Equal Rights Amendment

[techs]

I weep.

21 states have it in their constitutions. Most other states have pretty much provided for it in a myriad of laws.

Yet the simple concept of:

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

is apparently not part of the greatest, free-est nation on Earth (or at least thats what the right wing would have us believe).

Sigh. America.

 

[preCRT]

You can thank idiots from the bible belt & Ronald Reagan for killing it.

red= Ratified
yellow= Ratified, then rescinded
green = Not ratified, but approved by one house of state legislature
blue = Not ratified

They feared unisex bathrooms and other moronic red herrings.

 

[DaveSimmons]

If women get the right to vote, it will undermine the sanctity of voting.

Voting should only be between a man and a ballot. It was that way for countless centuries, for good reason. There is no biological reason why women should vote.

 

[Greenman]

I had no idea. Are you sure?

 

[Greenman]

If women get the right to vote, it will undermine the sanctity of voting.

Voting should only be between a man and a ballot. It was that way for countless centuries, for good reason. There is no biological reason why women should vote.

I can't argue with air tight logic like that.

 

[matt0611]

What would this amendment do exactly?

 

[manimal]

If your insinuating that the constitution isn't absolutely perfect and infallible then you sir are an un-American terrorist who kills baby seals with the corpses of our founding fathers...

Sheesh good thing we can count on the supreme court to uphold our constitutional standards and hold off those advocate judges.....


In other news the world is flat.....

 

[feralkid]

I can't argue with air tight logic like that.

Wooooosh!


But seriously, We did have two female FET's come to our PB, once. A Cpl got into a screaming match with the Sgt in charge, who if it was a male would have killed him. She accused him of going thru canals on purpose, and making it hard on them. They threw their rifles across canals, you never do that. They left the next day, and we never had females again. We lived with nothing. No tent, no AC, no anything for a long time. We walked around next to naked, just our underwear on. Bathes together, slept close together, talked about everything. Things I dont talk about with people Ive known for 20 years. Of course a favorite topic was sex. What position you like, how you like to beat off, dry or lubed, sexual conquests, comparing dick sizes, etc. That wouldnt happen with a female, and not with a gay person being present either.

 

[her209]

Wooooosh!


But seriously, We did have two female FET's come to our PB, once. A Cpl got into a screaming match with the Sgt in charge, who if it was a male would have killed him. She accused him of going thru canals on purpose, and making it hard on them. They threw their rifles across canals, you never do that. They left the next day, and we never had females again. We lived with nothing. No tent, no AC, no anything for a long time. We walked around next to naked, just our underwear on. Bathes together, slept close together, talked about everything. Things I dont talk about with people Ive known for 20 years. Of course a favorite topic was sex. What position you like, how you like to beat off, dry or lubed, sexual conquests, comparing dick sizes, etc. That wouldnt happen with a female, and not with a gay person being present either.

Is that you, Achmed?

 

[Craig234]

What would this amendment do exactly?

Escalate the protection of people from discrimination bases on sex in the law to constitutional protection.

So, if laws were passed, or found to have been passed, that have such discrimination, they could be overturned based on the constitution.

It would correct an omission based on discrimination against women at the time the constitution was ratified.

This is different than 'equal pay for equal work' legislation, something Democrats strengthened in the current Congress.

I can't think of much this would actually change in today's laws, since we seem to have largely adopted the principle in practice. But it would protect for the future.

I'd like to see it include sexual orientation and identity if we do it, too.

 

[Kadarin]

Escalate the protection of people from discrimination bases on sex in the law to constitutional protection.

So, if laws were passed, or found to have been passed, that have such discrimination, they could be overturned based on the constitution.

It would correct an omission based on discrimination against women at the time the constitution was ratified.

This is different than 'equal pay for equal work' legislation, something Democrats strengthened in the current Congress.

I can't think of much this would actually change in today's laws, since we seem to have largely adopted the principle in practice. But it would protect for the future.

I'd like to see it include sexual orientation and identity if we do it, too.

Agreed.

 

[Double Trouble]

So just to be clear, you're complaining about the lack of an amendment that is not currently needed, would have no real effect on the laws, and generally would say the same thing as is already the law in every state as well as federal law?

Of all the things that should be addressed, that hardly seems like a pressing matter, unless I'm missing something.....

 

[Double Trouble]

I'd like to see it include sexual orientation and identity if we do it, too.

... and that's where the train goes off the rails. I'd imagine everyone is on board with equal protection under the law for all, but I'm certainly not on board with some amendment to the constitution to carve out protections based on some vague notion of "identity" or "sexual orientation", things that are not clearly defined as biological gender. That's what laws are for, the constitution does not need more ambiguous amendments for the court to interpret any way it sees fit.

 

[MotF Bane]

Well, go ahead and create these sorts of Amendments... but then when you want a program that favors women on the grounds of "helping minorities", that program would have to be nullified. Equality works both ways. :awe:

 

[PokerGuy]

Useless amendment is useless.

 

[techs]

Useless post is useless.

I guess we don't need the Bill of Rights. After all, most states follow it anyway.

Wait, wot?

 

[Anarchist420]

I would actually support it as worded, because technically, the government wouldn't be allowed to try to create equality/inequality of outcome, meaning no more maternity leave laws.

Imagine if we actually did have equality before the law!

 

[cubby1223]

What would this amendment do exactly?

Allow a new army of lawyers to devote their lives to suing everyone over any "injustice" no matter how trivial in nature.

Look at all the abuses the Americans with Disabilities Act caused. Well intentioned, but loaded with lots of unintended consequences.

 

[techs]

Allow a new army of lawyers to devote their time to suing the government over any "injustice" no matter how trivial in nature.

Look at all the abuses the Americans with Disabilities Act caused. Well intentioned, but loaded with lots of unintended consequences.

Damn right. Look at all the fuss over the first ten amendments. Needless lawsuits over free speech, assembly, etc. Well intended, but loaded with lots of unintended consequences.

Oh, and in case it escaped anyone:

/SARCASM

 

[cubby1223]

Damn right. Look at all the fuss over the first ten amendments. Needless lawsuits over free speech, assembly, etc. Well intended, but loaded with lots of unintended consequences.

Oh, and in case it escaped anyone:

/SARCASM

Those you state don't cause the lawsuit abuses against businesses like the Americans with Disabilities Act does.

"equal" is always a subjective term, and ripe for abuse. Hell, this could even spur a lawsuit over women not able to use the men's restrooms. I bet a lawyer will sue a business over this.

 

[Schadenfroh]

I support this and its logical extension to race at the federal level. Then, there will be no more Affirmative Action, the consequences of divorce (alimony, child support / custody, dividing of wealth) will actually be fair to the (former) husband, women will be forced to register for the draft, no gender-based or race-based scholarships provided by or encouraged by government, no race / gender quotas, etc.

I am tired of bullshit requirements on one project I am working on that we must purchase x percent of items from "minority owned" businesses, even if that supplier is not the cheapest / most reliable.

Hell, I know a guy who runs a PC sales / repair business and made his wife the owner, so they could take advantage of the benefits of "minority owned" businesses, despite the fact she knows nothing of PCs or business and is owner in name only.

 

[Turin39789]

I would actually support it as worded, because technically, the government wouldn't be allowed to try to create equality/inequality of outcome, meaning no more maternity leave laws.

Imagine if we actually did have equality before the law!

mmm paternity leave

 

[RabidMongoose]

What would this amendment do exactly?

Well, right now under the Equal Protection clause and Supreme Court case law, discrimination based on gender is given what is called intermediate scrutiny. I suppose this amendment would give gender discrimination a higher level of scrutiny called strict scrutiny when reviewing whether a law violates the constitution. Just my guess.

 

[MovingTarget]

Those you state don't cause the lawsuit abuses against businesses like the Americans with Disabilities Act does.

"equal" is always a subjective term, and ripe for abuse. Hell, this could even spur a lawsuit over women not able to use the men's restrooms. I bet a lawyer will sue a business over this.

The segregation of restrooms by gender was one of the original arguments brought up during the ratification process, IIRC. Some biological differences must reasonably be taken into account.

 

[Linflas]

I support this and its logical extension to race at the federal level. Then, there will be no more Affirmative Action, the consequences of divorce (alimony, child support / custody, dividing of wealth) will actually be fair to the (former) husband, women will be forced to register for the draft, no gender-based or race-based scholarships provided by or encouraged by government, no race / gender quotas, etc.

I am tired of bullshit requirements on one project I am working on that we must purchase x percent of items from "minority owned" businesses, even if that supplier is not the cheapest / most reliable.

Hell, I know a guy who runs a PC sales / repair business and made his wife the owner, so they could take advantage of the benefits of "minority owned" businesses, despite the fact she knows nothing of PCs or business and is owner in name only.

Ahh the joys of the 8A list.