House & Senate Dems Vow To REINTRODUCE Equal Rights Amendment!

Twenty-five-years after it failed to be ratified by three-quarters of state legislatures to become a Constitutional Amendment (and eighty-four years after it was first introduced in Congress), the Equal Rights Amendment -- now known as the Women's Equality Amendment -- is having a resurgence.





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

I've been waiting for sooooooooooooooooo long.

And for those of us who fought so hard for this decades ago, this is LONG overdue.

It's shameful that there even needs to be discussion over ratifying this.

:woohoo:

against because I'm a woman who is also a mother. Can they make that illegal? I was told point blank twice. We have issues hiring you because you have a child. I'm not even a single mother!

It was hotly debated at the time, but it seems like a no-brainer now (except to the fundies).

Wow, that would be just amazing. I'd be proud of America again if they pull that off.

:-)

on Washington Journal this morning, but wasn't sure and posted a thread asking about it. I have my ERA button still on my bulletin board, and it is lovingly polished regularly, along with a button from a conference in Omaha that has a ca. 1920s couple on it dancing with the woman leading and the caption "Because we're tired of dancing backwards."

I need to talk to my daughter, and she needs to get behind this too. For her generation and for her daughters.

WE Act!!! WE act, WE don't react!

I've been hoping it would happen in this Congress, the timing is perfect.

Can't have women on an equal basis with men. Who would bake the cookies?

...I was also envisioning General Wesley Clark taking the oath of office in 2009...let's hope that comes to pass as well...

:kick:

Let's do the happy dance!

:bounce: :bounce: :woohoo: :woohoo: :bounce: :bounce:

:woohoo:

There was no precedent for a deadline. Like they were never serious in the first place.

I've been waiting my whole damn life!

YES. YES. YES.

"sex" should read gender, and "sexual orientation" should be included.

Still, if the first amendment could be ratified with its vague language, then why not this one.

Words have gender, people have sex (in both the active and the passive sense). This "gender" applied to people came about because people didn't want to say "sex," I guess.

Well of course sexual orientation should be included, as should any other characteristic that people are born with and that isn't hurting anyone else. That would be the ideal. I'd also like the entire Bush cabal out of office when I snap my fingers, please.... ;)

My mother campaigned for this. I cut my youthful (10 yrs in '73) political teeth at her local League of Women voters meetings where they would discuss this, watergate, and the enviroment. Seems like a no-brainer now. It would certainly be an interesting balloon to float to see if pew is right and we really have gotten more progressive over the last 30 years. My mom is unfortunately dead, but so are a raft of ignorant female relatives who were freaked aou at the mere mention of 'unisex bathrooms' (yeah, that was the hot button...how many establishments these days only have one? I think we're over it, they happened without legislation :) )

Stating the obvious, I hope... :sarcasm:

Seriously I am shocked - in a very good way - for this to even be mentioned! This is long over due!!!

From women who think it'll force them to go to work as opposed to staying home with the kids, etc. Be prepared for a lot of resistance!

:kick:

This was before my time and I never had it discussed in history class before.

I gather it's a very good thing, but what exactly does this do? What does it change?

There are very few other laws at the Federal or state level that discriminate between men and women.

It would put women INTO the Constitution, so that the "all men are created equal," would mean us too. (That phrase is from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution, but still....)

It would probably mean that birth control pills would be covered by insurance companies which now only cover Viagra. It would mean that insurance companies couldn't discriminate in the coverage of women -- and the Social Security Administration as well. And pension plans. Women tend to be unfairly treated under all these because we live longer, as a group. These various plans are authorized by state or federal law.

It could mean an end to anti-abortion efforts.

It would probably mean that new medicines be properly tested on women -- they aren't, as a rule, since our physiology is so much more "complicated" than men's.

It definitely means full parity in education -- everywhere (well, perhaps not private, but then there aren't many private schools that don't get govt funds somewhere along the line).

It could actually mean we are people too, under the Constitution. Whadya think about THAT?

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

Making women eligible for conscription is the biggest effect those words will have on the country. Plus maybe more equal treatment of men and women in divorce cases.

Americans don't seem to mind sending their sons off to useless wars, but what about their daughters?

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

I can't think of very many Federal or state laws that that explicitly discriminate on the basis of sex besides the Selective Service Act and all the subsequent regulations and directives that derive from its authority. Basically it says that only men need apply for the draft, so we can assume that only men will ever be drafted under the present legal regime.

When the issue of discrimination in the Selective Service law went to the Supreme Court, in Rostker v. Goldberg, the SCOTUS ruled that it was okay for Congress to require men and not women to register for the draft.

If "Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex," was amended to our Constitution, it is hard to see how a ruling like that could stand.

Ergo, the most obvious concrete result of an Equal Rights Amendment that I can think of would be a requirement that women as well as men registered with the Selective Service Administration, and that if and when conscription were reintroduced, both men and women would be drafted.

I really can't think of anything else that would change significantly.

(not that I agree with that), I'd still be for the ERA.

Besides the draft registration.

that's still remedying discrimination.

I'm assuming you are arguing against the ERA because that's all (you say) it will change? (If I am misinterpreting here, then my comments are moot.)

Again, not drafting women, if there *is* a draft, is in fact discrimination. And could and would be used to justify more discrimination, IMHO.

Edited to add: Where are my manners...!

Welcome to DU! :hi:

I just don't see the point.

I am glad that it is very difficult to amend the Constitution. I wonder, however, whether the political capital needed to push through an ERA might be better spent elsewhere.

On the other hand, as I suggested with my initial post, an ERA would suddenly make conscription FAR less palatable to Americans than it is now. This, of course, would be a Good Thing. In fact, an ERA might make conscription politically impossible.

And thank you for the welcome.

the late republic congress. Finally a proposition to expand rights rather than restrict rights.

Next retread I wish for: The Fairness Doctrine.

GO BLUE!

I'd take that *first*. Can't change anything if you can't get the word out. Next I'd take total public financing of all campaigns. Then we could get on to the secondary stuff. (Not as in secondary *importance*, but as in what depends on what.)

:bounce:

Will it be embraced by the other side? :shrug:

"Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex."
I'm looking forward to this! It's about time.:applause:

in this country there would be no need to debate such a thing.

I can just see the Eagle Forum and the Concerned Women for America and the other kool-ade peddlers gearing up for action...prepare for fear-mongering, lies, and smear campaigns...the Holy Trinity of the Reich Wing...

Look at the arab countries. Saudi women are not allowed out without a male companion, they are not allowed to drive a car.

With the globalization we are seeing today, our status needs to be written down somewhere so we can point to it and say to our Indian or Arab or Chinese boss, "You can't treat me that way unless you also treat the male employees that way." It is against the law in this country. The ERA goes beyond equal employment laws.

Personally, I'd have thought this to be a slam-dunk, but when I posted this on another (non-political) board, these were the responses I got:

"Wait, how did we not have that one already? I thought that was put in the constitution in the 40's or 50's."

"I know I'm not supposed to do it...but QFE. Really, if a man and woman were evenly skilled for a job, you can't give the guy the job without getting a nice big lawsuit, so I'd say we have equality of the sexes already."

"And don't forget - this is CONGRESS we're talking about here. No matter what they say, their job is to spend your money. Look for the creation of some 'department of sexual equality' which requires massive tax increases across the board to cover the costs. Whenever politicians of any persuasion get this happy over the prospect of a new amendment or a new law, you can bet the farm that it's because they are already cooking up ways to use it as an excuse to start tearing into your paycheck. Be it sexual/racial equality, medical care, or anything else - whenever anyone says 'the government should pay for it' - remember - where does 'the government' get it's money? They don't have two plugged nickels to rub together until they tax it from YOU. And were you ever happy with the service you got at any government agency? The DMV? The post office? The Federal building? Whenever 'the government' tries to take control of some aspect of your life that they think they can do better with, they always wind up making it ten times worse. You can make book on it."

"It's an unnecessary ammendment."

"At the risk of sounding like a total jerk---I would actually believe in equal rights if not for women saying things like: This trashcan is too heavy for me. A man needs to do it. I told them I would join the military, as long as I didn't have to cut my hair. and my favorite: College? I slept my way to the top."

"Since men are allowed by Unites States law to go topless in public, then by the new Constitutional right women must have that equal right now too."

"To be honest I feel This might actually hurt women more then it helps them. They are the majority in the nation. 52% of the nation are woman. thanks to several laws They are offered more jobs now-a-days then equally or more qualified men. This could be disatsorus from that point of view. I just see too many too many negatives to see the positives for you all."

"well it's got 10 years to get ratified. if it doesn't by that time it's shelved. I just hope this doesn't ruin things for you all."

"But I like the kitchen. And I like housework and taking care of babies.
Working at a career sucks. Feminism kind of made it seem like it's bad to enjoy being a housewife. Now it's like, all women have to have a job too. And by doing that, it's the children who suffer without a stay-at-home mom. And all the housework still needs to be done. Feminism just doubled women's work load. I tell you, everyone was better off before. And I don't care if people hate me for saying that, because it's obvious all the shoot shootings and childhood violence is because all these women feel they want to have a career, and children are being raised in day-care centers. It's just been proven in the news a couple of days ago after a many-year-long scientific study, that children of working mothers are more violent than children of stay-at-home moms. Children need a mother, not a day-care-center."

:eyes:

An EQUAL rights amendment would begin to address father's rights when it comes to parenting issues. The efforts to change entrenched stereotypical gender roles goes in both directions, and as is often seen in the American court system.

The small voices of those advocating for men's rights just got silenced in a big way.