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

To: P-Marlowe

Yes there is.

The 14th Amendment’s usage of the word “person” covers it quite nicely, which is why the “ERA” was wholly unnecessary.

Unless, of course, one is a member of some bizarre religious sect that does not consider women to be persons.


13 posted on 06/24/2009 6:49:47 AM PDT by WayneS (Respect the 2nd Amendment; Repeal the 16th)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]


To: WayneS; xzins; blue-duncan
The 14th Amendment’s usage of the word “person” covers it quite nicely, which is why the “ERA” was wholly unnecessary.

Sorry my FRiend, but the ORIGINAL INTENT of the 14th amendment was to prohibit discrimination by virtue of race, not gender. If, in fact, the 14th amendment was intended to prohibit all discrimination based on gender, then women would have been drafted and forced to serve in combat. Further if the 14th amendment was originally intended to prohibit discrimination based on "gender" then women would have had the right to vote and the 19th Amendment would have been wholly unnecessary.

The ERA was not passed because it would have required women to be drafted and placed in combat roles in the military.

Gender discrimination is not a constitutionally prohibited practice. It never has been.

Now are you one of these people that believes in a living-breathing and changing-with-the-times Constitution?

16 posted on 06/24/2009 7:12:37 AM PDT by P-Marlowe (LPFOKETT GAHCOEEP-w/o*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | 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