Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: who_would_fardels_bear; rdb3; Graybeard58
Equal RIGHTS does NOT mean equal privileges. Just because both men and women have the right to vote, doesn't mean it's ok for gay marriage. That's an asinine comment and the weakest argument I think I have EVER seen against Equal Rights.

The Liberals are the ones taking it too far, not things like not smoking at a gas pump (DUR DUR DUR Puff KABOOM ring a bell?).
188 posted on 11/22/2005 4:42:50 PM PST by MikefromOhio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies ]


To: MikeinIraq
A right is something you are granted just by being a citizen. A privilege is something you are granted because you personally exhibit a certain level of resposibility.

Everyone in the U.S. has the right to habeous corpus no matter how despicable. Only some people have the privilege to drive because only some people have passed their driving test, payed their fees, etc.

If the ERA had passed then women would have all rights that men had, and vice-versa. This would have led inexorably to all men and women having the opportunity to apply for all privileges as well. It would only be a matter of passing tests, paying fees, etc. for women to get all the privileges that men enjoyed.

These privileges would have included being available for Selective Service and any potential military draft. It would also have meant employers having to bend over backwards to allow pregnant women to keep jobs even if those jobs endangered their fetuses.

This of course is all besides the point, but to come to the point. Here is the main text of the ERA:

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

What the liberals supposedly meant by this was to allow women to be firefighters (even though they couldn't haul 250lbs of dead weight), fight in combat, get special consideration on their way to becoming CEO, etc.

However, since we now know that the Constitution is a "living" document we know that the following rationalization (ala Kennedy, Souter, etc.) would most certainly have followed if the ERA had every become law:

1. A man wants to marry a man
2. The only difference between this and a traditional marriage is that one of the participants is a man
3. To deny them the right (or privilege) to marry would be to do so based entirely on the sex of one of the participants.
4. This is a violation of the ERA. Thus gay marriage is AOK in the USA

Phyllis was right and it was a very good thing that the ERA didn't get ratified for more reasons than women in combat, more affirmative action nonsense, etc.

Unfortunately the liberals found other ways to push their agenda and a lot of pubbies are either supporting them or at least not getting in their way much at all.

192 posted on 11/22/2005 4:58:17 PM PST by who_would_fardels_bear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies ]

To: MikeinIraq
I don't think you're getting Schlafly's point. However asinine the reasoning is, she accurately predicted that it would be the reasoning used by the courts.
202 posted on 11/22/2005 5:11:56 PM PST by inquest (FTAA delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson