Posted on 05/15/2007 3:40:46 PM PDT by PercivalWalks
The recent reincarnation of the Equal Rights Amendment was a good idea—until its backers decided to change the name. The ERA has been reintroduced into both the House and the Senate, and has over 200 congressional co-sponsors. Representative Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), chair of the Judiciary subcommittee on the Constitution, civil rights, and civil liberties, says the bill "is going to be one of the items at the top of the agenda."
Unfortunately, the bill’s sponsors have changed the ERA’s name to the “Women’s Equality Amendment.” There’s a major problem with that, because when considering injustices based on gender, today men and fathers can lay claim to many of them. It’s very much an open question what effect, if any, the ERA/WEA would have. However, if we’re going to have a national discussion on gender inequities—and it appears that we are—the problems faced by men need to be part of that discussion.
The most unequal and unfair treatment meted out to either gender is the mistreatment of men and fathers by family courts and by the domestic violence system. After a divorce or separation dads are often pushed to the margins of their children’s lives, even though in most cases they’ve never been found culpable of any wrongdoing, and did not seek to dissolve their marriages. Family courts often deprive men of shared custody and generally allow them only a few days a month to spend with their children.
While the government has created a vast, $5 billion a year bureaucracy dedicated to enforcing child support orders, there is almost no governmental effort made to enforce fathers' visitation rights. When fathers are prevented from seeing their children in violation of court orders--as studies show is common--they must hire an attorney and go to court, and even then the orders aren’t enforced without repeated, expensive litigation.
Women’s advocates once did good work bringing the problem of domestic violence to public attention. Yet today’s DV policies are so extreme that they are victimizing many innocent men.
Over the past decade and a half there has been an explosion in DV restraining orders, as new laws and services have made the orders easier to obtain. According to the Justice Department, two million restraining orders are issued each year in the United States, most of them based on DV allegations.
When a restraining order is issued, the man is booted out of his own home and can be jailed if he tries to contact his own children, even though he has never been afforded the opportunity to defend himself. The subsequent hearings to determine whether the orders will be made permanent are often conducted in an assembly line fashion with little due process. These orders often do not even involve an allegation of violence—often the "abuse" needed to get a restraining order can be "spoken" or "written,” and thus almost impossible to refute in court.
During the 1990s, many states and law enforcement agencies adopted mandatory/presumptive arrest policies which virtually require officers to make arrests when responding to domestic violence calls. At the same time, many District Attorneys have instituted “no drop” prosecution policies. These have led to large numbers of arrests and prosecutions in cases where it is very questionable whether the men actually committed any abuse. In addition, the “primary aggressor doctrine” passed by some states and employed by many law enforcement agencies encourages officers to arrest men and only men in domestic disputes.
The Violence Against Women Act, first passed in 1994, has provided the DV establishment with over $5 billion in funding. Yet male victims of domestic violence are excluded from most services, even though decades of research confirm that men comprise a significant minority of domestic violence victims.
The intent of the ERA during its heyday in the 1970s was to eliminate sex discrimination, and at that time sex discrimination was a significant problem for women. Now gender bias and discrimination—in practice, if not in the law—cut both ways. The Equal Rights Amendment, because it seeks to end any bias or discrimination based on sex, is appropriate. The “Women’s Equality Amendment,” which ignores many of the worst gender-based injustices, is not.
This column appeared in the Louisville Courier-Journal (4/15/07).
Jeffery M. Leving is one of America's most prominent family law attorneys. He is the author of the new HarperCollins book Divorce Wars: A Field Guide to the Winning Tactics, Preemptive Strikes, and Top Maneuvers When Divorce Gets Ugly. His website is www.dadsrights.com.
Glenn Sacks' columns on men's and fathers' issues have appeared in dozens of America's largest newspapers. Glenn can be reached via his website at www.GlennSacks.com or via email at Glenn@GlennSacks.com.
This sounds more like a “Women’s Superiority Amendment”, another warmed-up stale idea on the part of the left.
No need for all this BS. It’s already covered in the Constitution. It’s only meant as a sceme to divide the people and the Congress. Democrats in Congress will do anything to keep people divided.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
(Yes, I know, we have no draft, but 18 year olds are still required to register)
The judge in Maryland who ruled for same-sex marriage in Maryland did so based on the fact that the state constitution of Maryland includes an equal rights amendment.
This is proof that there will be unintended consequences to an amendment such as this, no matter the name and no matter how sincere the beliefs of those pushing for it that we have to fight “discrimination”.
And I would like to know, today in 2007, in what areas are women being discriminated against? Why exactly is a constitutional amendment like this needed?
I do believe that no situation exists that cannot be made worse by an act of Congress.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Calling Phyllis Schafly—calling Phyllis Schafly!
“I love liberty and HATE equality!” -— Baron de Montesquieu
DOA as of now. Wait until after the 2008 elections; see if the Dems. pad their majorities in Congress.
Also, there are attempts behind the scenes now to revive the old E.R.A. and count the 35 states that ratified it back in the ‘70s as still counting towards ratification today. Which would mean they would need only 3 more states to pass it.
A court would have to rule on it since a 7 year time limit was included in the original amendment. But if a court ruled that invalid, who knows what could happen.
Which brings us back to how important it is who is the man or woman in the Oval Office appointing federal judges.
Laws? You mean, like actual statutes passed by a legislature and signed into law by the executive? Leftists don't need laws when the federal judiciary is on their side.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Jerry ... are you still tryin' t' get laid?
Ya' think this will do it?
Jabba and Jezebel the houses (too big to be mere HUTs)
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.