Vote Tracker: Equal Rights Amendment

[TJ in Oregon]

Oh TJ, why delete your silly posts?

I felt concerned that said post could be used against me in future litigation on the topic. If this is used as a backdoor method of outlawing Catholicism for refusing to ordain women despite the ERA not having a religious exemption, that post will no longer be around for citing.

That and I realize I will need to leave in half an hour and cannot spend the entire rest of the day arguing and being quoted into the deluge a bunch of times.

[TJ in Oregon]

The thing about this amendment is that if interpreted as many on the center-left argue it should, that it applies to civil unions and government-recognized rights, then it is pointless since those are already guarenteed without regard to gender or sexual orientation anyway. We already have anti-discrimination laws in place for housing, employment, etc. The only way this amendment does anything at all is if it is meant to close exemptions for religious institutions that are written into the current laws but not into the amendment.

[TJ in Oregon]

Oh TJ, why delete your silly posts?

I felt concerned that said post could be used against me in future litigation on the topic. If this is used as a backdoor method of outlawing Catholicism for refusing to ordain women despite the ERA not having a religious exemption, that post will no longer be around for citing.

That and I realize I will need to leave in half an hour and cannot spend the entire rest of the day arguing and being quoted into the deluge a bunch of times.

I can't wait for the Outlawing Catholicism Act of 2012!

You would never be so foolish as to write a bill and call it that. An employment discrimination lawsuit would work much better, especially since it would give you a reason to advocate such (or more likely argue that you are not for outlawing Catholicism persay, but only requiring that the Church not discriminate according to gender in it's hiring practices).

[TJ in Oregon]

It's all part of the evil plan, TJ.

There is no plan, Marokai. It's all about the future emotional response of activists.

Make fun of me all you want, which is quite easy to do clearly and I'm not trying very hard to make it more difficult, but all you need to do is get people stirred up about some supposed right the Church has violated, not altogether unlike the contraception scuffle in the US this year, and then use the guise of "equality" to force the Church to comply. So it's not technically outlawing the Church, just outlawing carrying out it's practices. You aren't outlawing the "Freedom of Worship" as President Obama likes to call it in real life, only the ability to actually carry it out in the manner of the Church which forbids female priests.

In this game, we often pass myopic idealistic laws based on feelings of solidarity with some discriminated against group, but the great fault of this game is that it's players never have to deal with the actual results of the laws they pass. This entire bill, throughout the whole debate, the argument of the left that this amendment would not be interpreted in such a way is just that "we don't want it to be" so everyone should therefor just accept that.

[TJ in Oregon]

How can anyone oppose this ? I wonder what's the absurd conservative rationale that tries to justify opposition to this in a politically correct way (as states rights was for desegregation).

I have yet to hear an opponent speak up and actually sound rational and in their right mind. That isn't to say someone couldn't but the vocal opponents have all managed to make themselves look less intelligent.

And I've yet to hear anyone answer my criticisms by saying something of content beyond "that's absurb" or now with your remark "You're either unintelligent or have a mental disorder".

[TJ in Oregon]

How can anyone oppose this ? I wonder what's the absurd conservative rationale that tries to justify opposition to this in a politically correct way (as states rights was for desegregation).

I have yet to hear an opponent speak up and actually sound rational and in their right mind. That isn't to say someone couldn't but the vocal opponents have all managed to make themselves look less intelligent.

And I've yet to hear anyone answer my criticisms by saying something of content beyond "that's absurb" or now with your remark "You're either unintelligent or have a mental disorder".

I suggest you drop by the Senate debate thread...Senator.

Ouch! That's a burn...

Meanwhile, back to the point of the post--what's the vote total now.

The actual thread sounded rather like this one except the entire argument was about same sex bathrooms instead of religious organizations hiring women. The argument is based on the amendments proponents repeating over and over again how the effect of the amendment in question is "ridiculous" or some synonym of it, without explaining how this would differ from the case given whether it be same sex bathrooms or religious organizations hiring women. The AG has inferred, although I cannot find a direct statement (I admit I never directly asked) the amendment is not intended to apply to religious organizations. That being said, amendments can be applied in ways other than the way in which they are intended. In Atlasia, the constitution is worded such that the Supreme Court must consider the literal meaning of the constitution rather than an implied meaning, so the possibility of an unexpected consequence is reduced in part. Yet if such an interpretation of the amendment's meaning is possible, the possibility that the court could rule such remains. No opinion has been given at all, save perhaps Scott's about "age old law", which explains why this text should not be interpreted to force the Catholic Church to hire women or why it does not invalidate the Atlasia-modified version of thew 1964 Civil Rights Act since it exempts religious institutions and this amendment does not.

I will admit I was a poor senator with regards to this; I never persued the question once the senate argument turned to same sex bathrooms. This was in part because I made the mistake of assuming this far-reaching nature of this amendment was problematic enough that it would fail much like the real life ERA failed, in part because of real life time contstraints like moving, in part because the bills supporters voted against every amendment given, and lastly in part because I'd have rather avoided this sort of confrontation if possible. I am no longer a senator for the very same real life reasons.

Now that I've shown my unintelligence and that I am not in my right mind, the amendment passed. It's over. Since this is a game and not real life, the issue is largely unimportant and our zero female members are unlikely to sue for employment discrimination.