"The equality of rights under the law shall not be denied

or abridged by the United States or any state on account of sex.".....

The Equal Rights Amendment, first proposed in 1923, is still not part of the U.S. Constitution.

The ERA has been ratified by 35 of the necessary 38 states. When three more states vote yes, the ERA might become the 28th Amendment.

www.equalrightsamendment.org


I've been thinking alot about this in the last few days, with the issue of reproductive rights brought to the forefront. Of how excited we all became and the sadness that resulted. What happened to us? I, for one, allowed myself to be swept away in raising a family, turning my attention away.

As I prepared to attend the March for Womens Rights in April 2004, I happened to ask my daughter and her friends (17-18 year young women)what they had learned of this in school. They replied that they hadn't heard of it or it was mentioned very little. My daughter accompanied me to DC that day and we SAW how many of us there were in favor of women's rights.

I believe the time could be right to bring THIS issue to the forefront as well. I believe they go hand in hand.

What do you think?

How will this amendment be any different then existing laws regarding discrimination?

Peace

Laws are subject to the ebb and flow of political tides. But once something gets in the Constitution, it is difficult to remove it.

The Supreme Court rules on legality and Constitutionality. Laws do shift with political tides but so do interpretations of the Constitution.

I am not trying to be argumentative but adding an amendment to the Constitution seems uncalled for if existing laws deal with the issues at hand. It would be similar to say adding an amendment against identity theft. There is no need since normal laws deal with the matter.


Peace

After more than a generation of significant advances for women, do we still need the Equal Rights Amendment? The answer is an unqualified yes! Legal sex discrimination is not yet a thing of the past, and the progress of the past 40 years is not irreversible.

Some remaining inequities result more from individual behavior and social practices than from legal discrimination, but they can all be influenced by a strong message that the Constitution has zero tolerance for any form of sex discrimination. Thus, the reasons why we need the ERA are at one level philosophical and symbolic, and at another level very specific and practical.

There really is no need. Political and symbolic gestures should not be part of the Constitution.

because it could become a very good bedrock to base many discrimmination and women's health issues on. As is very obvious by the huge fight in regards to pro-life/pro-choice; emphasis is needed because of the long-reaching effects of a patriarchal society. Why are we still being paid less than men in many circumstances? Obviously the current laws aren't doing the job.I am all for not adding frivilous things to the Constitution, but this one is not. Good idea then; good idea now. Certainly better than a statement of what marriage is.

I agree.

"We have not moved beyond the traditional assumption that males hold rights and females must prove that they hold them."

This sentence pretty much says it for me.

my understanding is that it will give women equal rights under federal law. (I added the link that gives specific info.)
In this country, women do NOT have equal rights-they may at a state level. One poster somewhere along the line mentioned that she lived in a state with equal rights so that was good. This is what got me thinking.....unless all women in all states have equal rights, do women REALLY have equal rights as an American? Please check out the link for more, thanks!

There is:

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/vii.html

The Equal Pay Act of 1963 http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/epa.html

"The Equal Rights Amendment is needed to affirm constitutionally that the bedrock principles of our democracy – "all men are created equal," "liberty and justice for all," "equal justice under law," "government of the people, by the people, and for the people" – apply equally to women.

In principle:

It is necessary to have specific language in the Constitution affirming the principle of equal rights on the basis of sex because for more than two centuries, women have had to fight long and hard political battles to win rights that men possessed automatically because they were male. The first – and still the only – right that the Constitution specifically affirms equally for women and men is the right to vote. Alice Paul introduced the ERA in 1923 to expand that affirmation to all the rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

It was not until as recently as 1971 that the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause was first applied to sex discrimination. Even today, a major distinction between the sexes is present from the moment of birth – the different legal standing of males and females with respect to how their constitutional rights are obtained. As demonstrated in 1996 by the last major Supreme Court decision on sex discrimination, regarding admission of women to Virginia Military Institute (VMI), we have not moved beyond the traditional assumption that males hold rights and females must prove that they hold them. The Equal Rights Amendment would remove that differential assumption by affirming that "equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged . . . on account of sex."


I especially note the phrase "we have not moved beyond the traditional assumption that males hold rights and females must prove that they hold them."

Thank you for your interest in this topic and I'm glad you're asking questions. At the ERA website, there's a FAQ section that is very informative.

I don't even begin to be an expert on this subject, but I've noticed that it's considered pretty much a moot issue at this time - and I'm interested in raising a discussion of whether or not it is, really.

IMHO, I think that the Equal Rights Amendment is still a valid and necessary goal for Americans.

The military seems to be the only place where women have some restrictions but I believe that is rightly so. The military's sole purpose is to kill and destroy. Practical restrictions are necessary.

As for wage disparity, that is illegal using current Federal laws. Passing an Amendment is not going to change the current wages issues. It is not like it will make discrimination any more illegal.

I read over the sight linked and they mentioned ERA would also be symbolic. I am all for women's rights but I do not believe the Constitution should be used for symbolic or political statements. I fail to see how an Amendment will improve anything.

that they have the same rights as men(for wages,or anything),there isn't true equality with men. Why should the burden of proof be on women?

Serious question... We seem to have a difference of opinion and I would like to hear your views.

:kick:

ever in the past 30 years. Well that's my take anyway.
Not symbolic at all.
They do not talk about it in school. In fact I didn't know that it wasn't passed until I was in my 30's.
Sad eh?