a denial of "equal rights" on the basis of sex?  A female draft would've been unavoidable.  Excluded women from the draft is a tacit suggestion that women are less capable of serving in the military than men and could very logically be construed as a violation of the "equal rights" of men and women.  This isn't a dead issue.  The draft could come back in a time of national emergency.

The ERA would also have turned sexual discrimination into a federal issue.  It would no doubt lead to the same kinds of gender quotas that plague schools as a result of Title IX.  In fact, imagine the nightmare of Title IX magnified to every facet of existence.  It would elimate alimony and child support.

On top of that, it's unnecessary.  All the basic rights of women are already protected in the 27 amendments to the constitution already ratified.  The equal protection clause of the 14th amendment makes it clear that those rights extend to women as well as men.

You are still making assumptions or atleast not seeing both side equally.

I will address some of your assumptions.

Source: http://www.equalrightsamendment.org/faq.htm

Why do we need the ERA if we have the "equal protection" clause of the 14th Amendment?

"The 14th Amendment was ratified after the Civil War, in 1868, in order to deal with race discrimination. (Ironically, it added the word "male" to the Constitution for the first time in referring to the electorate.) It was first applied to prohibit sex discrimination in 1971, in the Supreme Court decision Reed v. Reed, but it still allowed legal differentiation by sex to stand in many cases. Several subsequent Supreme Court decisions (Craig v. Boren in 1976, United States v. Commonwealth of Virginia in 1996) have raised the standard of protection against sex discrimination under the 14th Amendment, but sex discrimination claims still do not get the highest level of judicial scrutiny ("strict scrutiny") that race discrimination claims get. If ERA opponents believe that women already have the full protection of the Constitution through the 14th Amendment, they should have no objection to clarifying that guarantee through the specific wording of the ERA."

How does the ERA relate to the issue of homosexual rights?

ERA opponents’ claim that the amendment would require states to allow same-sex marriage is false. The state of Washington rejected such a claim under its state ERA in the 1970s. The state of Hawaii, which considered such a claim under its state ERA, recently amended its constitution to declare marriage a contract between a man and a woman. The legislative history of the ERA shows that its intent is to equalize rights between women and men, not to address issues of discrimination based on sexual orientation. [Sex and Sexual Orientation are TWO different things]

[ShapeShifter]

The ERA: A Brief Introduction
 
   Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.
   Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
   Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.

Why would anyone be against this is beyond me?

I'm against the amendment, not the ideals expressed by it.

Why would you be against the amendment??? and be for the ideals expressed in it??? That seems inconsistent to me.

[ShapeShifter]

The ERA: A Brief Introduction
 
   Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.
   Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
   Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.

Why would anyone be against this is beyond me?

I'm against the amendment, not the ideals expressed by it.

Why would you be against the amendment??? and be for the ideals expressed in it??? That seems inconsistent to me.

Because we already have and ERA it's called the 15th Amendment.

Amendment XV

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

Please tell me how does that have to do with ERA???

[ShapeShifter]

The ERA: A Brief Introduction
 
   Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.
   Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
   Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.

Why would anyone be against this is beyond me?

I'm against the amendment, not the ideals expressed by it.

Why would you be against the amendment??? and be for the ideals expressed in it??? That seems inconsistent to me.

Because we already have and ERA it's called the 15th Amendment.

Amendment XV

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

Please tell me how does that have to do with ERA???

Sorry, I meant the 14th Amendment.

 Why do we need the ERA if we have the "equal protection" clause of the 14th Amendment?

    The 14th Amendment was ratified after the Civil War, in 1868, in order to deal with race discrimination. (Ironically, it added the word "male" to the Constitution for the first time in referring to the electorate.) It was first applied to prohibit sex discrimination in 1971, in the Supreme Court decision Reed v. Reed, but it still allowed legal differentiation by sex to stand in many cases. Several subsequent Supreme Court decisions (Craig v. Boren in 1976, United States v. Commonwealth of Virginia in 1996) have raised the standard of protection against sex discrimination under the 14th Amendment, but sex discrimination claims still do not get the highest level of judicial scrutiny ("strict scrutiny") that race discrimination claims get. If ERA opponents believe that women already have the full protection of the Constitution through the 14th Amendment, they should have no objection to clarifying that guarantee through the specific wording of the ERA.

Source:

http://www.equalrightsamendment.org/faq.htm

Just admit it, you don't want women to have equal rights.

[ShapeShifter]

The ERA: A Brief Introduction
 
   Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.
   Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
   Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.

Why would anyone be against this is beyond me?

I'm against the amendment, not the ideals expressed by it.

Why would you be against the amendment??? and be for the ideals expressed in it??? That seems inconsistent to me.

Because we already have and ERA it's called the 15th Amendment.

Amendment XV

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

Please tell me how does that have to do with ERA???

Sorry, I meant the 14th Amendment.

 Why do we need the ERA if we have the "equal protection" clause of the 14th Amendment?

    The 14th Amendment was ratified after the Civil War, in 1868, in order to deal with race discrimination. (Ironically, it added the word "male" to the Constitution for the first time in referring to the electorate.) It was first applied to prohibit sex discrimination in 1971, in the Supreme Court decision Reed v. Reed, but it still allowed legal differentiation by sex to stand in many cases. Several subsequent Supreme Court decisions (Craig v. Boren in 1976, United States v. Commonwealth of Virginia in 1996) have raised the standard of protection against sex discrimination under the 14th Amendment, but sex discrimination claims still do not get the highest level of judicial scrutiny ("strict scrutiny") that race discrimination claims get. If ERA opponents believe that women already have the full protection of the Constitution through the 14th Amendment, they should have no objection to clarifying that guarantee through the specific wording of the ERA.

Source:

http://www.equalrightsamendment.org/faq.htm

Just admit it, you don't want women to have equal rights.

No, I just don't want superfalous amendments added to the Constitution.  The "male clause" was changed by the 19th Amendment, it only applied to voting.  If you read the Amendment it provides for equal rights for ALL citizens.

This is not a superfalous amendment and the 19th Amendment only addresses the right to VOTE only. That is the only right it addresses to. Why are you so against having our constitution state that women and men are equal in ALL rights? Do you have something against women?

Why is the ERA needed?

    The Equal Rights Amendment affirms that both women and men hold equally all of the rights guaranteed by the U. S. Constitution. It would provide a remedy for sex discrimination for both women and men, and give equal legal status to women for the first time in our country’s history.

    The most important effect of the ERA would be to clarify the status of sex discrimination for the courts, whose decisions still show confusion about how to deal with such claims. For the first time, “sex” would be a suspect classification like race. It would require the same high level of “strict scrutiny” and have to meet the same high level of justification – a “necessary” relation to a “compelling” state interest – as the classification of race.

source: http://www.equalrightsamendment.org/faq.htm

For more detailed information,

http://www.equalrightsamendment.org/why.htm

[ShapeShifter]

The word male only appears in the 14th Amendment in reference to voting.  Soulty is right.  This means that the only rights which are gender specific are voting rights, which was already addressed by the 19th Amendment.  No other mention of gender was made in the 14th Amendment, and it is traditional legal theory to assume that all alternative wordings of law were condidered by the writers and rejecting as wanting.  The writers of the 14th could have made the whole amendment gender specific, but didn't, and we must assume that this decision was deliberate.

In other words, Soulty is right, the 14th protects women as equal.  As to why I oppose an amendment that ony clarifies existing law, it is not, as you suggested, because we hate women.  We understand that the constitution (as htmldon alluded to) is not a plaything for radicals who wish to enshrine their agenda, it is a near-sacred document that is to be kept brief when possible.  When unnecessary laws are passed, liberties can be lost for no gain in return.

I am not a radical and I don't wish to enshrine my "agenda"

That argument of leaving the constitution the way it is - is a weak argument. What if we were back in the early days when it was okay to discriminate against blacks? Someone can use the same arguement of, "no no, we don't need change by radicals" That is simplifying the situation by saying, we don't need to chage the constitution. By the way, is discrimination of someone base on sexual orientation cover by the constitution? I would bet it is not. Would you be against amending the constitution to include gays base on, "no no, these are radicals, we should not let them "soil" our "sacred" document". First off, this "sacred" document is used in the courts of law. It has practical use. It is not some work of art. It is the LAW of the Land.

with that said, I would invite you to consider another passage from the website I have been sourceing. I am not even sure you guys have even been reading it with the arguments you have been presenting.

In practice:

The practical effect of this amendment would be seen most clearly in court deliberations on cases of sex discrimination. For the first time, "sex" would be a suspect classification requiring the same high level of "strict scrutiny" and having to meet the same high level of justification – a "necessary" relation to a "compelling" state interest – that the classification of race currently requires.

The VMI decision now tells courts to exercise "skeptical scrutiny" requiring "exceedingly persuasive" justification of differential treatment on the basis of sex, but prohibition of sex discrimination is still not as strongly enforceable as prohibition of race discrimination. Ironically, under current court decisions about sex and race discrimination, a white male claiming race discrimination by a program or action is protected by strict scrutiny, but a black female claiming sex discrimination by the same program or action is protected by only skeptical, not strict, scrutiny.

We need the ERA to clarify the law for the lower courts, whose decisions still reflect confusion and inconsistency about how to deal with sex discrimination claims. If the ERA were in the Constitution, it would in many cases influence the tone of legal reasoning and decisions regarding women’s equal rights, producing over time a cumulative positive effect.

source: http://www.equalrightsamendment.org/why.htm

On that note, all this debating is really getting me worked up and I think maybe, just maybe ... I should think about pursuing a career in Law. hey, I once did get accepted to medical school.

"The radical of one century is the conservative of the next. The radical invents the views. When he has worn them out the conservative adopts them." - Mark Twain (Notebook, 1898)

[ShapeShifter]

I am not a radical and I don't wish to enshrine my "agenda"

You may not think of yourself as a radical, but you seem to hold a number of positions that are out of the mainstream, ie radical.

That argument of leaving the constitution the way it is - is a weak argument. What if we were back in the early days when it was okay to discriminate against blacks? Someone can use the same arguement of, "no no, we don't need change by radicals" That is simplifying the situation by saying, we don't need to chage the constitution. By the way, is discrimination of someone base on sexual orientation cover by the constitution? I would bet it is not. Would you be against amending the constitution to include gays base on, "no no, these are radicals, we should not let them "soil" our "sacred" document". First off, this "sacred" document is used in the courts of law. It has practical use. It is not some work of art. It is the LAW of the Land.

I never said this.  You are manufacturing quotes and then attributing them to me, and I don't care for it.  Here is what I actually said, "We understand that the constitution (as htmldon alluded to) is not a plaything for radicals who wish to enshrine their agenda, it is a near-sacred document that is to be kept brief when possible.  When unnecessary laws are passed, liberties can be lost for no gain in return."  I said "near-sacred", not "sacred".  My follow up explains why.  "When unnecessary laws are passed, liberties can be lost for no gain in return."  I never said anything about "soil"ing the Constitution, so don't put it in quotes implying that I said it.  I didn't say never to change the Constitution, I said not to change it unless there is a compelling reason.

with that said, I would invite you to consider another passage from the website I have been sourceing. I am not even sure you guys have even been reading it with the arguments you have been presenting.

In practice:

The practical effect of this amendment would be seen most clearly in court deliberations on cases of sex discrimination. For the first time, "sex" would be a suspect classification requiring the same high level of "strict scrutiny" and having to meet the same high level of justification – a "necessary" relation to a "compelling" state interest – that the classification of race currently requires.

We need the ERA to clarify the law for the lower courts, whose decisions still reflect confusion and inconsistency about how to deal with sex discrimination claims. If the ERA were in the Constitution, it would in many cases influence the tone of legal reasoning and decisions regarding women’s equal rights, producing over time a cumulative positive effect.

None of this comes from the Constitution.  "Strict scrutiny", "Compelling state interest", this all comes from judges, who through their interpretations have construed the 14th Amendment to allow for Affirmative Action.  No Constitutional Amendment was needed.  You are making my points for me.  If we don't need an Amendment for Affirmative Action, why would we need one for preferential treatment for women?

As for clearing up lower court decisions, the reason that there is confusion about lower court decisions is usually either a) The plaintiff has a case of dubious merit, or b) The judge can't read.  None of this would be fixed by the ERA, because cases about equal pay usually rely on manipulation of statistics and even in legitimate cases, incompetent judges can still make mistakes.

I never said you said anything. You are the worst person on this board to debate with. This has to be the 20th time you start off by saying, but but but I never said that.

[ShapeShifter]

So let me get this straight, I should let you invent quotes and attribute them to me?

I gave you the actual quote, which is irrefutable evidence that I in fact did NOT say what you said I said.  Try to keep the gloves up.

I was making a point when I made those quote up and never did I say, john ford said this. calm down. jeez. stop jumping to conclusions and debate the substance of the issue and stop using weapons of mass distraction

[ShapeShifter]

So let me get this straight, I should let you invent quotes and attribute them to me?

I gave you the actual quote, which is irrefutable evidence that I in fact did NOT say what you said I said.  Try to keep the gloves up.

I was making a point when I made those quote up and never did I say, john ford said this. calm down. jeez. stop jumping to conclusions and debate the substance of the issue and stop using weapons of mass distraction

are you a rep now?

No!!!! I just like Blue. I always thought Democrats were blue. I don't like Red - makes you look like the devil. Blue is a nice color to the eye - unlike that red. However, I was thinking, maybe I should play the role of a Republican in the future for a day or a week. Personally, I like to explore different point of view.