Virginia's passage of the ERA in January will give the next Women's March a reason to celebrate for a change.
What kind of a backwards, ignorant and misogynistic person opposes this simple, forthright statement of equality in rights before the law? I remember Phyllis Schafley She was a loon, much like the one we have in the White House today. She too lied about effects and spread fear to block a normative progression to equal rights for all. Enshrining it in the Constitution is a threat only to those who wish to continue to use inequality as a weapon toward other and to promote and protect their privilege and sense of superiority. Throw the opponents to the curb and enshrine this as an unassailable principle.
4
Hallelujah! It's fitting that Virginia should be the one to put us over the top. It's been pretty "old boy" conservative for such a long time. Things are changing.
14
I’m having the worst day and the thought of this happening in my lifetime brought a smile to my face. #ERAnow!
24
@WR
If the ERA amendment finally passes, maybe SCOTUS will uphold it.
Maybe not.
Those opposed might think about giving a lot of women another reason not to trust them.
Another good reason for reform of the way SCOTUS is maintained and empowered.
3
Why would McConnell bring this to a vote? It's not on Putin's wishlist, doesn't cut taxes for plutocrats, won't enrich any war industries, and doesn't brutalize the poor or marginalized.
96
@SeattleGuy
I truly hope that the women of Kentucky are aware of the reprehensible use of a power he abuses will vote him out of an office he continues to betray.
17
I expect you are right. But I also expect Mitch McConnell will soon be out of a job.
6
Well, it’s about time. Yet the process works, and I don’t know what impediments remain, but it’s finally time for the SC to act.
1
I am a white male. I marched in 1982 in support of the ERA. It's appalling that the USA can't unequivocally say it's not ok to deny equal rights to women. What are you GUYS afraid of?
78
@tried
Opposition to the ERA was spearheaded by women.
While women in the past experienced discrimination in things like banking and employment (which was wrong, and it was right for us to rectify it) women also have advantages in things like not getting drafted into combat, and mothers often get preferences in family court.
Women's role as mothers and our ability to get pregnant has always conferred both some additional legal protections and privileges. And a lot of women are cautious to endanger those.
3
@tried What were whites afraid of from the emancipation of the black race? What are Trump voters afraid of from immigration? It’s the Fear of Loss of Privilege, the five-word definition of Conservatism.
19
@A F
Opposition was spearheaded by one woman, Phyllis Schlafly, who didn’t want poor women and women of color to have rights. Women with money like Schlafly could get what they wanted when they wanted it including abortion. She did it to keep women she thought inferior from getting ahead. Blocking access to birth control and abortion limits women’s educational and career opportunities.
13
It will be great when the ERA finally gets the last state ratification it needs and if SCOTUS agrees the old deadline is irrelevant.
What saddens and baffles me is that in a century in which a woman running for president won the popular vote, two women just did a spacewalk to repair the ISS together, and the CEO of General Motors is a woman, there are state legislatures that would vote to revoke their ratification of the ERA, and other individuals and groups resolved to fight activation of the amendment.
How is it not clear to them by now that women ARE equal and deserving of the equal protection under law they still don’t always get? What are they afraid of?
169
@Moshe Feder I want to see the Republicans stand in the way of this, and have Democrat’s win the next election in a landslide. It’s the death of the GOP. If SCOTUS plays their silly games, that’s the end of a nine member court. Take that too the bank.
31
@Moshe Feder
Some boogeymen, such as women being drafted for military service have fallen away since the draft is inactive and women may now serve in combat. Others, such as unisex bathrooms, have been overcome by changes in society.
The last remaining objection is that constitutionally mandated equal rights will lead to women being allowed to have abortions, being paid as much as men for the same work, and being freed from other forms of gender discrimination.
19
@julia We weren't "given" it. We had to fight for it. Big difference.
12
I believe in equal rights for everybody. But wait a minute – don't women already enjoy equal constitutional rights? Will the next thing be a cluttered constitution with amendments for other groups, men, Eskimos, midgets?
@Kenneth
Women most decidedly don’t have equal constitutional rights. If we did, neither individual states nor the federal government could make laws regulating our reproductive decisions.
6
Many years ago I wrote to Indiana's US Senators urging them to vote to pass the ERA. My letter were typed, with a clear signature above my typed name. On the outside of the envelopes was my address printed in ink, headed by my name. Indiana's leaders (in this case reflected by who they hired) in those days were not a very cosmopolitan bunch when it came to people with names outside their limited experience. And apparently they could not believe that a man favored passing the ERA. These were the days when writers on style ruled that if a woman used the title Ms, it should be corrected to Miss, because no married woman would use any title but Mrs. The replies came back addressed to Margaret Duncan and Maryann Dutton. (Usually people would correct Marvant to Marvin or Mark - both still happen.)
4
Effective enactment of the Equal Rights Amendment is absolutely essential to resolve any doubt that the Constitution allows a woman to become President or Vice President.
Article II of the Constitution is replete with the word "he". I am absolutely convinced that if a woman is elected President, America's opportunistic politicians will litigate to keep her out of office, because she's not a he.
And given who Trump has placed on the Supreme Court, we've got no assurance that 5 nutcase men on the Supreme Court will not remind all of us that there is a legal difference between he and she, such as in our dormant but still effective military draft law.
3
Let’s not forget that many women were against the equal rights amendment because it would subject women to a military draft. Funny how they only want men to have that “right”.
1
If Virginia passes the ERA and Congressional Republicans stage some monkey business to refute the vote, they'll be signing their own death sentence for 2020. And if it's foiled by the usual suspects on the Scotus, Trump will have signed his own death sentence, as well.
8
When I was younger and naive, I used to think males had no idea how wretched to all females, violent and tiresome they are. I gave up that illusion decades ago and now think boys and men simply believe misogyny is a game to pass the time between wars and crime.
6
It is about time. Women are people, too, no matter what the Republicans say. Women should have all of the rights that men have. Women must have the same rights to control their bodies that men have. Women have the same inalienable right to life, liberty happiness. The sexism of the 2016 election is now already raising its ugly head again, this time vis-à-vis Sen. Warren. As NPR reports, a sizeable chunk of the Biden and Sanders supporters are motivated by gender as strongly as they are by policies. The Republican opposition is still pushing the same old Phyllis Schlafly "barefoot and pregnant" subservience drivel. We can do better.
6
Before we pass the ERA, we need a definition of “woman”. I think “adult human female” works well enough, but the transgender ideologists would beg to differ.
If a adult human male can claim to be a woman, what is the meaning of the ERA?
How absurd that this is still an issue. Just shaking my head about how much in this country is just utterly wrong. All I am left to think is that the white patriarchy is much, much more afraid than I ever thought.
6
Besides obviously being appalled that such an amendment is even necessary, there is an interesting constitutional corollary. It seems that once an amendment is passed by Congress, without deadlines, ratification by the States is only a matter of time (which can be long), as positive ratifications will continue to accumulate with the turning winds of state politics until the 38 states threshold will be met. I suppose there is no mechanism by which a state can withdraw its ratification therefore slowing the process, does anyone here know?
1
Will an ERA mean we women will finally have the freedom to determine whether to have an abortion or not? We have a long way to go still. Please don’t stop fighting for what’s right.
11
@reader in wash: finance is just one of the child’s needs. The child also needs physical and emotional attention. Men should take care of finance and call the shots? And so many men don’t even pay child support.
I'm old enough to remember when Republican First Lady Betty Ford was pushing for the ERA. Sad that the Republican party has now become the party of sexism as well as the party of racism, treason, and lies.
44
The article says:
"For women, it would bolster pay equity ... and pregnancy discrimination protections, among many other things. It could also affect men, such as by guaranteeing paid paternity leave equal to maternity leave."
But the amendment says:
“Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.”
So wouldn't the possible benefits listed apply only to federal and state employees? How could this affect private employers? This question is not addressed in the article. We need to know more.
3
@Polaris Suppose a lease between private parties included a provision in which the tenant agreed to give up the First Amendment right to free speech. Would a court enforce it? I think not. Suppose an employment contract included a waiver of an employee's Fifth Amendment right to due process of law. Would a court enforce it? I think not. Same logic for the Equal Rights Amendment.
3
What is to happen to the mythical image of an old brute of a man able to do what he wants and treat women differently - that many men admire and wish for? As with all laws and rights be prepared for men who can’t see the future (or the past) for what it should be to attempt to make it what they wish it ought to be.
As a straight male I thoroughly enjoy watching men cringe at these “rights” are bestowed upon “others” knowing that what they see as erosion of society is all in all a society putting them in their place and reminding them manners and humanity should be intrinsic to their nature but sadly must be enforced by laws.
Heaven forbid the day comes when the American male is not revered or allowed to tromp on others.
14
Congress has no authority to make up rules about amendments that are not in the Constitution. The Constitution never established time limits nor did it give Congress authority to make time limits. This is not rocket science. It’s simple.Either we follow the rule of law or we don’t. Establishing time limits violated and continues to violate the law. Given that Democrats have become the party that supports the rule of law and Republicans are the party that opposes the rule of law, it looks like the ERA finally may become reality.
8
If an Amendment has yet to be approved why can't a state,
if it so wishes rescind its initial approval ?
If States that voted "No", later voted "Yes", we do not hold them
to their original "No" do we ?
Perhaps the Amendment should be re-written and re-submitted
to Congress and the States.
1
@John Brown The article suggests that the reason is legal precedent. Even though I support the ERA, I understand your confusion. Precedent is precedent, though, I guess?
1
@Luke
Hi Luke,
I am just wondering if this issue has been
ruled on by the Supreme Court and by
what aspect of the Constitution ?
1
I thought women already had equal rights. I guess I am mistaken. As a woman, I have never felt inferior or denied rights in which I am entitled. I do miss the days when a man got up and gave a seat to a woman on the bus or subway. Men do not get up even for a pregnant woman anymore. Things may only get worse if this passes.
Women are different whether we want to believe it or not. I guess i am just old fashioned but I like to be treated differently but always with respect. Some things will never change and I hope they do not.
6
@KMW Did you enjoy not being able to open a credit card in your own name? Did you enjoy having your husband or father in control of your money? Would you like to go back to that?
Yes, you have rights now, but they can easily be taken away because they are not incorporated in the Constitution.
And if you feel like you have all these rights, then passing the ERA will not affect you at all. So why not pass it and provide assurance that you will keep these rights. To you, it won't make a whit of difference, but to others, it may help them and it may help you later.
9
There’s not much respect when women continue to make less then men for work of equal value.
7
@KMW Simple courtesies flow both ways and are welcomed. Wage and job discrimination are not courtesies.
12
Phyllis Schlafly, who was a law student at Washington University in St. Louis while I was an undergraduate there, was one of the worst “interpreters” of the meaning of the ERA. Her every effort, like her Republican colleagues of today, was to bend meaning so that the public would be repulsed. When ERA advocates commended the effort for equal pay, Schalfly would emphasize shared bathrooms or combat missions. Nothing she said made any sense, then or now. But, her point was that justice delayed could be justice denied: And, just like the Dred Scott decision that was first rendered in that same city (St. Louis), she succeeded for a time.
America where are you now, don’t you care about your sons and daughters? Don’t you know that we need you now, we can’t fight alone against the monster.
15
Ladies, get those pens ready. You’ve got a draft card to sign!
On a serious note, this seems more like a PR victory than anything substantial. Based on the language cited in this article, I don’t see how this will impact pay equity unless you work for a government entity.
4
@Brian
I'd be happy to sign one, except I already did my six. Have you?
4
@Brian
Why do you seem to think that women shouldn't be drafted and men should? I think that if there is a draft (and we haven't had an active draft since 1972), it should be equitable, so no more cheesing out because you have a rich daddy who can get you in the Air Guard or bribe a podiatrist to say you have bone spurs (but not the kind of bone spurs that keep you from playing golf or baseball). The draft should also cover up to age 55, as long as they pass the physical. No exception for members of Congress or their kids, either.
My sister was one of the first women to get into West Point, back in the seventies and she passed all the academic AND physical requirements the men did. The extreme hazing and harassment, both mental and physical, that she endured would put the average guy in a puddle on the floor.
The ERA would affect pay equity in the private sector just the way the Civil Rights Act does. You can't legally pay African Americans less than Caucasians, private sector or not. That's a good thing, right? Right?
6
@Brian Us Navy veteran here. No need for a draft card. I already volunteered.
3
If the time for adopting the amendment expired without adoption, the amendment is a dead issue. You cannot go back and revive something that is already dead.
2
@Brad That's the issue, though: was there a valid deadline?
4
I think I hear the rustling of Republicans (and some conservative Democrats) as they scurry about trying to find a way to block the Equal Rights Amendment.
10
@Donna M Nieckula I don't think even the most conservative Democrat will be trying to block this although they may not enthusiastically support it. Republicans, yes, they will do their utmost to kill anything that helps anyone but white Christian males.
4
Not THIS Supreme Court. Or the next one, if it happens soon. Nooooo.....
The ERA should enshrine equal rights not just for women, but for EVERYONE, no matter their sex, gender identity, race, national origin, color, religion or anything else that has been used as a basis for discrimination.
3
@Country Girl
Take a look at the 13th, 14th, and 15 Amendments. What new right or protection would the ERA add?
1
@Country Girl - it does. But race, color, and religion are already covered in other amendments.
2
Halleluiah. I was 3 years old in 1972 when it was passed by Congress. I'm 50 now.
8
I hate to ask but I haven't heard what Trump thinks of this. Could it be something like: "Misogyny yesterday. Misogyny today. Misogyny now. Misogyny forever." I think George Wallace said something similar a half-century ago, about another American dream denied for a century or two. We've come a long way Baby. Or, have we?
6
The ERA says; "Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex."
I looked it up and this is what the ERA would change:
Governmental actions that treat females or males differently as a class would be subject to strict judicial scrutiny and would have to meet the highest level of justification.
Today, governmental actions that treat males or females differently as a class are subject to intermediate scrutiny, which means that the differing treatment must: 1) further an important government interest; and 2) must do so by means that are substantially related to that interest.
After the ERA, governmental actions that treat females or males differently as a class: 1) would have to further a compelling governmental interest; and 2) must be narrowly tailored by the law to achieve that interest.
It would make it a bit harder for the federal and state governments to treat classes of females or males differently. The governments would have to prove a stronger justification. Non-government entities would not be affected, as the ERA would only apply to the federal and state governments.
16
One would think amending constitution is a matter of law. Constitution Center has a fuller and less political account of the matter. Journalists are too caught up in politics.
At the very least, NOW v Idaho (1982) should be mentioned. I believe it is the latest action from the high court.
The validity of rescission remains an open question according to many scholars. Somewhat relevant is the fact that Ohio ratified 14th for the second time. Justice Hughes in a 1930s court opinion also pronounced it a political question, overriding earlier rulings.
I am today a proud Virginian by choice, not birth. In a region with a long history of excluding others, by race, gender, class and birthplace, we now have a D.A. whose background as a public defender and quiet voice for progressive justice reform brought him 56% of the vote. Our new county sheriff has 20+ years of experience as deputy sheriff, the support of her staff and a lived commitment to treating all with respect--and won 60% of the vote to be the first female sheriff. Our new representative to the county board of supervisors is a former JAG Navy Captain with experience assisting both parties in Congress as a liaison on Navy personnel issues. She happens to be a transgender woman and won easily with 55% of the vote. We in Virginia are ready to affirm to Congress, to the Supreme Court and to the world that in Virginia, women persist FOREVER on important issues.
58
As a female its dispiriting to me that passing an Equal Rights Amendment is still so controversial. American men think they are so advanced but they really aren't.
149
It is a fact that the time has expired! Try living by the rules instead of always twisting them to appease some particular constituency!
2
@Richard Thanks for that helpful input, Richard.
2
@Sasha Love
The reason the Equal Rights Amendment is still so controversial is not because of "American Men". Conservatives feared that he would be used to protect abortion if Roe vs Wade was overturned. That's why it stalled and why several states voted to rescind their approval. And since there IS a possibility that Roe vs Wade could be overturned soon, that argument still has weight.
THe article should have gone into this.
2
I shall wholeheartedly applaud the passage of the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA). There are so far 27 ratified Amendments, which should make ERA the 28th.
The next to look forward to is the 29th Amendment that will correct the oversight of the Founding Fathers in the 2nd Amendment. We read in the latter, "... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". This wording does not say, the bearing of arms EVERYWHERE AND AT ALL TIMES is guaranteed. It created a legal loophole, allowing many States and even municipalities to restricit anticonstitutionally the modes of carry of arms in public and, to a lesser extend, the right to keep them.
I am one of those who believe that the carrying of arms by citizens of good will and sound mind is a powerful deterrent of criminals.
3
@Tuvw Xyz Your entire argument hinges on Scalia interpreting a comma differently than it was interpreted by the Supreme Court for 221 years.
19
@Tuvw Xyz ... the carrying of arms by citizens of good will and sound mind is a powerful deterrent of criminals...
Clearly, that is why both the crime rate _and_ suicide/homicide by firearm is higher in states with the least restrictive firearms laws.
How about open carry by anyone of any age?
Toddlers have the right to defend themselves, don't they?
Really, it is time for legitimate common sense, not paranoid, testosterone-inebriated claptrap to guide the gun debate. Makes we wonder about the sanity of SCOTUS members who twisted the 2nd Amendment language after 200 years.
11
@ Mike Z Albany
Thank you for this important piece of historical information. I am a firm believer in the importance of a comma. Its place either before, or after "not" in the following sentence, often cited in or Russian, is clear:
"Execute not pardon".
Or in a cabled advice of a German rabbi to a group of investors, asking him whether they should buy or sell: the rabbi's cable read "buy not sell".
2
One really big failure of both state and federal legislation.
Or should I fault the voters who have elected wrong-headed and biased legislators.
We as individual citizens must suffer the ignorance and apathy of our fellow citizens.
3
Thank you.
For years I have "commented" in every way I could ever think up, on articles that had only the most tenuous thread to women or human rights or, okay, sometimes I even pretended that there was a discernible connection, to try to educate the women of this country that WE ARE NOT LEGALLY EQUAL!
And, every time, someone would snarl back that we were FULLY covered by the 14th Amendment.
But we are not.
Never have been.
I'm 71.
And I have feared that I would die legally unequal,
having only the legal status of a woman living in Afghanistan, for, she can vote, too ---- that is her only legal inclusion, as it is ours.
And, to keep HER unequal we have spent almost 4 - 6 Trillion dollars. Gosh, then it must really matter, aye?
Yes. For if women were legally equal then there could be no laws passed on our anatomy...... unless those SAME laws were on men's anatomy, too.
That would mean that these men would have to really sit down and THINK about the laws that they pass.
Wouldn't that be special?
Alright, I won't rave, but this matters.
51% of this nation is considered legally inferior.
Bad enough that God considers us that.
Even worse, we are forced to pay the same tax-rate as men.
If the ERA is NOT passed, then I call on women to strike. No sex. No paying taxes. To present a full bill for 400 years of being shut out, refused education, refused inheritances, equal work or pay or any other status that named us unequal, inferior, less-than.
Finally - one way or the other!
29
@rosa as a liberal Lutheran Christ-follower, I do believe God loves us all equally -- we are made in God's image! It's time for all women, of every age, and the men that partner with them to stand up and make their voices heard, however they can.
1
I hope that even the possibility of this finally happening causes Phyllis Schlafly to spin in her grave, or better yet scream in frustration in that circle of Dante's Hades reserved for opportunistic conservative hypocrites like her. Oh & on women serving and so much of her other hysterical rantings she already lost. Sad eh.
16
Coming soon to Virginia, the 'Turn in your guns to the police, NOW' act, as sponsored by the residents of NoVa.
It's for your own good people. Or so they will tell you.
1
@AutumnLeaf
Off topic. . .
I was born in 1956. I’m 63. When I was a kid we lived through the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Vietnam war on TV each night, the astronauts walking on the moon, the assassinations of many important people, Nixon’s impeachment, Gloria Steinem and women fighting for equal rights...
So many things happened on a big scale. Good and bad. But there was always hope that things would keep improving.
I’m worried for our current generation. We’ve had a truly horrible human being as President with a display of many horrible enablers all around him: his family, his lawyer, his Cabinet, fools like Lindsey Graham, etc. Our young Americans have many horrible role models and not many in a position of power speaking out against the rot all around Washington.
I sure hope things get better and our youngest generation can see that there are brave Americans in Washington and elsewhere. That the system works. That there is reason to be hopeful.
10
Of course, there is a sad, ironic, hypocritical fact behind all of this.
You see, though the United States denies the women of THIS country Equal Rights and forces them to remain in second-class status, there IS a country where the United States INSISTED, DEMANDED that the women be made equal.
That country is Japan.
After World War 2, it is we, the United States, who wrote the Japanese Constitution.
In their Constitution we demanded that women be equal.
The Amendment was written by Beate Sirota Gordon, an American woman who happened to be in Japan and was asked by the military to include women's equality in the document.
This was at the same time that the women in the United States still were not equal - and, indeed, still are not.
But Japanese women have had legal equality since before I was born.
And, the Japanese women have all had equality, all through Sirota Gordon's life.
The woman who facilitated Japanese women to be equal, herself, died unequal, just another American woman that our government would not allow to be on a legal par with a man.
Her name was Beate Sirota Gordon.
Her memoir is, "The Only Woman In The Room".
The New York Times did give her an obituary.
It was a good one.
But it did nothing to give her equality.
21
@rosa Don't you find it ironic that despite all these legal "rights", Japan is a male dominated, patriarchal society?
1
@Jsailor
Thanks to the US, that is changing.
2
Men can use this to their advantage. They would be crazy to be against this.
2
@Mandrake - they seem to think it's a pie and if they give someone equal rights they will lose some of theirs. They aren't too bright sometimes.
3
I am 52. Reading Ms. Schlafly's argument made me want to laugh and throw up at the same time. I remember from TV the buttons, the rallies and then the sad re-submitting of women in the 90s and 2000s by the religious right. Forward this article to any females you know. Let's get this DONE.
Separate but similar topic: I am amazed at how little time is spent on updating such antiquated laws... I know it takes time, but our senators could really be helping our state and its citizens (Natives and non) by digging and revising white-man focused laws. @senatordansullivan and @lisamurkowski are you listening?
7
A chance to make amends for the profound damage to gender equality done by Schafly.
12
Even at this advanced stage in our civil rights picture, the GOP still will fight it with every legal and dirty trick in their playbook.
They will try to stop it to please their base of evangelicals who see female equality as a danger to male superiority in their world.
Our politics are crazy, the world laughs at us.
10
@Mike The GOP doesn't need legal tricks to stop the amendment; it requires a 2/3's vote of each house to pass and they can easily muster that it the Senate.
1
@Jsailor
They already passed it.
Will this also include LGBTQ individuals? I certainly hope so. Equality for ALL is needed in this country. It is not the 1800's although sometimes it feel like it.
7
@Zoenzo
What part of female and American slavery of females by all males ever since the 1600s do you not understand? A lot, likely. Some of the most heinous misogynists have been gay men and certainly the pretenders who ridicule XX, especially lesbians.
Why wouldn't every American want legislation designed to guarantee equal legal rights for all American citizens regardless of sex (or gender identity)? As the article notes, legislation was introduced in 1923 and bills passed in both the House and Senate in the early 1970's. But conservative women raised concerns as argued by Schlafly and some labor feminists worried about labor law complications, and the bills died via procedural even though ratified by 35 of the necessary 38 states.
That brings us to today, where there's no reason why women should not be guaranteed equal rights. Congressional Republicans, specifically McConnell's Senate, may not bring anything to a vote, but that's preposterous. That said, Mitch has never been helpful for We The People unless legislation has political benefits for the GOP. He's stalled floor debate for popular concerns like common sense gun safety legislation for more than 8 years so delaying or ignoring equal rights discussion and/or legislation would be typical of his leadership. Do nothing seems the common fall back for Senate Republicans.
9
If Virginia ratifies the ERA (likely to happen) and then the issue goes to SCOTUS (also likely to happen) and they vote it down 5-4 along party lines (possible, probability hard to gauge) then why not go whole hog and bring back coverture?
At least that would be morally consistent. Whether that would be moral or not I leave as an exercise to the reader.
2
What does it mean? The ambiguous Second Amendment should be a warning not to pass laws (or constitutional amendments) whose meaning is unclear, forcing (or enabling) judges to act as unelected dictators to decide their meaning.
The deadline is embedded. If you want this amendment, start over, resetting a deadline (or, like the earlier proposed amendments, without one at all).
2
@Jonathan Katz - no, reread the article, especially about the 27th amendment.
Good God Almighty! Might the ERA finally pass? Is the US finally ready to admit that women are equal to men?
Okay, the ERA is just a symbol, but I began working to get the ERA passed as a young woman. Nobody would say I am young these days and somewhere along the line I came to understand that our country didn't really accept women as the equals of men in spite of endless amounts of evidence.
So I don't know if the ERA will do anything but make me happy if and when it passes. I can't imagine that there aren't a lot of septuagenarians out there being made happy by this possible victory. I believe quite a few of us will be happy if the ERA finally becomes law.
8
@pajaritomt Hello, Pajaritomt. My mom from Los Alamos went to Illinois in the day to fight for the ERA to pass. My hope for you and my mom and myself and yes, my son, is that this will become a part of our constitution, I will keep the faith for you by fighting on...
1
50 years ago I was a supporter of the ERA because I believed then in equal treatment under the law for all. I still believe in that, and I still support the ERA for that reason. However, now I have another reason to support the ERA.
Back then, ERA would have advanced equal rights by prohibiting unfairness to women. Today, I think the ERA will advance equality by prohibiting unfairness to men that has resulted from the successes of feminists to retain special privileges for women that had existed, add new special privileges, as well as obtain relief from many disadvantages that women used to suffer.
I suspect that feminists will come to regret enactment of the ERA because many feminists long ago abandoned seeking equality and instead began seeking special privilege. I will enjoy their discomfort if that occurs.
4
I had to read this a few times, but I see where you're coming from.
1
@Errol
Why do I doubt this story?
Because it reeks of male privilege.
I doubt you were much of a supporter, 50 years ago.
1
Women do NOT have equal rights today. There are many areas of open discrimination. There is a “Men’s Grill” restaurant in my neighborhood that doesn’t serve women. Women can be fired if their bosses (or their bosses’ wives) deem them “too pretty” and “too tempting.” Female high school graduates have much better grades and scores than males, yet have a much harder time getting into colleges. The same thing happens in many fields in higher education (where it would be simple for students to provide a number on tests, instead of a name.)
10
@Laura Colban
1) I'm with you completely regarding the "Men's Grill" situation
2) Your complaint regarding women being fired for being "too pretty" is against women (those wives) not men.
3) You are absolutely wrong about the high school grade situation affecting college entry. Surely you would not be making the absurd claim that women are smarter than men because they generally have better high school grades than men.
Girls have better high school grades for 2 reasons. First, high school grades are substantially influenced by non-intellectual factors. They reflect substantially teachers appreciation of demeanor, behavior, and the degree of social regulation to which students have submitted.
Second, high school grades tend to be more easily obtained in certain courses more than others. It is generally more difficult to obtain higher grades in high school math and the sciences than high school social courses like history. Overall average grades reflect differences in the choice of subjects that high school girls and boys make.
Furthermore, colleges are more interested in the prospective students' aptitudes, not their past performance, and especially not how well they did to learn the misinformation, disinformation, and misleading information that comprises much of high school courses in history and civics.
You wrote "...it would be simple for students to provide a number on tests". I certainly would prefer this rather than colleges looking at people's Facebook accounts, that's for sure.
“Among other things, she argued that the amendment would force women to serve in combat and render single-sex bathrooms obsolete.”
Ironic that these objections were kind of prophetic. We just don’t consider these consequences of the ERA to be objectionable anymore.
9
Thank God, finally! Fifty years too late for me, but at least my grandson may not have to go through what I endured. Several years ripped out of my early twenties by a male only draft that sent me to war, only to return to face affirmative action for women for the next twenty. Both genders will benefit from the ERA.
5
Congress placed the 7-year deadline in the proposed amendment in order to get the 2/3rds vote in each house that was necessary to send it to the states. Without the deadline, it would never have passed. The deadline might also have encouraged some cynical votes in the states.
To retroactively eliminate the deadline would be the same as retroactively changing other provisions, such as clarifying that "sex" means a physical distinction and not the modern muddle called "gender."
There is also the matter of states that have recanted.
Amendments should not be ratchets that, given the ebb and flow of state control, are eventually inevitable. There should be a clear deadline and it should be upheld.
2
You wrote "There is also the matter of states that have recanted." Yes, I wish the article would have expounded upon that part.
1
@Mark91345 They did.
@Kevin
The deadline is NOT in the amendment. The changes you suggest would have to occur IN the amendment . . .
1
It is astonishing that anyone in this country opposes equal rights for women. Women are not chattel – they are our mothers, wives, and daughters. They are also our co-workers and friends. It is way past the day for the country to proclaim officially they are full-fledged citizens.
9
The time limit has expired. The amendment is dead and Democrats should have the integrity to recognize that. Why do Democrats have such hard time with obeying the law. Just once try sticking to the rules. Last minute efforts to twist the rules to suit a given constituency seems to be a hallmark of their politics!
2
@Judy Weller,
If the amendment is dead, then the process can simply be restarted.
1
@Judy Weller,
There is no time limit stated in the Constitution, which is the controlling law. The preamble to an amendment is not the substantive part of the amendment. I do not know how SCOTUS would rule on this but it would be a bit of a mental twist for the originalists not to look to the Constitution's actual language on amending as written.
3
But Congress set a time limit! Do you have a problem with following the law? Or do you prefer to twist the law like a pretzel as Dems do all the time!
Phyllis Schlafly, the surprise downfall of the ERA, attended my high school many decades before I did. Her class composite photo is still tucked away on the second floor. When I learned that she had gone to my school, I was very upset. We were both young women of privilege. I will use mine differently.
7
@Angst I don't see how a single woman could have been the "downfall of the ERA". What did she do, wave a magic wand? Sounds to me like the amendment had other problems ( e.g. abortion) and Schlafly has been made the scapegoat.
1
@Charlesbalpha
I am old enough to remember the insanity of Phyllis Schlafly. Read your history!
1
What exactly does this change? The Equal Protection Clause already affords women (and, theoretically, men) this protection. So are we now adopting constitutional amendments as virtue signals?
5
@Edward Kiernan
The Equal Protection Clause went into effect in 1868. Somehow I don't think the suffragettes who were force-fed in prison in their struggle for the vote felt their rights were being adequately addressed by the Equal Protection Clause. Lots of similar examples followed that one.
28
@Edward Kiernan The Equal Protection Clause has been interpreted to combat gender discriminiation, but it does not explictly bar gender discrimination. Under modern constitutional jurisprudence, gender is considered a less protected category than race, and gender discrimination is given a lower level of scrutiny in lawsuits than racial discrimination.
7
@Edward Kiernan
We already did that with the 22nd amendment. Try again.
3
Don't women already have equal rights?
They may not like an amendment like this...it applies to both sexes.
No more alimony payments.
Sexual harassment lawsuits, for wearing revealing outfits.
Bias lawsuits in all female businesses.
Men playing with women in sports.
10
@Raz
Yeah no. That’s not how any of this works. 1 the text of the ERA is very simple:
Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.
This doesn’t mean “no alimony”, this means that alimony could not be denied based on sex. So if you make less than your former spouse and you would be entitled to it you could not be denied based on sex.
9
@Raz Why in the world would that be the conclusion of this ratification? Alimony payments can and do get paid to both genders. Sexual harassment can and does get litigated to both genders. Sports are rights?
5
@Raz something tells me that, yes, women will like this amendment, wholeheartedly. The march of social progress can be slowed down but cannot be stopped. Accept it.
4
Men shouldn't support it just out the goodness of their hearts. Imagine more leverage for fathers in family court. Imagine being able to retire the profoundly useless accessory known as the necktie.
3
Regardless of the merit or demerit of ANY proposed Amendment to the Constitution, there should be a time limit on when any proposed Amendment can be ratified. Three years is enough to ratify any proposed Amendment.
The problem with languishing Amendments is that they get ratified while the general public remains unaware of ttheir pending status. That's not fair to the public. We got lucky in that most agree that the 27th Amendment has merit. Still, it should not have been ratified in the space of two centuries, while the general public was preoccupied elsewhere.
Frankly, Congress should resubmit the ERA to the States and re-start the ratification process from zero. A languishing Amendment successfully ratified has less legitimacy than a re-submitted ERA properly ratified within three years.
4
Don’t like the result, change the rules mid-stream.
2
@Sean Cunningham
Congress extended the deadline for the ERA to be ratified from March 22, 1979 to June 30, 1982 in a resolution passed only by simple majorities in Congress. It was not even the two-thirds majorities called for in Article V of the Constitution. At that point, 5 State legislatures had voted to rescind their ratifications of the ERA.
The rules were not changed midstream; they were changed when the stream already ran dry.
Again, it remains far more practical (and moral) to resubmit the ERA to the States for a new, more legitimate ratification . . . within three (3) years.
@Tom Bauer this seems like a new rule. In 1992 the 27th amendment was ratified after waking almost 203 years. Are you calling for the repeal of the 27th amendment because of the time it took to get it ratified?
1
"What the Republican-led Senate will do is less certain: As is the case with any legislation, Senator Mitch McConnell, the majority leader, could refuse to allow a vote."
Exactly what will happen. The Grim Reaper strikes again.
6
@John Graybeard -- Well, I think he's going to lose his job. Be patient.
5
The failure to pass the ERA has been for me symbolic beginning of a decline in American greatness. Now, as we soar to new depths, we see the result in Washington. Lets hope that what goes around comes around.
14
@jumblegym
I agree. We have declined.
Women are not equal, yes, but there are children in cages on our border; there are men in Gitmo and a Supreme Court Justice said that they should have no expectation of ever being tried; the discussion of my youth: poverty, arms, wars, the theft of the land of the Native Americans, never makes it into the news; the right-wing has infiltrated every court and not one of us can tell us what is happening 50 miles away. Eight people hold the same wealth as the poorest 50% of this world's population.
That "ERA Failure" was the capstone of Reagan, 45 years ago, Trump's spiritual father. The only difference between the two men is that Reagan oozed warmth even when he was slitting a man's throat.
Trump makes no pretense even to that.
Every Fascist hates the ERA.
8
Imagine that! Such radicals! Why put so much financial and political pressure on the government and industry by grating women the right to 1) work 2) healthcare 3) ownership of their own bodies. Imagine the cost. It would bankrupt the country for centuries to come. Moreover, once they get ERA, they may want to run for President or something.
The ERA was more challenging an issue than Medicare for all, since the latter involves men as well - who get sick. Due to politics and will, more than funds Medicare for all probably won’t be possible immediately, but greater expansion is.
12
There is a logic problem here that Lewis Carroll would have loved. The Constitution does not mention anything about time limits in its amendment process description (Article V). "Congress ... shall propose amendments" and it "shall be valid ...when ratified by the legislatures of 3/4s of the several states."
However, the language of the amendment itself says that there may be one. "Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification." Note it says that States ratify while Congress proposes! Yet a time limit was placed in the introduction to the congressional "proposal". as has been done several other times lately.
So the questions become can Congress sunset its own proposals even though many states have ratified? Can Congress, having passed its proposal, auto-recind not only its own votes but those ratifications by several states? Is Introductory language constitutionally binding on the courts and the states? Are all supplemental provisions binding on the amendment process? Or does, as Scalia kept insisting, the exact language of the Constitution matter? If not, does Congress or do the courts get to decide?
The Circular Logic Game.
2
@Speakin4Myself
You have that wrong.
It is Gorsuch who insists on Textualism: What is the 'wording'?
Scalia was the on who said that we had to figure out what the Founding Fathers were "THINKING".
And Trump just wants to know, who were the Fondling Fathers?
3
I do not understand why anyone would object to the ERA in this day and age.
55
@Nicholas DeLuca Women in the military. Gay rights. Transwomen in the women's bathroom. Cats and dogs, living together.
2
@Nicholas DeLuca women that don’t want to participate in the military draft.
It’s hard to understand how the equality of the genders is even at issue.
29
@Todd Congress and the Courts have made the Amendment almost moot. OTOH, given the way the Courts have rules without the ERA there is some concern what they might do WITH it.
1
I can die a happy woman regardless of what else happens politically if the E.R.A. is finally passed.
Because I will know that girls and women in the future will have the right to live free, happy and good lives. And it cannot be legally taken away from them.
35
I’m sure the merits of any argument before the SCOTUS will be fully considered and the vote will be 5 Republican justices against 4 Democratic ones.
14
@Rockaway Pete
9-0 Decision: The 7-year deadline extension is constitutional, but all the state votes up to now are voided.
@Rockaway Pete
You may be right, but that will signify yet another nail in the coffin of the GOP.
1
@View from Europe I agree- if the GOP fights this tooth and nail, it won't play well with non-GOP women and certainly not with young voters. But, as much as would love to see another nail in the GOP coffin, I hope they do the right thing.
OK, Boomer(s):
We’ve been waiting since WE were the young people of the country.
Let’s get it done.
ERA NOW!!
102
So 100 years is about the time it takes for a totally common sense constitutional amendment to pass in the USA. Wow. Doesn't bode well for the long wishlist of reforms that is so frequently demanded in this comments section.
50
I believe that this amendment should be added to enshrine in the text of our constitution the equality of genders. I also believe that to ratify it based off of a congressional vote from 1972 and the original state elections being decades ago would be a serious mistake. The amendment's validity would always be called to question. If we are serious about wanting this amendment we should call on Congress to reaffirm their commitment to it and call for new elections from all states to ratify it.
8
@Stephen S
Well, then we'd best be getting rid of any SCOTUS decisions on the Second Amendment, seeing's how the "right to bear arms" was only decided on by Scalia's majority back in the 1980's.
4
Is this the same ERA that Phyllis Schiffly railed against?
10
Says so right in the article.
2
Yes. And it says so in the article.
2
It is.
3
I've told my students today that the ERA may have a chance to pass, and what that may mean for the US, both men and women. The bright female students in my class yelled out, 'Yay,' to this news, the boys, not so much (yet).
I'm hopeful for the younger people of the US to have a better future than the current situation.
100
@David B
Your 'bright young female' students may not be the only ones to yell out 'Yay.' What the ERA eras' 1923 and 1972 could not have envisioned is that if and when ERA is ratified LGBTQ individuals' rights might well be legally enshrined as well, as gender roles become less and less defined, perhaps even with rights granted to people who identify as having no gender at all - which could make some recent Supreme Court decisions null and void.
10
@David B Fighting for passage of ERA is pointless and will accomplish nothing. The deadline passed....in 1979. The extension has been declared unconstitutional. Even if you get the required 38 states the amendment will be buried in litigation. If it is brought before SCOTUS which is more conservative today, it will be declared null and void. It has to be...our laws are bound by precedent. There's no reason for SCOTUS to overrule the lower court. Why wage a symbolic campaign that diverts energy from securing effective legislation for discrimination? There is no rational argument for proceeding in this fashion. Especially when there are more important issues that need to be addressed.
1
@Richard
Ironic that your comment to this particular article stereotypes gender.
The reason this has not been passed is because it is simply not necessary. SCOTUS decades ago counted every part of the Constitution as counting for women as well. This Amendment won't change anything. So I really don't care one way or another.
9
@Roy P …. I guess some people have not gotten the word. Discrimination in the basis of sex is alive and well in our society. Issues of equal pay, issues of employment discrimination, issues of access to some professions and so on persist.
And, what are the downsides of women being offered protection from discrimination ?
41
@Roy P
Spurious argument. If it "isn't necessary" then if it passes then nothing will change.
It's obviously necessary. You just need to open your eyes.
14
@Nicholas DeLuca
How are women, in the concrete, prevented from entering any professions?
My experience with PhD program applications was that in male heavy fields, women have much, much higher acceptance and hiring rates.
Research shows that the most "egalitarian" nations actually have the most gender segregated professions, because when femininity is valued as much as masculinity, women feel less obligated to "prove themselves" as equal to men in a masculine heavy field, and are more free to choose a career based on their own interests, which tend to be... surprise surprise, more stereotypically "feminine", since in the aggregate women and men have different interests and intellectual strengths (though there are outliers, of course).
The pay gap is nearly non-existent before women begin having children. And while we could certainly do more to support working mothers, the reality is that many, if not most women, WANT to be with their children more either by taking time off, working part time, or by having a less demanding career. And most women deliberately choose to marry men who have the potential to make more money than them to make up for it, which incentives men to choose higher paying careers.
What is important is just making sure all people are free to fulfill their potential, not insuring that their dreams perfectly conform to absolute equal outcomes between the sexes.
The only way to get equal outcomes is to do violence to personal choice.
Seriously hard to believe that this isn't accepted law--and wisdom--in all 50 states. Conservatives still adhering to Schlafly's antiquated perspective are essentially calcified holdouts.
33
It was immense hard work for campaign staff and thousands of volunteers to get Democrats elected in Virginia, a state that did not grant women the right to vote until 1952. We are poised to become the 38th state to ratify the ERA.
If Mitch McConnell doesn’t let a vote happen, I feel another march coming!!!
61
@Babs
What’s his name should not have a right to prevent any vote from occurring.
His performance is a great example of male aggression due to fear.
6
@Babs
Women have had the right to vote in Virginia, even thought the state didn't ratify the 19th Amendment until 1952: "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."
The legislative history in Virginia should include a statement that it is the intent of the Virginia legislature that the term "sex" includes sexual orientation and gender identity.
5
When this passes maybe equal pay will win the day.
20
Even though it's been 96 years in the making, this amendment is ultimately 230 years late. Let's hope Mitch McConnell can gently step out of the way and let this finally become law of the land.
18
@Jacob Sommer
Don’t count on it. Such ill-founded authority bespeaks of fear-based control.
2
@julia I know, but an overaged boy can dream that the Senate Majority Leader can be right as often as a military clock and do it for this issue.
It's time. Go, Virginia!
16
It's high time the ERA is passed. The fact it has not yet been passed is a disgrace. Once Virginia has, at last, signed on to it, while a master of procedural interference, the failure of Mitch McConnell to permit the Senate to vote to extend the deadline, as well as the failure of Republicans to support and vote in favor of it, will speak volumes about their deeply held misogyny. The fact this is even being debated in 2019 is nothing short of appalling.
82
The bets have to be on the Supreme Court invalidating any action by Virginia. The GOP appointees on the current court are so regressive that they would declare slavery to be legal (with Clarence Thomas in the majority) and declare the previous amendments to the contrary to be unconstitutional. To liberal nitpickers: Don't you worry. They will make what "reasons" are needed somehow.
16
Leaving aside that the constitution makes no reference to deadlines in its amendment process, the argument that there is a time limit is null and void in light of the fact that the 27th amendment took 203 years to become ratified by 3/4 of the states. That said, I have long stopped expecting that this current version of the republican/Trump party will act reasonably and in their own best self-interest. Far be it for me to offer advice to the GOP/Trumpettes, but they would be smart to just let this one go, since otherwise it will be yet another energizing factor for those trying to remove this putrid and misogynistic infection currently occupying the White House.
44
I read this headline and immediately wanted to call the people I marched with through Washington's August heat one Sunday afternoon 55 years ago but then I realized that they are all dead.
It's way past time for this to be ratified.
275
@SB You just put me in tears. thank you
16
@SB
Yes, best to get on with it while we can..
Thank you for the part you and your late friends played in support of it 55 years ago.
19
Hard to believe that American women are still waiting to be legally equal under the Constitution in the 21st century!
Then again, I shouldn't be surprised, seeing how much anti-women sentiment currently exists, between Trump, Epstein, religious fundamentalists, the continuing rise of anti-abortion activists and violent 'incels', while #meToo is only a recent phenomenom.
37
@ml Women are legally equal under the Constitution in the 21st century. Go take civics 101 if you don't know that.
The Equal Protection Clause was penned in 1868 as part of the 14th Amendment. The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that this includes sex discrimination from 1971 Reed v. Reed to U.S. v. Windsor.
It's great if this makes people feel better. I'm all for equal protection. It's just redundant from a Constitutional standpoint.
2
If women were truly equal, no anti abortion law would be constitutional.
10
Yes, Yes, Yes. its about time. Women are more than 50% of the population. Come one , come all
16
No matter what happens with the ERA, there is more than some irony here. Forever it will be true that SCOTUS found homosexual marriage to be a constitutional right before women got full equality in the US.
44
They haven’t given LBGQT people equal rights yet, either!
3
It is already illegal to discriminate based off sex so what does it matter? Go ahead and make it an amendment. Seems like yesterday’s news
3
If you don’t already know the distinction between legislative law and constitutional law, allow me to edify you briefly.
The same pen that signed a law into existence can turn around and sign its repeal.
A Constitutional right, once enshrined by an enumerated Amendment, can only be revoked by another Amendment. In other words, it becomes a far more robust right.
There now. Were you paying attention? I sure hope so.
67
@David Women share the responsibilities of citizenship with men, including paying taxes, voting, sitting on juries, and serving in the military. Our Constitution should guarantee to women equality of rights as well as duties.
12
David, time for you to do some reading, especially of its history.
Check out the websites of the groups mentioned in the article, too!
6
As usual, the only thing holding back American progress, civil rights and equality is......Grand Old Patriarchy.
Heckuva job', GOP.
Take a misogynistic bow.
58
@Socrates LBJ is long dead but he would be celebrating. But for Vietnam he would have gotten this done in his second term.
9