ERA

[PBrunsel]

I side with Phylis Schafley. No to ERA!

[StevenNick]

Phylis is kind of inspiring, isn't she?

[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?

[PBrunsel]

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.

[PBrunsel]

Phylis is kind of inspiring, isn't she?

Yes, she is.

[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?

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

NO.

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

[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"

[StevenNick]

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.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

I'm against using the US Constitution as toilet paper to wipe the asses of left or right-wing extremists.

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]

[Nym90]

I vote yes.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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???

[dunn]

maybe the 15th amendment should include the word gender - amend the XV 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.

[The Dowager Mod]

wanna guess how i voted?

[PBrunsel]

wanna guess how i voted?

You voted "Yes."

[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.

[The Dowager Mod]

i'd burn my bra but their too damn exspensive.

[KEmperor]

What I find interesting is that despite the fact that women make up the majority of the population, this still failed.

[PBrunsel]

i'd burn my bra but their too damn exspensive.

Can't waste good money!

[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.