Politics

No Bra Burners This Time - The ERA In The 21st Century

MayorBob.

Posted to Politics on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 12:03:12 PM EST (promoted by port1080). RSS.

You might end up with a Rip Van Winkle moment when you read this story.  Because, it will be like you nodded off to sleep back in the early 1980s and you're waking up a little over two decades later and one of the first things you see is there's a major push on to pass the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA).

The ERA has been around for over 80 years, but it wasn't until 1972 that it passed both houses of Congress.  Then the amendment went out to the various state legislatures to try to get three quarters (38) of the states to ratify it so it could be enacted.  Alas, after ten years of politicking and consideration in all 50 state legislatures, it fell short of passage by three states and has been pretty much a dead issue since.  Now, with Democrats in control of both houses of Congress the ERA, now called the Women's Equality Amendment has been reintroduced.  Congressional leadership vows this will pass muster sometime during this session of Congress.  Thus the clock begins running anew on this attempt to ensure gender equality is a part of the US Constitution.

Perhaps not, if the analysis of a group of constitutional scholars holds weight.  The ten year limit to get the ERA ratified by 35 states ran out in 1982.  However, an analysis published back in 1997 came to the opinion the original 35 states are in the bag; the only thing supporters need to get is three more states to sign on.  It pointed out the history behind the Madison Amendment which took more than 202 years between introduction in the Congress and completion of ratification by 38 states in 1992.

For that reason there are amendment resolutions pending in five states which failed to ratify back in 1982: Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Illinois, and Missouri.  Thus far, progress in those five states has been less than lightning quick.  The bill in Arkansas is bottled up in committee and the Florida House has yet to assign it to a committee.  There could still be a legal challenge to beginning this attempts count at 35 states approving with three to go.  Phyllis Schlafly's Eagle Forum is one organization which can most certainly be counted on to oppose.  Opposition to the ERA is one of one of Eagle Forum's key initiatives.  Schlafly has already been down in Arkansas testifying against the bill, saying its passage would pave the way to same sex marriage and deny Social Security benefits for housewives and widows.  One Arkansas politician said he didn't like the vagueness of language in the amendment, saying that the ERA in a couple of other states had resulted in judges ordering state funding for abortions.

Another dynamic to be considered is, if a legal challenge is thrown up to not starting over at scratch with ratification proceedings in all the states, how easy would it be to get the original 35 to ratify?  Idaho, Kentucky, Nebraska, South Dakota, and Tennessee rescinded ratification after 1982 and Republicans hold sway in both houses of the legislature in Idaho and South Dakota with Democrats holding one house and Republicans holding the other in Kentucky and Tennessee.  A cursory look at the other 30 states reveals that Democrats hold control in both houses in 15 of those states; Democrats hold one house and Republicans the other in 7; and Republicans are in control of both houses in eight states.  If supporters have to begin anew once the bill passes Congress, there will be no time limit placed on gaining final ratification.        

Tags: edited by Port1080, written by MayorBob, Equal Rights Amendment, constitutional amendment, gender equity (all tags)

This story: 26 comments (5 from subqueue)
Post a Comment
9

Re: No Bra Burners This Time - The ERA In The 21st

ms sue.

Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 06:43:32 PM EST

5.00 (informative)

With reference to the undoubtedly tongue-in-cheek hed here, there were no "bra  burners" last time either.

16

^ 9

Re: No Bra Burners This Time - The ERA In The 21st

zyxwvutsr.

Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 11:18:32 AM EST

none

More's the pity.

19

^ 9

Re: No Bra Burners This Time - The ERA In The 21st

nmiguy.

Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 01:38:44 PM EST

none

I always thought of Susan Sarandon in the Witches of Eastwick, she's in a store and teh people are all shocked because she's wearing a dress and no bra.  

Much informative Sue.  Thanks.  

1

Overtaken by events

profwhat.

Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 01:16:09 PM EST

none

The ERA may have been a good idea in 1970, but the case for it is now much weaker because the Supreme Court has held the Fourteenth Amendment protects women from most forms of discrimination.  This culminated in the 1996 case striking down the  Virginia Military Institute's men-only policy, where Justice Ginsberg said any law that discriminates is unconstitutional unless it serves "important governmental objectives and that the discriminatory means employed' are `substantially related to the achievement of those objectives.'"

So, about all you are going to get out of the ERA is a toughening up of that standard--but it's already so tough that I can't think of a single case where a law discriminating on the basis of sex has been upheld (at least in recent times).

In fact, I'm hard-pressed to see how this will actually help women today.  Sure, in the 1920s when this thing was first kicked around there were oodles of laws that favored men over women.  But now?  Anything?

2

^ 1

Re: Overtaken by events

wetkarma.

Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 01:28:57 PM EST

none

I read a case off DrudgeReport where NOW is suing the government for offering men parenting programs on being good fathers. Evidently NOW perceives this as sex discrimination.

I think this would be an example of how the new amendment would help women today.

One thing I'm curious about however -- as worded:

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.

Wouldn't this legalize gay marriage?

Memory is a strange bell, jubilee and knell.

4

^ 2

Gay marriage

profwhat.

Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 01:50:57 PM EST

none

It wouldn't necessarily legalize gay marriage.  You hear the counterargument now:  Current marriage law treats both sexes equally, because it lets anyone of either sex get married.  Here is how the New York Court of Appeals put it when it rejected a gay marriage challenge:

         By limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples, New York
is not engaging in sex discrimination.  The limitation does not
put men and women in different classes, and give one class a
benefit not given to the other.  Women and men are treated alike
-- they are permitted to marry people of the opposite sex, but
not people of their own sex.  This is not the kind of sham
equality that the Supreme Court confronted in Loving; the statute
there, prohibiting black and white people from marrying each
other, was in substance anti-black legislation.  Plaintiffs do
not argue here that the legislation they challenge is designed to
subordinate either men to women or women to men as a class.
But this issue creates one of those neat situations where advocates on both sides have to make arguments that are distasteful to them.  Conservatives say this will promote gay marriage, but to make that argument they have to admit that the 14th Amendment would also require gay marriage ('cause it also prohibits sex discrimination) and they don't want to say that.  On the other side, liberals who favor the ERA but don't want to bite off more then they can chew have to say that this won't lead to gay marriage, but then they have to also argue that they don't think the constitution currently requires gay marriage either.

13

^ 4

tiny bubbles

Steve Urkel.

Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 12:35:02 AM EST

5.00 (interesting)

A big reason many think the ERA would lead to courts imposing homosexual marriage is that language nearly identical to the ERA in state constitutions has been used as a pretext to do just that,  see the Hawaii Supreme Court's ruling Baehr v. Lewin.

The 14th Amendment, by comparison, says states can't  "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws", does not require same sex marriage.  Homosexuals have equal protection under marriage laws. Just like everyone else, they can marry one person of the opposite sex.

5

^ 4

Re: Gay marriage

thefadd.

Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 02:30:32 PM EST

none

It also depends on how you define "sex." While sex would obviously seem to imply the physical sex conoted by the type of genitalia an individual person has, it is not explicitly defined as such.

Sex could also mean just that, the physical act of sex. One could argue that the government more broadly does not have an interest in regulating on the basis of the sex a person does or does not engage in. You already see this argument in the pro-gay rights movement in the pacific northwest to have all marriages which do not result in children nullified.

escalators never fail; they just become stairs

8

^ 5

Re: Gay marriage

ms sue.

Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 06:38:41 PM EST

none

It also depends on how you define "sex." While sex would obviously seem to imply the physical sex conoted by the type of genitalia an individual person has, it is not explicitly defined as such.

Are you suggesting that the use of the word "sex" in the text of the ERA is ambiguous in its meaning?

 

10

^ 8

Re: Gay marriage

thefadd.

Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 08:14:00 PM EST

none

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.

That's unambiguous? Sex could mean anything there. It could mean, equal rights under the law shall not be denied because a person has engaged in oral sex. Or has sex fantasies that involve dressing up as the opposite sex. It's very broad...not that I think this a bad thing.

escalators never fail; they just become stairs

11

^ 10

Re: Gay marriage

dzetetes.

Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 08:39:45 PM EST

none

Are there any examples in other legal language where "sex" means something other than the biological categories?  I believe the terms "sexual intercourse" and "sexual acts" or similar are used extensively in legal language (for example in statutes regarding rape) so that confusion as to whether the act(s) or the biological categories is meant is eliminated.  

In regione caecorum, rex est luscus.

12

^ 10

Re: Gay marriage

ms sue.

Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 08:44:06 PM EST

none

IANAL, so I'll defer to one. But my gut instinct is that you'd be laughed out of court.

What word would you have preferred for clarity?

14

^ 12

Re: Gay marriage

thefadd.

Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 01:11:12 AM EST

none

I was thinking less of an attorney than of an activist judge and just how far one might conceivably push the interpretation. Bill Clinton made us question even the meaning of is so I don't see it as a major step for someone who wanted to and had the power to interpret it as they saw fit.

escalators never fail; they just become stairs

15

^ 10

Re: Gay marriage

tomc.

Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 01:13:01 AM EST

none

It could mean, equal rights under the law shall not be denied because a person has engaged in oral sex. Or has sex fantasies that involve dressing up as the opposite sex. It's very broad..

In that case, it would read:

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).

7

^ 4

Re: Gay marriage

wetkarma.

Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 03:44:32 PM EST

none

Women and men are treated alike
-- they are permitted to marry people of the opposite sex, but
not people of their own sex.  

Indeed this is the crux of it, but the proposed amendment states rights cannot be denied or abridged on the basis of sex. Preventing people from marrying others of the same sex, can logically be construed as abridgement of marriage recognition on the basis of the sex of individuals involved.

Its not so much that gays are being denied from getting married, but their ability to get married to someone of the same sex is restricted/abridged.

Memory is a strange bell, jubilee and knell.

3

^ 1

Re: Overtaken by events

thefadd.

Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 01:29:26 PM EST

none

It seems to me that the key place it was meant to help women was in the workplace and in government and job descrimination. Like you say, the last twenty years have seen a great many advances in those areas without the ERA. Things could be better but the foundation has been laid with sexual harassment and workplace descrimination case law. The Walmart case shows just how far is left to go but it also shows that the system now in place is well on its way to taking us down the correct path. I'm not against the ERA per say, but an amendment at this point seems like effort spent in the wrong place...unless it will protect the legality of birth control and abortion.

escalators never fail; they just become stairs

6

Re: No Bra Burners This Time - The ERA In The 21st

rombuu.

Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 03:19:26 PM EST

none

It pointed out the history behind the Madison Amendment which took more than 202 years between introduction in the Congress and completion of ratification by 38 states in 1992.

The Madison Amendment didn't have a sunset clause requiring ratification within a certain length of time built into it.. the ERA did.

17

Re: No Bra Burners This Time - The ERA In The 21st

zyxwvutsr.

Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 11:29:44 AM EST

none

I remember, one Sunday in 1984, listening to our priest reading a letter from the bishop during mass. I can't recall the precise wording, but the gist of it was that the bishop wanted everyone to know that, although he could not tell people how to vote on the ERA, that we should know it was against Church doctrine because it might be interpreted to require government-funded abortions.

20

^ 17

Re: No Bra Burners This Time - The ERA In The 21st

gerrymander.

Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 12:33:16 PM EST

3.00 (illiterate)

it might be interpreted to require government-funded abortions.

I've been wondering about that. By my reading, it appears that any government-sponsored program which is proved to be applicable to only one sex would be rendered unconstitutional. By that light, any medical assistance program for reproductive organs -- abortion, prostrate and cervical cancer, fertility, birth -- would be at risk.

Is this accurate, or am I grossly misreading something? Because if I'm not misreading, this is sure to kill any government healthcare program.

21

^ 20

Re: No Bra Burners This Time - The ERA In The 21st

ms sue.

Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 02:43:47 PM EST

none

By my reading, it appears that any government-sponsored program which is proved to be applicable to only one sex would be rendered unconstitutional.

Maybe I'm missing something in your hypothesis. Wouldn't there be a problem only if someone was denied access to a government-sponsored program? No man would be denied an abortion, and no woman would be denied treatment for prostrate cancer; right?

23

^ 21

Re: No Bra Burners This Time - The ERA In The 21st

gerrymander.

Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 12:05:12 AM EST

3.00 (illiterate)

ms_sue, the way I'm looking at it is that every man is de facto excluded from abortion, et al., support by virtue of never being able to apply for it -- and likewise with women and prostrate cancer, etc. Put another way, is "separate but equal" a valid distinction when based on sexual differences, even though it has been rejected for every other distinction to date?

24

^ 23

Re: No Bra Burners This Time - The ERA In The 21st

ms sue.

Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 11:49:50 AM EST

none

Put another way, is "separate but equal" a valid distinction when based on sexual differences, even though it has been rejected for every other distinction to date?

It's been rejected when there is the potential for participation by either sex; right? Again, maybe I'm not understanding what you're suggesting, because it just sounds ridiculous.

25

^ 24

Re: No Bra Burners This Time - The ERA In The 21st

gerrymander.

Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 12:08:46 PM EST

3.00 (illiterate)

The analogy I'm thinking of is literacy tests for voting rights in the Reconstruction South. You'll recall that these were rejected because even though in theory anyone could pass, in practice no black person could what with the prior laws against educating slaves. While it's not a perfect analogy, the reasoning behind it seems to fit here. In theory, any pregnant man could get government abortion funding; in practice, men never get pregnant and would therefore be discriminated against. But again, maybe I'm missing something.

26

^ 25

Re: No Bra Burners This Time - The ERA In The 21st

ms sue.

Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 02:11:45 PM EST

5.00 (funny)

No black person? Surely there were some. And the potential existed.

So I agree that the analogy is not perfect; I'd go further to say that I don't think it's applicable.

18

^ 17

Re: No Bra Burners This Time - The ERA In The 21st

Lou.

Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 12:18:45 PM EST

none

Listening to a priest read a letter from a bishop against some form of rights in 1984.

Irony will never die.

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

22

Re: No Bra Burners This Time - The ERA In The 21st

permazorch.

Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 09:09:35 PM EST

none

I hope it passes. I was disappointed it didn't pass back in 1970's/1980's. My mom raised my sister and me, got a med-tech certificate on top of her BA and went from welfare to lower-middle class during that time period. She was able to do all of this without the Amendment being passed, but I think it would be nice to have this shit in black & white, on the Constitution.

----- The earth may fail, but we will quiver

This story: 26 comments (5 from subqueue)
Post a Comment