STOP! Equal Rights Amendment

Tsukasa Buddha · 1st May 2007, 03:29 PM

I received this in the mail today. It is a flyer against the Equal Rights Amendment.

I can't believe how much support the anti-ERA people have. Everyone in my class was shocked that the ERA wasn't ratified before. Do they have a point?

Quote:

ERA would require women to be equally assigned to all combat positions in the military (and to be drafted if Rep. Charles Rangel succeeds in his bill to reinstate the draft).

Well, it has been my long-held and poorly thought out belief that women should be included in the draft if the sexes are treated equally under the law.

Quote:

ERA would legalize same-sex marriages.

Would it really? That would be awesome!

Quote:

Don’t take a chance on ERA mischief – or on what activist judges can do to interpret ERA.

lol. This makes them sound like moronic conservatives.

WildCat · 1st May 2007, 03:46 PM

Originally Posted by Tsukasa Buddha

I can't believe how much support the anti-ERA people have.

Because it was redundant. The Constitution already applies equally to either sex.

Quote:

Everyone in my class was shocked that the ERA wasn't ratified before. Do they have a point?

Do they not require you to learn about the Constitution in your state?

And whoever wrote that flyer was an idiot.

mr rosewater · 1st May 2007, 04:24 PM

Amendment 14, do women want rights above men?

carlvs · 1st May 2007, 04:40 PM

Originally Posted by WildCat

Because it was redundant. The Constitution already applies equally to either sex.

Quite right - just as we did not need to have the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments added because blacks were already mentioned in the Constitution...

WildCat · 1st May 2007, 05:04 PM

Originally Posted by carlvs

Quite right - just as we did not need to have the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments added because blacks were already mentioned in the Constitution...

Sadly, blacks weren't considered "people" by many at that point in our history. The same cannot be said of women today.

The ERA is a solution in search of a problem.

skeptifem · 1st May 2007, 05:13 PM

Originally Posted by WildCat

Sadly, blacks weren't considered "people" by many at that point in our history. The same cannot be said of women today.

evidence? oh wait, its pretty much impossible to prove that. I think you are incorrect though. i dont think its a coincidence that women are the victims of most violent crimes.

WildCat · 1st May 2007, 05:18 PM

Originally Posted by nails3jesus0

evidence? oh wait, its pretty much impossible to prove that. I think you are incorrect though. i dont think its a coincidence that women are the victims of most violent crimes.

Non-sequitur.

skeptifem · 1st May 2007, 05:18 PM

Originally Posted by WildCat

Because it was redundant. The Constitution already applies equally to either sex.

i dont understand- are you saying there is no need for more laws to promote equality

because there are a lot of things that arent equal as they are now.

skeptifem · 1st May 2007, 05:20 PM

Originally Posted by WildCat

Non-sequitur.

I dont think its fair to state an unverifiable opinion as a fact, especially when there are every day events that suggest the opposite. thats all i was trying to say.

WildCat · 1st May 2007, 05:31 PM

Originally Posted by nails3jesus0

I dont think its fair to state an unverifiable opinion as a fact, especially when there are every day events that suggest the opposite. thats all i was trying to say.

We're talking about equal rights in the eyes of the law. Women have that, you showing evidence that some individuals feel different is not applicable.

Alt+F4 · 1st May 2007, 06:24 PM

Originally Posted by Tsukasa Buddha

I received this in the mail today. It is a flyer against the Equal Rights Amendment.

You've had email since 1982....cool!

Seriously though, isn't this dead horse totally decayed?

Dr Adequate · 2nd May 2007, 06:03 AM

Originally Posted by WildCat

Because it was redundant. The Constitution already applies equally to either sex.

The anti-ERA people have a lot of support ... because the ERA has no effect whatsoever?

What?

Steven Howard · 2nd May 2007, 09:35 AM

The proposed Amendment in question is quite short:

Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.

A lot of people now say that this is redundant, that the Fourteenth Amendment's "equal protection" clause applies to sex. For a century courts routinely held that this was not the case, but in 1971's Reed v. Reed the Supreme Court found that the section of Idaho's probate code giving men precedence over women in administering estates was in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Let's take a quick look, though, at the most recent (to my recollection, anyway) sex discrimination case to reach the Supreme Court: United States v. Virginia, in which the court held that Virginia could not exclude women from the Virginia Military Institute.

Just looking at the end result -- Virginia lost -- might lead us to conclude that therefore the Fourteenth Amendment does prohibit sex discrimination on the part of the government. But reading further, we see that the court actually ruled that governments may discriminate solely on the basis of sex as long as they have a really good reason. (Or, in the actual words of the court, quoting from earlier opinions, an "exceedingly persuasive justification.") The court in this case didn't find Virginia's justification exceedingly persuasive -- persuasive maybe, but not exceedingly so. The court goes on to specify what sort of justification would be exceedingly persuasive: sex discrimination has to serve "important governmental objectives", and can't be based on "overbroad generalizations about the different talents, capacities, or preferences of males and females."

All of which is perfectly reasonable, and I don't have a problem in principle with the court's decision, but it's important to note that the majority opinion explicitly points out that: "The heightened review standard our precedent establishes does not make sex a proscribed classification" (as race and national origin are).

The ERA, obviously, would make sex a proscribed classification. Whether that's a good or bad idea is a topic on which intelligent and reasonable persons may disagree, but it's just plain incorrect to say that the ERA would be redundant with the current interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment.

JoeTheJuggler · 2nd May 2007, 09:51 AM

Also, I can remember the campaign against the ERA, and their argument wasn't that the ERA would be redundant.

Their arguments were much more along the lines of the flyer in the OP. We can't have the Feds taking control away from the States--surely the States have a right to enact discriminatory laws. . . .

I remember reading a Phyllis Schlafly opinion piece about women in the military. She made an argument that somehow there was different morality between men and women--it's OK for men to kill, but not for women.

The ERA was not defeated because people thought it was legally innocuous or redundant.

Sir Robin Goodfellow · 2nd May 2007, 11:38 AM

Did you get an E-mail about the last episode of M*A*S*H too?

Dancing David · 2nd May 2007, 11:49 AM

I would hope that they start the whole process over again. they should not just try to revieve the last amendment. Follow the rules. Saying that there should be no discrimination based upon gender needs to go through the whole process again.

The eagle Fdorum, isn't that Phyliss Schafley?

brodski · 2nd May 2007, 11:56 AM

Originally Posted by nails3jesus0

evidence? oh wait, its pretty much impossible to prove that. I think you are incorrect though. i dont think its a coincidence that women are the victims of most violent crimes.

Well the fact that they where only considered 3/5ths of a "person" for census purposes shows that each individual black American slave was not considered a "person" by the constitution. Although collectively I suppose they were considered "people", just a lesser form of person.

brodski · 2nd May 2007, 12:08 PM

Originally Posted by Dr Adequate

The anti-ERA people have a lot of support ... because the ERA has no effect whatsoever?

What?

Americans tend to be very protective of their constitution, taking a “if it ain’t broke don’t fix it” approach. Which seems reasonable to me, the whole point of “rights” being enshrined in a codified constitution is that it makes it difficult for eth majority to take away (or alter) the “rights” of others.

Only 27 amendments in almost 220 years, (one of which does nothing except repel another amendment and ten of which where passed simultaneously soon after the signing and are generally considered for all practical purposes to be part of the original document) - demonstrates just how seriously US citizens take changing their constitution.
Given this I can see plenty of people objecting to an amendment, and objecting very strongly, just on the grounds that it would have no effect whatsoever.

1st May 2007, 03:29 PM	#1
Tsukasa Buddha Other (please write in) Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: NeverLand Posts: 9,920	STOP! Equal Rights Amendment I received this in the mail today. It is a flyer against the Equal Rights Amendment. I can't believe how much support the anti-ERA people have. Everyone in my class was shocked that the ERA wasn't ratified before. Do they have a point? Quote: ERA would require women to be equally assigned to all combat positions in the military (and to be drafted if Rep. Charles Rangel succeeds in his bill to reinstate the draft). Well, it has been my long-held and poorly thought out belief that women should be included in the draft if the sexes are treated equally under the law. Quote: ERA would legalize same-sex marriages. Would it really? That would be awesome! Quote: Don’t take a chance on ERA mischief – or on what activist judges can do to interpret ERA. lol. This makes them sound like moronic conservatives.
	__________________ As cultural anthropologists have always said "human culture" = "human nature". You might as well put a fish on the moon to test how it "swims naturally" without the "influence of water". -Earthborn

1st May 2007, 04:24 PM	#3
mr rosewater Muse Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 610	Amendment 14, do women want rights above men?
mr rosewater Muse Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 610

1st May 2007, 04:40 PM	#4
carlvs Thinker Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 185	Originally Posted by WildCat Because it was redundant. The Constitution already applies equally to either sex. Quite right - just as we did not need to have the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments added because blacks were already mentioned in the Constitution...
carlvs Thinker Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 185

1st May 2007, 06:24 PM	#11
Alt+F4 diabolical globalist Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Department of Abandoned Places Posts: 9,780	Originally Posted by Tsukasa Buddha I received this in the mail today. It is a flyer against the Equal Rights Amendment. You've had email since 1982....cool! Seriously though, isn't this dead horse totally decayed?
	__________________ "My folks touched a lot of kids." - Jerry Sandusky

2nd May 2007, 09:35 AM	#13
Steven Howard Custom Title Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Long Beach, California Posts: 1,798	The proposed Amendment in question is quite short: Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex. A lot of people now say that this is redundant, that the Fourteenth Amendment's "equal protection" clause applies to sex. For a century courts routinely held that this was not the case, but in 1971's Reed v. Reed the Supreme Court found that the section of Idaho's probate code giving men precedence over women in administering estates was in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Let's take a quick look, though, at the most recent (to my recollection, anyway) sex discrimination case to reach the Supreme Court: United States v. Virginia, in which the court held that Virginia could not exclude women from the Virginia Military Institute. Just looking at the end result -- Virginia lost -- might lead us to conclude that therefore the Fourteenth Amendment does prohibit sex discrimination on the part of the government. But reading further, we see that the court actually ruled that governments may discriminate solely on the basis of sex as long as they have a really good reason. (Or, in the actual words of the court, quoting from earlier opinions, an "exceedingly persuasive justification.") The court in this case didn't find Virginia's justification exceedingly persuasive -- persuasive maybe, but not exceedingly so. The court goes on to specify what sort of justification would be exceedingly persuasive: sex discrimination has to serve "important governmental objectives", and can't be based on "overbroad generalizations about the different talents, capacities, or preferences of males and females." All of which is perfectly reasonable, and I don't have a problem in principle with the court's decision, but it's important to note that the majority opinion explicitly points out that: "The heightened review standard our precedent establishes does not make sex a proscribed classification" (as race and national origin are). The ERA, obviously, would make sex a proscribed classification. Whether that's a good or bad idea is a topic on which intelligent and reasonable persons may disagree, but it's just plain incorrect to say that the ERA would be redundant with the current interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment.
	__________________ See also:LiveJournal flickr Last edited by Steven Howard; 2nd May 2007 at 09:37 AM. Reason: "exceedlingly", while fun to say, is not a word

1st May 2007, 03:46 PM	#2
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Albany Park, Chicago Posts: 49,111	Originally Posted by Tsukasa Buddha I can't believe how much support the anti-ERA people have. Because it was redundant. The Constitution already applies equally to either sex. Quote: Everyone in my class was shocked that the ERA wasn't ratified before. Do they have a point? Do they not require you to learn about the Constitution in your state? And whoever wrote that flyer was an idiot.

1st May 2007, 05:04 PM	#5
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Albany Park, Chicago Posts: 49,111	Originally Posted by carlvs Quite right - just as we did not need to have the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments added because blacks were already mentioned in the Constitution... Sadly, blacks weren't considered "people" by many at that point in our history. The same cannot be said of women today. The ERA is a solution in search of a problem.

1st May 2007, 05:13 PM	#6
skeptifem is not beauty 2K compliant Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 3,259	Originally Posted by WildCat Sadly, blacks weren't considered "people" by many at that point in our history. The same cannot be said of women today. evidence? oh wait, its pretty much impossible to prove that. I think you are incorrect though. i dont think its a coincidence that women are the victims of most violent crimes.

1st May 2007, 05:18 PM	#7
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Albany Park, Chicago Posts: 49,111	Originally Posted by nails3jesus0 evidence? oh wait, its pretty much impossible to prove that. I think you are incorrect though. i dont think its a coincidence that women are the victims of most violent crimes. Non-sequitur.

1st May 2007, 05:20 PM	#9
skeptifem is not beauty 2K compliant Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 3,259	Originally Posted by WildCat Non-sequitur. I dont think its fair to state an unverifiable opinion as a fact, especially when there are every day events that suggest the opposite. thats all i was trying to say.

1st May 2007, 05:31 PM	#10
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Albany Park, Chicago Posts: 49,111	Originally Posted by nails3jesus0 I dont think its fair to state an unverifiable opinion as a fact, especially when there are every day events that suggest the opposite. thats all i was trying to say. We're talking about equal rights in the eyes of the law. Women have that, you showing evidence that some individuals feel different is not applicable.

2nd May 2007, 06:03 AM	#12
Dr Adequate Banned Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Waiting Long Enough By The River Posts: 17,897	Originally Posted by WildCat Because it was redundant. The Constitution already applies equally to either sex. The anti-ERA people have a lot of support ... because the ERA has no effect whatsoever? What?

2nd May 2007, 09:51 AM	#14
JoeTheJuggler Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: St. Louis Posts: 26,833	Also, I can remember the campaign against the ERA, and their argument wasn't that the ERA would be redundant. Their arguments were much more along the lines of the flyer in the OP. We can't have the Feds taking control away from the States--surely the States have a right to enact discriminatory laws. . . . I remember reading a Phyllis Schlafly opinion piece about women in the military. She made an argument that somehow there was different morality between men and women--it's OK for men to kill, but not for women. The ERA was not defeated because people thought it was legally innocuous or redundant.
	__________________ "That is a very graphic analogy which aids understanding wonderfully while being, strictly speaking, wrong in every possible way." —Ponder Stibbons

2nd May 2007, 11:38 AM	#15
Sir Robin Goodfellow Master Poster Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Estevan (wear da fox hat) Posts: 2,751	Did you get an E-mail about the last episode of MAS*H too?

2nd May 2007, 11:49 AM	#16
Dancing David Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Central Illinois Posts: 34,729	I would hope that they start the whole process over again. they should not just try to revieve the last amendment. Follow the rules. Saying that there should be no discrimination based upon gender needs to go through the whole process again. The eagle Fdorum, isn't that Phyliss Schafley?
	__________________ Hell, dynamiting fish in a barrel is more challenging. - Ladewig I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager

2nd May 2007, 11:56 AM	#17
brodski Tea-Time toad Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 15,089	Originally Posted by nails3jesus0 evidence? oh wait, its pretty much impossible to prove that. I think you are incorrect though. i dont think its a coincidence that women are the victims of most violent crimes. Well the fact that they where only considered 3/5ths of a "person" for census purposes shows that each individual black American slave was not considered a "person" by the constitution. Although collectively I suppose they were considered "people", just a lesser form of person.
brodski Tea-Time toad Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 15,089

2nd May 2007, 12:08 PM	#18
brodski Tea-Time toad Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 15,089	Originally Posted by Dr Adequate The anti-ERA people have a lot of support ... because the ERA has no effect whatsoever? What? Americans tend to be very protective of their constitution, taking a “if it ain’t broke don’t fix it” approach. Which seems reasonable to me, the whole point of “rights” being enshrined in a codified constitution is that it makes it difficult for eth majority to take away (or alter) the “rights” of others. Only 27 amendments in almost 220 years, (one of which does nothing except repel another amendment and ten of which where passed simultaneously soon after the signing and are generally considered for all practical purposes to be part of the original document) - demonstrates just how seriously US citizens take changing their constitution. Given this I can see plenty of people objecting to an amendment, and objecting very strongly, just on the grounds that it would have no effect whatsoever.
brodski Tea-Time toad Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 15,089