Posted on 03/30/2007 6:46:56 AM PDT by restornu
Some issues ought to stay comfortably and securely buried, but the Equal Rights Amendment just keeps rearing its ugly head. It is the tired, but dangerous amendment that refuses to die.
This week a bill to restart the ratification process of the ERA was introduced into the House by New York Democrat Carolyn B. Maloney and 194 co-sponsors. House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers said he will hold hearings on it and lawmakers backing it say they will bring it to a vote.
"We're going to win it now. We've got the votes, Rep. Maloney told a group of cheering feminists.
In the Senate, Sens. Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts and Barbara Boxer of California are planning to enter a companion bill.
Two questions immediately arise. What's so wrong about an amendment that reads "Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex." Doesn't that sound just friendly and heartwarming? Who in the world could be against that calming word: equality?
The other question is this. Don't we all remember that the ERA ratification process had a deadline? The clock ticked on, and the amendment passage ran out of time. What is this, a time warp? So what are these lawmakers thinking? We'll tell you.
What's Wrong with the ERA?
When the ERA first passed Congress in 1972, states lined up quickly and reflexively to approve it, but things slowed down when conservatives like Phyllis Schlafley began to point out the far-reaching implications of what this amendment would mean.
It was an amendment with vague, high-sounding language that would have vast, unintended consequences.
The amendment is saying that men and women have to be treated identically, that there can be no distinction between them. It would make all the laws sex-neutral. It would strip words like "husband" and "wife" and "mother" and "father" out of federal law.
It would rescind the federal Defense of Marriage Act. In one fell swoop, it would have the power to mandate same-sex marriage, and all the work to defend marriage would be swept away.
How after all, can you define marriage as between a man and a woman, if the law has to be sex neutral?
State equal rights amendments have been used by courts in Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts and California as a partial justification for mandating the recognition of same-sex marriage. Under the theory that women must have health care that is as comprehensive as men's, Connecticut and New Mexico have ordered the use of tax monies to be used for "medically necessary" abortions.
Since both sexes would be required to be treated identically, women would have to sign up, as men do, for the Selective Service and be treated the same in the military and in combat.
No wonder ERA advocates won't give up on their amendment. It's a one-stop-shopping trip to fulfill their agenda.
What's interesting is the press often claims that the ERA will do none of these things, right in the face of evidence to the contrary.
No Ratification
Logic makes ERA backers think they can revive the amendment? When Congress first passed the ERA in 1972, it chose to impose a seven-year time limit for ¾ of the states to determine if they would ratify it.
During the 1970's, 35 states, of the 38 required, ratified the amendment, but as the implications of the amendment grew clearer, four state legislatures (Idaho, Kentucky, Nebraska, and Tennessee) rescinded their ratifications. A fifth state, South Dakota, announced that while not actually rescinding, its previous ratification of the ERA would only last until March 22, 1979.
This didn't stop the determined and headstrong backers of the amendment. They got Congress to give them a three-year extension to gather the necessary ratifications and claimed that no state could rescind.
But in 1981, a United States District Court said the ERA's deadline extension was unconstitutional, and that a state legislature may indeed rescind a prior ratification. By the time the Supreme Court took up the case, the 1982 deadline had passed, so the high court did not issue an opinion on whether the extension was valid, dismissing the case as moot. Never Say Die
So enough is enough, right?
Here's the logic that makes them continue to fight. They say that if the ERA had been ratified by three-fourths of the states, it would have become the 27th amendment to the Constitution. Instead, the 27th amendment, the "Madison Amendment" concerning Congressional pay raises, was first proposed in 1789 and reached the three-fourths goal 203 years later to become the 27th amendment.
This leads the ERA supporters to propose that Congress has the power to maintain the legal viability of the ERA and the 35 state ratifications. Thus, their strategy is to get three more states to ratify and then go to court to get the amendment adopted.
This year, ERA bills have been filed in five of the unratified states-Arkansas, Arizona, Illinois, Florida and Missouri. The Washington Post reported, "Every statewide officeholder in Arkansas endorsed the amendment this year, but the bill stalled in committee last week after Eagle Forum President Phyllis Schlafly came to Little Rock to testify against the measure."
How serious is this ERA revival? It is hard to say, but Family Leader and our state affiliates are going to keep a wary eye on it. It is the kind of amendment that people jump to support until they know what it means. Education is our best tool.
Yes.
The Dems are gonna put some lipstick on this pig so in '08 Hillary can tell women the GOP stopped them from having equal access to public male bathrooms; or some such nonsense.
Nothing much. The hook was in Article 2: "Congress shall have power to enforce", etc. Any amendment that says something like that is actually a Trojan horse.
It's all about the power.
If this bill passes - Men! Demand your reproductive equality!
Yeah, that's what I was thinking. If there can be no differentiation between men and women under the law, men then should have the absolute right to demand that a woman they impregnate have an abortion, because they have to have the same rights as women, which is the absolute right to an abortion.
Wonder how our feminist organizations would like to give men that kind of control over women?
NOW & NARAL: Old dogs never die.
Men would get EQUALITY under this amendment, not control. If the man decides to keep his child, what right would a woman have to over ride his decision just because she's a non-woman?? He would have the same reproductive rights as her once gender is removed, right?
Speaking of old dogs, where's that picture of Helen Thomas?
Without that provision, the courts would have the power to interpret and enforce the amendment. Either way, the ERA was—and is—a lousy idea.
Be careful of what you ask for.
Not much of a choice, is it?
Nope. Do you prefer a heart attack or a stroke?
IF this amendment does pass, even thought it's asinine and throwing women over board for the homo vote, men could take a HUGE advantage of it. Women could no longer cry "victim.," It would be the new "Age of Man".
Even straight guys would have the upper hand over the homoes. No more special interest group protections.
Whatever happened to that thing I heard of, I think they called it, "separation of powers"?
The same thing that happened to "limited government."
Another reason never never to vote for a dumbocritter!
The NAG HAGs are back! Older, uglier and nastier than ever!!
Lather, rinse, and repeat.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.