Women's Equality Amendment

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

MrsSpringsteen

Blue Crack Addict
Joined
Nov 30, 2002
Messages
29,244
Location
Edge's beanie closet
Gee, maybe the fact that we have men walking around who think and speak like Rush Limbaugh is enough cause to pass this amendment..

http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2007/03/the_eras_back_d.html

The ERA's back: Do you support efforts to add gender-equality to the Constitution?

The Equal Rights Amendment, a symbol of feminist aspirations in the 1970s, is back on the agenda as advocates pick up where they left off when the initiative came three states short of enactment in 1982.

The Washington Post reports this morning that Democrats have reintroduced the measure -- now known as the Women's Equality Amendment -- in both houses of Congress.

It's not a lengthy document. Here's what the relevant part of the Equal Rights Amendment says: Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.

NOW argues that the measure is still relevant. "After more than 200 years of living under the United States Constitution and despite all of the progress we have made, women continue to suffer discrimination in employment, insurance, health care, education, the criminal justice system, social security and pensions, and just about any other area you can name," the feminist group says on its website.

But Conservative talker Rush Limbaugh says the amendment isn't going anywhere.

"I think the universe of women that would support the ERA this time around is much less than would be intrigued by this in the early seventies when it first started. I'm sure they still got their radicals and these babes up in -- babes, I use the term loosely -- these women that live up there in the Pacific Northwest. You see them in airports with their two German shepherds to make sure you don't attack them, and you wouldn't anyway. Half of them shave their legs, half of them don't," Limbaugh said yesterday. "They're still out there, they probably vote for it and supported and so forth. You have a universe of people that's going to be really behind this, has shriveled out there, so to speak. They're just living in the past."
 
When Bush was elected, was that the starting point of some weird challenge with the title "Whose IQ is lower than our President's", and Rush Limbaugh one of the contesters?

I'm just curious?
 
Rush Limbaugh is a desperate man, sensing his irrelevancy but completely lacking the humility gene. What a pompous fool, a clueless know-it-all. After three failed marriages, he is certainly the expert on women.

And yeah, I remember the first ERA, too.
 
The Equal Rights Amendment, a symbol of feminist aspirations in the 1970s, is back on the agenda as advocates pick up where they left off when the initiative came three states short of enactment in 1982.

The Washington Post reports this morning that Democrats have reintroduced the measure -- now known as the Women's Equality Amendment -- in both houses of Congress.


let's bring it back

and pass it this time

bring back the 70s

ladies, burn your bras

freedom is a wonderful thing :up:
 
martha said:
:sigh:

I remember the first ERA. Did you know it was going to lead to lesbianism, the decline of the home, and communists taking over our country?!

Good thing it was defeated. :|

Are you saying this didn't happen or that these things happened without the passing of the ERA?
 
AEON said:
Are you saying this didn't happen or that these things happened without the passing of the ERA?

This is what was going to happen if ERA passed several decades ago. Thank God we were protected from these kinds of things with the defeat of that horrible, home-wrecking power-grab.

Think of it! Broads demanding equal rights! Who wears the pants in this country anyway? Why, the broads really do have all the power if you think about it. :sexywink: One false move and nobody's gettin' any tonight. Know what I mean. :sexywink: That oughta be enough for them. When they do equal work, they'll get equal pay. Hell, why do they need equal pay; they don't have to support a family on their pay; they shouldn't be taking jobs from the men that need them anyway. Why don't we just enforce the laws that are already on the books? We don't need another amendment to the Constitution just for this. :rolleyes:



I'm sorry. I guess I was flashing back to 1975. Fucking drugs. :tsk:
 
^ I had a high school American history teacher who was still stuck on that argument, complete with spluttering on about "dumb broads", and made sure to bring it up any time anything which could be construed as a "women's issue" was discussed.
 
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?
 
From the NOW webpage (my 1st visit by the way)

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.
 
Last edited:
^ 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:
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.
 
Last edited:
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. :shrug:
 
MrsSpringsteen said:


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.
 
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.

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.
 
yolland said:
^ 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 said:

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? :confused:

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.
 
Back
Top Bottom