Congressional Dems to reintroduce ERA?

http://alternet.org/blogs/peek/49860

This could get interesting.

For the "special rights" bullshit from the opposition. If it passes how long until we hear transgender doesn't count via some twisted right wing "logic?"

As I'm sure I don't have to tell anyone posting in this section of the site, the transgendered are possibly the most oppressed people in this country. The FBI no longer even tracks violent crimes against transgendered people, (!) 23 of whom were murdered in 2003. Oh, the "women--and all those 'deficient 'in-between' people' don't 'need' 'special rights'" non-arguments will run rampant.

An ERA is long past due.

ABOUT DAMN TIME

if we can't even require that half the population will not be subject to discrimination.

Phyllis Schfly, who is in the news for criminal idiocy again I see, opposed the ERA, for the usual right wing sexist bullshit. But ALSO, because she thought the wording of the ERA would open the door to Gay marriage/rights. I used to have a link from a conservative site gushing over her wisdom and foresight fighting against the amendment from that point of view.

I would love to see The ERA brought up to the forefront again. And again. And again. Complacency doesn't mean equality-- or liberation, my preferred term.

The opposition to the ERA just astonishes me. It also sickens me, but that's a story for another day.

This must be part of the "radical agenda" we're accused of having. Hmmm.... wanted to be afforded the same rights as men, what a concept. But, don't you know, we *already* have all the same rights as men. It must be that we want to make less money than men. We want to be faced with contempt and disrespect every day. We must enjoy being likened to the worst thing a person can be. (you pussy, you cry like a little girl, "my bitch.") That really must be it. Either you think that's normal or you have a "radical agenda."

The full inclusion of women in America's regime of rights was accomplished in the 20th century without an ERA, a constitutional redundancy that would have added nothing to the guarantees of equal protection of the laws and due process for all "persons." And what mature person thinks the Constitution should be cluttered with consciousness-raising pieties or affirmations, on the theory that, by some mysterious causality, the social climate will be improved?

snip

All amendments generate litigation, but the ERA's purpose is to generate litigation. It is a device to get courts to impose social policies that supporters of the policies cannot persuade legislatures to enact. ERA -- now WEA -- supporters, being politically lazy, prefer the shortcut of litigation to the patient politics necessary to pass legislation.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/30/AR2007033001924.html

So we aren't "mature" and it's "consciousness-raising piety?" Ok I'll just run along then. :eyes: So if we're fully included in rights and it's redundant what's there to litigate George?