Women's Equality Amendment - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 03-29-2007, 12:44 AM   #16
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Bono's shades's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: The back of beyond
Posts: 5,038
Local Time: 04:14 AM
I remember the whole ERA debate in the '70s. I think I must have been a feminist even in elementary school because I was all for it. I remember being shocked when my mother said she was against it.

Were co-ed restrooms one of the scare tactics used by ERA opponents back then or am I just remembering it wrong?
__________________

__________________
Bono's shades is offline  
Old 03-29-2007, 12:45 AM   #17
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,338
Local Time: 01:14 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Bono's shades
Were co-ed restrooms one of the scare tactics used by ERA opponents back then or am I just remembering it wrong?
That sure sounds familiar.
__________________

__________________
martha is offline  
Old 03-29-2007, 01:50 AM   #18
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 03:14 AM
From the NOW webpage (my 1st visit by the way)

Quote:
Constitutional Equality for All Women, A Work in Progress

Section 1. Women and men shall have equal rights throughout the United States and every place and entity subject to its jurisdiction; through this article, the subordination of women to men is abolished;
Section 2. All persons shall have equal rights and privileges without discrimination on account of sex, race, sexual orientation, marital status, ethnicity, national origin, color or indigence;
Section 3. This article prohibits pregnancy discrimination and guarantees the absolute right of a woman to make her own reproductive decisions including the termination of pregnancy;
Section 4. This article prohibits discrimination based upon characteristics unique to or stereotypes about any class protected under this article. This article also prohibits discrimination through the use of any facially neutral criteria which have a disparate impact based on membership in a class protected under this article.
Section 5. This article does not preclude any law, program or activity that would remedy the effects of discrimination and that is closely related to achieving such remedial purposes;
Section 6. This article shall be interpreted under the highest standard of judicial review;
Section 7. The United States and the several states shall guarantee the implementation and enforcement of this article.
Can't pretend to understand all the pseudo-intellectual babble in all that, but is it me, or does it sound like they're trying to write same-sex into the U.S. constitution?
If true, then apparently all those "an issue for the states", "don't write sex into the constitution" arguments were only meant to be applied to conservatives.
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 03-29-2007, 04:29 AM   #19
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 10:14 AM
^ Not sure why you thought the NOW website would be the place to look for the text of the Women's Equality Amendment, but anyhow the above, as explained in their site, is an alternative to the ERA proposed by some NOW members at their own annual conference in 1995 (at which point they dropped support for the ERA from their platform). It isn't the text of the present proposed Women's Equality Amendment (SJ Res 10/HJ Res 40), which remains the same 52 words introduced by (Republicans) Sen. Charles Curtis and Rep. Daniel Anthony as SJ Res 21/HJ Res 75 back in 1923:
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.
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 03-29-2007, 07:19 AM   #20
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
sulawesigirl4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Virginia
Posts: 7,416
Local Time: 04:14 AM
Sounds like common sense and a basic human rights issue. Quite frankly, I'm surprised it isn't already written into law. I thought we prided ourselves on being such a beacon for freedom and progress and whatnot. I can't fathom how any rational person would be against it.
__________________
"I can't change the world, but I can change the world in me." - Bono

sulawesigirl4 is offline  
Old 03-29-2007, 07:59 AM   #21
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,338
Local Time: 01:14 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by INDY500
but is it me, or does it sound like they're trying to write same-sex into the U.S. constitution?


A new objection! And such a timely one.

And one that still makes no sense when considering the real ERA. Keep up that tradition!
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 03-29-2007, 08:01 AM   #22
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,338
Local Time: 01:14 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by sulawesigirl4
I can't fathom how any rational person would be against it.
Key word: rational.
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 03-29-2007, 08:39 AM   #23
New Yorker
 
Sherry Darling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Virginia
Posts: 2,857
Local Time: 05:14 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by deep




ladies, burn your bras
Dude, do you have any idea how much a decent bra costs?
__________________
Sherry Darling is offline  
Old 03-29-2007, 08:50 AM   #24
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,998
Local Time: 04:14 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by sulawesigirl4
I can't fathom how any rational person would be against it.
Because women's equality is threatening to some people, on many levels. It upsets their view of the universe.
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 03-29-2007, 09:08 AM   #25
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 02:14 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by MrsSpringsteen


Because women's equality is threatening to some people, on many levels. It upsets their view of the universe.
All of this stuff already is law. Women are equal in the eyes of the law. From Equal Opportunity regulations to Anti-Descrimination laws - it seems they are already covered.

I don't see that this amendment really adds anything.

I know this is difficult for many to believe, but I full support women's rights (I don't include abortion and affirmative action as women's rights).

My grandmother had a career. My mother had a career. And until recently, my wife had a career (she is working on her teaching credential for a career change). Each and every woman deserves to be treated equally and should be paid the same as a man for doing the same job.
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 03-29-2007, 09:10 AM   #26
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
BonosSaint's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,566
Local Time: 05:14 AM
For the jobs you would be allowing them to do?
__________________
BonosSaint is offline  
Old 03-29-2007, 09:11 AM   #27
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,338
Local Time: 01:14 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON
All of this stuff already is law. Women are equal in the eyes of the law. From Equal Opportunity regulations to Anti-Descrimination laws - it seems they are already covered.
1975 all over again.
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 03-29-2007, 09:35 AM   #28
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,297
Local Time: 04:14 AM
For those interested, here is Canada's equivalent (s. 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms), which by the way goes a lot further. But we all know how out of control our society is up here.

Quote:
15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.


(2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 03-29-2007, 10:27 AM   #29
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 03:14 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by yolland
^ Not sure why you thought the NOW website would be the place to look for the text of the Women's Equality Amendment, but anyhow the above, as explained in their site, is an alternative to the ERA proposed by some NOW members at their own annual conference in 1995 (at which point they dropped support for the ERA from their platform). It isn't the text of the present proposed Women's Equality Amendment (SJ Res 10/HJ Res 40), which remains the same 52 words introduced by (Republicans) Sen. Charles Curtis and Rep. Daniel Anthony as SJ Res 21/HJ Res 75 back in 1923:
Now's website is indirectly quoted in the initial posting of this thread. In addition, there's no public groundswell for this. It smacks of a legislative payback from a Democratic Congress to the ever loyal National Organization for Women.

If the wording is the same as the old amendment then it has the same concerns for conservatives.

1) It's not needed. Women enjoy every constitutional right as men and full employment rights since 1964. Where's the urgency in 2007? We now have a female Speaker of the House, what, 15 elected female U.S. senators (up from one in 1972 and she was appointed), Title IX in college sports, Roe v Wade, The View on daytime TV, and even Danicamania at my sacred Indianapolis 500?

2) The ambiguity. Because the word in the amendment is 'sex' and not 'women', some courts might interpret this as 'orientation.'
And we've seen this as state ERAs have been cited in striking down same-sex marriage bans in Maryland in 2006 and the Hawaii supreme court ruled in 1993 that their state ERA mandated same-sex marriage. (Which started the whole DOM movement)

3) Politics aside for a moment. Really, aren't there countries around the world more in need of 'equal rights for women' then the good 'ol US of A?
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 03-29-2007, 10:37 AM   #30
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Vincent Vega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Berlin
Posts: 6,615
Local Time: 10:14 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by INDY500

3) Politics aside for a moment. Really, aren't there countries around the world more in need of 'equal rights for women' then the good 'ol US of A?
Do you now want to make politics for other countries?

I don't understand the dismissal of domestic politics in any country with the "phrase" aren't there other countries.

I don't know about the laws in the US and can't say whether current laws are sufficient, but not carried out properly.
As in Germany, in the US there is still no equal pay, and the glass ceiling still is very present.
So if the laws were sufficient they should now work on transforming these laws into reality.
If they are not sufficient it would be very reasonable to add them to the constitution.
__________________

__________________
Vincent Vega is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:14 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com