Full Version: The Equal Rights Amendment
I am truly and honestly confused about the "stalled" Equal Rights Amendment, for Women, but for everyone while we are at it. I would greatly apprediate anyone who wishes to, to please comment and/or cuss to get me educated on this! Is it because the right has with it an uncomfortable reposibility? Is it a form of bigotry? Is there some hidden issue I don't seem to know about, or understand? Why aree so many "strongly opinionated women" seemingly so opposed to it? What's going on????!!!! 
Question for Debate:
Why do we, or would we ever, not have an equal rights guarantee for women, as well as for all others who might not feel covered!
Question for Debate:
Why do we, or would we ever, not have an equal rights guarantee for women, as well as for all others who might not feel covered!
Why do we, or would we ever, not have an equal rights guarantee for women, as well as for all others who might not feel covered!
That's a pretty broad question, but I'll try to answer it as well as I can.
First of all, let's just deal with the Equal Rights Amendment itself.
Link
Looks pretty simple, and not terribly controversial to me. So why is it not part of the Constitution?
It was so uncontroversial, in fact, that support for it was part of the official platforms of both major political parties from the 1940's until 1980.
Go GOP! Why were the Democrats late to the party? Well, probably due to the fact that the main opposition to the ERA, in the early days, came from organized labor.
But some years later this opposition faded away.
So what happened? Well, the New Right (not quite the same, but closely allied to, the Religious Right) began to rear its head in the late 1970's. Some of the credit or blame for killing the ERA can be given to one woman.
There was opposition from other forces, too.
1980 comes around, with the Reagan Revolution, and the GOP tosses support for the ERA out of its platform. This marks the beginning of the uneasy marriage between the Republican Party and the Religious Right, which continues to have a strong influence on American conservatism.
In my opinion, the most important factor in the defeat of the ERA was the one I have bolded above. The astonishing rise of the Religious Right, and social conservatism in general, during the late 1970's and 1980's is, I think, the main reason for the loss of the ERA. The typical fundamentalist or social conservative believes that it is right and proper for the law to treat the sexes differently in many ways. Although there are some very limited circumstances where this cannot be avoided (men cannot become pregnant, as of 2007), I beg to differ, and I believe that the sexes should be treated equally by the law whenever possible. The ERA is pretty much dead, but this issue can be addressed state by state.
As far as "all others who might feel covered," well, that depends on what you mean. It has been made abundantly clear, for example, that there would be minimal support for a Constitutional amendment forbidding legal discrimination based on sexual orientation. Those of us who support such things can only take very small steps, state by state or community by community, or even one heart at a time.
The ERA would be Constitutional law right now if the Constitution were not so very hard to amend. Experience tells us that the difficulty of amending the Constitution is a good thing; take a look at the mess that is a typical state constitution to convince yourself of this. The loss of the ERA is a bitter price to pay for this, but I would not have it any other way.
That's a pretty broad question, but I'll try to answer it as well as I can.
First of all, let's just deal with the Equal Rights Amendment itself.
QUOTE
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.
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.
Link
Looks pretty simple, and not terribly controversial to me. So why is it not part of the Constitution?
It was so uncontroversial, in fact, that support for it was part of the official platforms of both major political parties from the 1940's until 1980.
QUOTE
In the early 1940s, the Republican Party and then the Democratic Party added support of the Equal Rights Amendment to their platforms.
Go GOP! Why were the Democrats late to the party? Well, probably due to the fact that the main opposition to the ERA, in the early days, came from organized labor.
QUOTE
. . . reformers who had worked for protective labor laws that treated women differently from men were afraid that the ERA would wipe out the progress they had made.
But some years later this opposition faded away.
QUOTE
In the 1960s, over a century after the fight to end slavery fostered the first wave of the women’s rights movement, the civil rights battles of the time provided an impetus for the second wave. Women organized to demand their birthright as citizens and persons, and the Equal Rights Amendment rather than the right to vote became the central symbol of the struggle.
Finally, organized labor and an increasingly large number of mainstream groups joined the call for the ERA, and politicians reacted to the power of organized women’s voices in a way they had not done since the battle for the vote.
The Equal Rights Amendment passed the U.S. Senate and then the House of Representatives, and on March 22, 1972, the proposed 27th Amendment to the Constitution was sent to the states for ratification.
. . .
Like the 19th Amendment before it, the ERA barreled out of Congress, getting 22 of the necessary 38 state ratifications in the first year.
Finally, organized labor and an increasingly large number of mainstream groups joined the call for the ERA, and politicians reacted to the power of organized women’s voices in a way they had not done since the battle for the vote.
The Equal Rights Amendment passed the U.S. Senate and then the House of Representatives, and on March 22, 1972, the proposed 27th Amendment to the Constitution was sent to the states for ratification.
. . .
Like the 19th Amendment before it, the ERA barreled out of Congress, getting 22 of the necessary 38 state ratifications in the first year.
So what happened? Well, the New Right (not quite the same, but closely allied to, the Religious Right) began to rear its head in the late 1970's. Some of the credit or blame for killing the ERA can be given to one woman.
QUOTE
Arguments by ERA opponents such as Phyllis Schlafly, right-wing leader of the Eagle Forum/STOP ERA, played on the same fears that had generated female opposition to woman suffrage. Anti-ERA organizers claimed that the ERA would deny woman’s right to be supported by her husband, privacy rights would be overturned, women would be sent into combat, and abortion rights and homosexual marriages would be upheld.
There was opposition from other forces, too.
QUOTE
States’-rights advocates said the ERA was a federal power grab, and business interests such as the insurance industry opposed a measure they believed would cost them money. Opposition to the ERA was also organized by fundamentalist religious groups.
1980 comes around, with the Reagan Revolution, and the GOP tosses support for the ERA out of its platform. This marks the beginning of the uneasy marriage between the Republican Party and the Religious Right, which continues to have a strong influence on American conservatism.
In my opinion, the most important factor in the defeat of the ERA was the one I have bolded above. The astonishing rise of the Religious Right, and social conservatism in general, during the late 1970's and 1980's is, I think, the main reason for the loss of the ERA. The typical fundamentalist or social conservative believes that it is right and proper for the law to treat the sexes differently in many ways. Although there are some very limited circumstances where this cannot be avoided (men cannot become pregnant, as of 2007), I beg to differ, and I believe that the sexes should be treated equally by the law whenever possible. The ERA is pretty much dead, but this issue can be addressed state by state.
As far as "all others who might feel covered," well, that depends on what you mean. It has been made abundantly clear, for example, that there would be minimal support for a Constitutional amendment forbidding legal discrimination based on sexual orientation. Those of us who support such things can only take very small steps, state by state or community by community, or even one heart at a time.
The ERA would be Constitutional law right now if the Constitution were not so very hard to amend. Experience tells us that the difficulty of amending the Constitution is a good thing; take a look at the mess that is a typical state constitution to convince yourself of this. The loss of the ERA is a bitter price to pay for this, but I would not have it any other way.
QUOTE
Why do we, or would we ever, not have an equal rights guarantee for women, as well as for all others who might not feel covered!
The ERA and other pieces of legislation of its ilk are completely pointless for one simple reason. Women and every other group imaginable are already protected by the Constitution.QUOTE(14th Amendment)
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
ALL PERSONS born or naturalized are guarenteed equal protection under the law. The ERA wasn't passed because it would be redundant.CP
QUOTE(ConservPat @ May 28 2007, 10:56 PM) 
The ERA and other pieces of legislation of its ilk are completely pointless for one simple reason. Women and every other group imaginable are already protected by the Constitution. The ERA wasn't passed because it would be redundant.
It's completely pointless all right. As I read it, the thing isn't worth the bytes on the screen. The amendment isn't inclusive enough. Sure, if it's passed it may screw up the Supreme Court's heightened scrutiny test in sex discrimination cases, but that's a minor consideration. The dust has settled in hate crime legislation, and while defendants charged with murdering or injuring others on the basis of the victim's race, gender, religion, etc. face longer sentences, hate crime legislation doesn't grant minorities equal rights.
Moose Lodge v. Irvis (1972) is still the law of the land. You can be refused service in private establishments for being black. The Tennessee house of representatives voted to "declar[e] in effect that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is permissible in some places that serve alcoholic beverages" (the Dunn amendment). (Gotta protect straight men from horny drunk gay men by making sure they don't saunter into the bathroom.) People who say the ERA isn't necessary because everyone's constitutional rights are protected need to footnote that with the acknowledgment that constitutional protection itself is limited. Now we could argue about the role of government in the private sector until the troops come home, but I think it's past due for Title VII of 1964's Civil Rights Act to include sexual orientation and political affiliation—or it should be scrapped. If the feds are going to meddle in private hiring practices, it should meddle completely or not at all.
As far as the ERA, I'm more hesitant about it as written. One reason is I don't like amending the Constitution. You can't take amendments back, or it's very hard to do so. Secondly, because the sections are extremely vague it may end up being interpreted as useless as the privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and not worth the fight, or worse, it may be interpreted as broadly as the due process clause.
QUOTE(Lek @ May 22 2007, 05:24 PM)
Why do we, or would we ever, not have an equal rights guarantee for women, as well as for all others who might not feel covered!
I think the important thing to note is the Fourteenth Amendment already protects ALL citizens.
QUOTE
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
I think the matter then becomes not needing another amendment to the Constitution, but rather enforcing and making sure the Fourteenth Amendment is recognized. I'll agree that many groups don't feel like they are protected, but it's not the fault of the Constitution. Just closeminded people.
QUOTE(Grayson @ May 29 2007, 07:21 PM)
QUOTE(Lek @ May 22 2007, 05:24 PM)
Why do we, or would we ever, not have an equal rights guarantee for women, as well as for all others who might not feel covered!
I think the important thing to note is the Fourteenth Amendment already protects ALL citizens.
QUOTE
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
I think the matter then becomes not needing another amendment to the Constitution, but rather enforcing and making sure the Fourteenth Amendment is recognized. I'll agree that many groups don't feel like they are protected, but it's not the fault of the Constitution. Just closeminded people.
The 19th Amendment
QUOTE
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 sex. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
If the 14th Amendment granted everyone equal protection under the law then why was the 19th Amendment needed?
Does not the passage of the 15th and 19th Amendments prove that the 14th did not guarantee equal rights for all Americans?
Deng...Simply put, it wasn't. If all people are guarenteed equal access to the privileges and immunities of all other naturalized citizens, the 19th Amendment was a simple enumeration of the rights granted to women [and everyone] by the 14th Amendment.
CP
CP
QUOTE(ConservPat @ May 30 2007, 02:24 AM)
Deng...Simply put, it wasn't. If all people are guarenteed equal access to the privileges and immunities of all other naturalized citizens, the 19th Amendment was a simple enumeration of the rights granted to women [and everyone] by the 14th Amendment.
CP
CP
Then why could women not vote between 1866 and 1920 in most states? Why was the 15th Amendment needed?
Because courts and the American public wrongly decided that preventing women from voting did not constitute unequal treatment under the law. The Amendment was added as a concrete, irrevocable statement that women have the right to vote...It took the power of the courts to wrongly interpret the 14th Amendment away.
CP
CP
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.