ERA

[12th Doctor]

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.

[12th Doctor]

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.

[12th Doctor]

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.

[12th Doctor]

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.

[12th Doctor]

Whether or not you want an amendment, we're still a ways away from true equality -- if that's even possible.

Your right about that.  Personaly, I believe that me and women are "equals" though not "equal" if you understand what I mean?

[12th Doctor]

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

But the part that mentions "male" also ONLY addressed the right to vote.  That was my point.  The part that states equal pertection applies to ALL citizens.