I would expect the first lawsuit under the ERA, if and when it gets passed, would be a suit over the unequal treatment of men compared to women by the criminal justice system. The second suit would be over the fact that men are disproportionately steered into hazardous jobs, and as a result are 12 times more likely than women to die on the job.
Thanks, NYTimes Editorial Board. The arguments against the ERA made by Phyllis Schlafly and the Eagle Forum, and being revived by conservatives today, were simply up-dated versions of the arguments used by the women opposed to woman suffrage --and who fought against ratifying the 19th Amendment. (The NYT editorial board also opposed woman suffrage, but that's another story.) That basic extension of democracy--giving the vote to women --was also almost defeated, with "Antis" claiming that the Amendment would destroy the American family. To understand the roots of opposition to the ERA--see the NYT Book Review this Sunday:
https://nyti.ms/2J8PKAt
The current (?) version of the ERA is insufficient, given the new understanding of the LGBTQ population that has developed in the 35 years, since the ERA ratification period expired. It should include " basis of sexual orientation, [etc.]" as well as "basis of sex." Not doing so leaves in place (and thereby approves de facto) ongoing discrimination against a minority population.
How did America's susceptibility to all this cultural fakery take such hold?
Trump's hoodwinked conservatives into believing that he's just like them.
Overselling and under-performing remain his specialties. But we already see through him.
His mostly male cabinet is a basket of deplorables.
He has no use for women, nor respect for them. Ratifying the ERA would be something he'd never think of. I doubt he ever uttered the term ERA.
And the put-upon James Comey reminds me of any Catholic schoolboy I recall from years ago---well behaved, calmly sitting with hands together on the table, attentively speaking about what was asked of him.
Trump's reputation rests as the womanizer with a younger wife about ready to give birth.
There, I said it.
2
Isn't it amazing that in the 21st century where everyone from LGBTQ to Racial groups have equal rights women are still second class citizens. It boggles the mind.
5
Although plausible, this editorial completely overlooks the dangerous side effects that adding the ERA to the Constitution could cause. I have discussed these side effects in a recent op-ed at NewsMax, where I am a weekly contributor. https://www.newsmax.com/paulfdelespinasse/equal-rights-amendment-constit...
1
My memory is that unisex public bathrooms was the leading argument against the ERA at the time. We've gotten many of those since then, and the republic seems to have survived. Of course, a few places still do have their minds in the toilets, this much later.
6
Its amazing that any one would oppose the ERA's ratification.
5
American math.
1949 to 2018. Not exactly a century but hey they are the ones with Air craft carriers and their groups.
You argue with them.
1
Let's pass this and then have one team for each sport-Basketball, volleyball etc and see how many women make the team. Biology is destiny in some areas that proponents overlook.
That, sir, is a straw-man argument. The ERA is not about leveling physical differences between gender--no law can do that, and no one expects it to. The ERA is about the different social standards applied to gender: equal pay for equal work, the right of a pregnant woman to have her healthcare decisions respected (in many states, a pregnant woman, regardless of her wishes to the contrary, cannot be removed life-support if her fetus is potentially viable, turning her into a uterus with a body attached).
Case law has helped women become valued in the same way as men, but case law can be undone fairly easily by conservative judges. A Constitutional Amendment is much harder to undo, and must be respected by judges as the overwhelming will of the people.
11
Adopting the ERA would be a great start. The next important step should be direct popular election of the President eliminating the electoral college. We need at least 2 more: Defining "speech" as separate and distinct from money and defining a natural person as distinct from any other legal "person/entity" like a corporation, association, or partnership.
8
I survived the original "Women's Revolution" . . . not without conflict and heartache and blatant hostility, both in my home and workplace.
To see these principles written into our Constitution would be an honor and a source of pure gratitude.
10
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Seems pretty clear that all persons already have equal rights under the Constitution. Not sure what we need to add...
1
The Constitution guarantees equality. What does “extra layer of legal protection” mean? And what does Trump have to do with it? Surely, your lives have meaning without Donald Trump.
2
Only The Constitution conveys constitutional strict scrutiny protection, anything less is simply,less
And no equal rights for sex(gender) is NOT kinda, sorta already in the federal constitution, just ask Scalia- to quote:
"The question is not whether the Constitution requires discrimination based on sex, but rather, if it prohibits it, it doesn't " .."Nobody ever voted for that, and you can't just decide to reinterpret it in. If indeed society has come to a different view, there is a process for that",seek an amendment,( i.e. ratifying the Equal Rights Amendment).– Justice Antonin Scalia, Hastings College of Law, September 17, 2010.
"I would like my granddaughters, when they pick up the Constitution, to see
that notion – that women and men are persons of equal stature – I’d like
them to see that is a basic principle of our society.”
If I could choose an amendment to add to the Constitution, it would be The
Equal Rights Amendment
Ruth Bader Ginsberg April 18 2014
11
I am one of those women who thought that the ERA amendment had already been passed. Why wasn't more not done to get this bill passed under the Obama administration? It probably had a better shot then with the Democrats in office then it does now. I am surprised Barack Obama did not push for this. He pushed for everything else.
The dislike of our current president is the driving force behind the factor to rush this bill through. Not everyone feels President Trump has been a bad choice for women. He received a large portion of the white women's vote who found Hillary Clinton unfit to serve the highest office in the nation. She was not really interested in equal rights for women only the rights of Hillary Clinton. Where did that get her? She lost the election.
1
The ratification of the ERA doesn't have to do with who holds the federal government. It's a matter of State politics since the Amendment has to be ratified by the individual States. For example, in my mainly Republican state, the ERA will never be ratified. The conservative Republicans have successfully demonized feminism for several generations of women.
4
Coed locker rooms and ending alimony? Seems like Trump would be for the ERA.
4
Three cheers for the E.R.A. After that, let's get rid of the 2nd amendment and the electoral college. Now that would be progress.
11
Need to know which states have not ratified the ERA. Will spend my travel and vacation dollars elsewhere.
11
I do think, from time to time, the vision (constitution) of the United States should be updated as the people of the United States evolve and learn.
Equality in treatment between sex’s (or gender) is now widely believed to be a fundamental tenant that we believe is essential to the future of our society.
It just doesn’t matter what has been achieved in practice, this deserves to be encoded in the foundational statements as a clear signal that we have learned and decided this is foundational.
4
Actually, there is a call for a constitutional convention to add a balanced budget amendment to the US Constitution. However, constitutional scholars believe that a constitutional convention could do anything to rewrite the Constitution. As of a month or so ago it was four states away from the necessary number to call the convention. I don't know the current status; my State legislature is considering it this session.
2
April 20, 2018
Excellent support for what's a much human rights for all women to have choice without fear and hostility. Americans are modern, educated, and demand to protect their rights to live safe and with respect for choice in parenting and as with protection of the best of our political class - and not by a tyrant or factionalism by anyone, or any group by whatever banner.
jja Manhattan, N.Y.
3
The evolution of democracy is a slow and arduous process. Thankfully it occurs, but frustrating it takes so long.
Counting on this 'rebuke' is a bit too optimistic. Women have been voting for less than a century. And women have been free from discrimination for a little more than half a century.
The Founding Fathers intended that women stick to birthing babies, caring for kids, cooking and cleaning house. And that is what the three wives of King Donald I have done best. Trump's misogyny was and still is on display.
4
How would this affect LGBTQ rights?
How about taking this one more step?:
Article XXVIII (2018)
Women are equal to men when it comes to being citizens of the USA and as a result should be represented in the same sex based percentages as they are citizens. If they continue to make up 50% of the voters, they must make up 50% of the representatives of the House and the Senate and every two terms the applicable representatives must change to the opposite sex for each new representative and every eight years the offices of the President and Vice President must change from a man to a woman or vice versa and back again for the next two terms. This change is also recognized as being the first to set term limits for each and every elected official of the US Government.
3
There is zero chance that this will stand up to the numerous court challenges if it ever did pass---which is doubtful. Florida or Utah? Are you kidding me?
Five states have rescinded their vote and the deadline for passage expired decades ago.
Would it not be wiser to start from scratch with a new amendment that actually does guarantee equal rights? I would go to the polls to support that in a second.
This looks like a reverse of the republicans and their repeal the ACA nonsense.
By all means let’s pass it! Then let’s get onto the next constitutional amendment that does away with the abomination of corporate personhood.
11
I fully agree that Trump has given the feminist left a boost.
But I suspect that liberal economics is going to undermine liberal social goals well before any particular conservative buffoon will elevate them.
Consider Illinois a bit more closely, since they’re the catalyst here. Their government is on the verge of bankruptcy due to their economic equality goals. Robust public sector pensions, employee protections, higher minimum wages, and regulation designed to protect workers are all combining to stifle business formation, job growth, and increase out-migration. The result is a state that’s less and less a viable model for the rest of the nation, similar to CA, CT, and NY.
And as IL and other deep blue bastions become less livable due to liberal economics, those of us in red states become more skeptical of their liberal social goals.
The key I think is to pare conservative, pro-business economics with liberal social policy. Why no one except the libertarians are doing this seems beyond me, as it makes so much sense. It’s consistently hands off.
But instead a lot of voters like me have to be swing voters, and pivot between the two mainline parties based on where they happen to be on these spectra at a given point in time. So in theory I might be for an ERA, but I’ll oppose it for the time being because I’d rather my daughter grow up in a fast growing, pro-business society than one that’s obsessed with and stifled by an unworkable ideal of identity based fairness.
1
Here's the problem though: what you're claiming here about "liberal economics" hasn't been backed up by any serious study, quite on the contrary.
But you don't have to look at studies, you can also look at what Obama achieved: he turned a -9% GDP (which was going down even more each month, when he took over from Bush) into a decade-long stable and growing economy, where instead of shedding 700,000 jobs a month we've now been adding an average of 220,000 a month. That makes it one of the longest job growth periods in recent history.
As to the economics that the GOP has been supporting for two decades now: it simply comes down to more tax cuts for the wealthiest citizens and largest corporations, all while increasing the deficit and debt burden for future generations such as your daughter. So exactly HOW is that helping her to get a decent job and salary ... ?
10
I wonder if you will still be saying this if your daughter is denied equal pay, equal respect, equal chance at advancement in the “pro-business” utopia you propose. Corporate America is driven by profit and the people left behind are unfortunately women and especially women of color. I’m pro- business, but unfortunately, businesses often don’t self regulate to minimize abuses in the workplace. One shouldn’t be afraid of passing an amendment that would guarantee our sons AND daughters are treated fairly under the law.
5
I am totally in support of the ERA, but could we please please wait a year or two to re-focus on it - until, hopefully the Democrats have re-taken Congress? We don't need another issue that gives republicans fodder to claim Democrats are planning to draft young mothers, fire hardworking men so companies are fifty fifty, and football teams have to have women in equal numbers. They will do it, believe me.
5
I'll have to go back and explain to my ESL students what it takes to pass an amendment. I told them the ERA had been killed, that I had witnessed its demise. And now, hallelujah! it has been resurrected. And perhaps the the trump world, it feels like a rebuke, but what he did was make it crystal clear to a new generation what the ERA is about and what it means to women and to our nation. Thank you!
7
As not only a woman but also as an individual, I am both insulted and hurt by one commenter's opinion that the ERA "is another class-based protection muddying up our Constitution." To this person, I have several questions: Since when are women in the category of "class-based"? Do we have a caste system here in which we are second to men? And the ERA will muddy our Constitution..such an egregious attitude.
Let's get one thing strait here. We women have had it with the insistence by men to control, manipulate, and exploit us. It's over. You may be physically stronger, but we can equal and in many instances better you when it relates to intellect, leadership, wisdom, and...emotional maturity. This commenter's attitude is shared by thousands of his peers including a disgraceful president. And this is why it is time for an Equal Rights Amendment.
23
It's about damn time. That the core of the opposition is from the right wing Evangelical community comes as no surprise. That the #MeToo movement has the power and the momentum to possibly push this through the final hurdles is the best news I've seen in a long time. I think politicians who're "on the fence" should remember those seas of pussy hats in the women's marches and how many of those women will remember them and vote accordingly. 2018 can't come fast enough.
8
The old white men who dominate the airwaves and government are slowly being replaced by women. Strong women, one a double amputee from wounds in war. Many of the men she works have harassed women with impunity, are unfaithful, and enjoyed a boys club mentality including swimming nude in the government facility. Better ERA than NRA.
12
Barbara: I'm an "old white man" who has supported a fought for equal rights for all most of my life. You need to reexamine your own sexism when you blame it all on 'Old White Men" since there are still are far too many women who are against the ERA. Why not attack them too? or does that ruin your narrative that is is only men who want to keep women down?
5
Oh spare me. What equal rights do we not already have?
1
Many of the "rights" that women have won are not actually rights but permissions.
10
Just remember: Michael Cohen states that a married woman can't be raped by her husband. Sounds like some people at the top could use a little education. Better yet to have a law.
11
The ERA! Welcome back 1971! The editors of the Times show both their age and irrelevance. Listen, you are on a roll. Let us know when to expect an editorial on withdrawing U.S. troops from Vietnam.
2
We can only hope...
“Now the day is close at hand
That across this lovely land
Those who try to keep us down will be defeated!
So help us speed the day,
Shout the word, it's ERA!
Till the era of equality is greeted!
So no more debate because we can't wait
We demand equality today
And it's fight we must to make the law just
ERA - ERA - ERA!”
Ballad of the ERA, Kristen Lems
6
I see that Arizona has not ratified the ERA amendment, I am writing to my legislators today.
3
I wonder how the passage of the ERA would impact the rampant misandry present in our family courts.
2
There being a variety of meanings of the words sex and gender, it might be well to avoid confusion by adding the words "or gender" to the amendment. In biology sex refers to the dimorphism of male and female reproductive organs and secondary sex characteristics. In sociology the term gender refers to social roles ascribed to the sexes and also the individual identification of each person which may be congruent or incongruent with their biological sexual characteristics. In everyday language sex and gender are usually used interchangeably. Since the Congressional clock ran out on the original amendment decades ago, it seems to me that the process will have to return to "Go" anyway, since 5 states have rescinded their approval. Adding "or gender" would not make the effort easier or harder but would be quite clarifying and importantly inclusive.
3
I'm genuinely confused by this editorial. It's clear that the ERA is nowhere near passing. As you say, 5 states have rescinded their ratifications. And Congress's deadline for ratification expired over thirty years ago. So how would one more state ratifying it make any difference?
2
It would be a great thing if the ERA were to be enacted. But can the 1982 deadline for ratification by 38 states really be swept under the rug as easily as this editorial implies? This matters a great deal because sadly, starting the ratification process from scratch is simply not a practical option these days. There is NO WAY, in the current political environment, that the ERA would get a 2/3 vote in BOTH houses of Congress as required by the Constitution. Equal rights is a much, much more partisan proposition nowadays than it was in 1972, when the ERA passed Congress. So if someone's got a good argument that the post-1982 state ratifications should nonetheless count, let's hear it.
1
“Now the day is close at hand
That across this lovely land
Those who try to keep us down will be defeated!
So help us speed the day,
Shout the word, it's ERA!
Till the era of equality is greeted!
So no more debate because we can't wait
We demand equality today
And it's fight we must to make the law just
ERA - ERA - ERA!”
Ballad of the ERA, by Kristen Lems
http://www.kristinlems.com/equality_road___double_cd/s/ballad_of_the_era
1
This has been long overdue but until women stop voting against their best interests nothing will change. Too many women are raised in accordance with the "pink bootie" syndrome, how can we rise above this rational and if not for ourselves but for our daughters and granddaughters? If not now when?
9
Knowing Trump, he probably thinks he could veto ratification of the ERA, and would throw a Twitter-fit when Jeff Sessions had to explain that he can't.
3
As a woman, I would like to know what rights women have been denied? I have never been held back and have been able achieve to my goals and aspirations despite my sex. No one has stopped me from doing what I please and I have been relatively successful.
Today we see many women in the fields of politics, medicine and law. We even have female pilots such as one who flew the Southwest Airline flight that was instrumental in landing the plane without more deaths from occurring. We have female scientists, engineers, and policewomen. I do not know any profession that is closed or prohibited to women. The sky is the limit.
No one should be denied their dreams or held back in life because they are a woman. I think women have made great strides and they now outnumber men attending college. We even have our own colleges and universities. We have come a long way.
1
Try doing that in the South!
1
This is a wonderful issue for Democrats to push and embrace. After Illinois, both Virginia and Florida are good places to push this issue. Republicans would be foolish to fight this but I suspect they will.
3
If the Editorial Board is going to open with 'Trump is a sexist' it needs to be very clear about what precisely that means and how the board arrived at the decision to conclusively lay that label on him. I find Trump frightening and repulsive in all sorts of ways, and am open to arguments that he may be a true sexist, but the magnitude of that claim needs serious backing up. I do not see that backing up in this article.
Secondly, can we point to specific RIGHTS that men have that women don't? So far in the comments I hear complaints, some of them valid, about differing outcomes between men and women, but differing outcomes is not the same as differing RIGHTS. If there are specific legal rights I am missing please do let me know. This is not a sarcastic request....I am being honest here. Please help me out.
I have nothing against an equal rights amendment in principle (hopefully one worded much more broadly to include all humans, not just focusing on gender), although I would like to hear much more about how it would work in practice, especially after the way Title IX has evolved (for example).
1
Thank you NYT Editorial Board! I'm almost 85 years old and to be honest, I had no idea the E.R.A. was still in the works! Hurray! Hope it gets passed before I'm gone.
6
The wording of the amendment is such that men can receive recourse during rare cases of being maligned on account of gender. Everybody wins!
1
An ERA as written seemed perfectly reasonable in a simpler time. But if it is passed, what about all those people of more....ambiguous....sexuality? How many more amendments would be needed? Perhaps a rewrite is needed first.
2
Welcome back to the arena, ERA. No longer associated solely with 70’s feminists. This debate is here to stay.
3
This feminist thinks alimony should be revisited and would hope ERA passage would do that. Honestly ladies, if we're going to demand equal opportunity and equal pay, should we really be asking our husbands to support us in a divorce? Child support 100%, no matter what you earn yourself, but alimony? Have some pride in your ability to support yourself. Demand the opportunities, yes, and then make them make you self-sufficient.
2
The ERA had a specific time limit for ratification that is long past even after being extended. The 27th Amendment had no such limit and, therefore, is not a precedent for ratification after the specified deadline.
1
Yes the ERA needs to pass. I marched for its passage in Virginia in the 1970s and was distraught that high school young women at the time actually voted against the ERA in model general assembly. Is Virginia less regressive now? I hope so.
However it is important to recognize the 5 states that have rescinded the amendment. Rescission is important for the health of of our constitution as well. There are far too many states that have passed the balanced budget amendment which would be a disaster for our country if it were added to the constitution.
3
I was in my first year at NYU, and had joined the Women’s Center, participating in a “consciousness raising” group, and organizing in support of the ERA. We had an assembly with Betty Friedan as the speaker, and every leading feminist in the city answered the call of this 18 year old. Years later, I remember going to Washington with two friends for the ERA March. Like Justice Ginsburg, I would like my young adult daughters and their children, to live in a world where finally, equal rights for women is the law of the land.
9
1. The article, in my opinion, overstates the value of the ERA over and above the 14th Amendment. Sure, "the court decisions that make up the 'de facto E.R.A.' can be undone in a way a constitutional amendment cannot." But that is incredibly unrealistic. Court decisions extending the 14th Amendment to gender-based discrimination date back several decades and have been re-affirmed countless times by SCOTUS.
2. The article does not discuss what I believe is the greatest problem in ratifying the ERA. For decades, the 14th Amendment was interpreted as only applying to race-based discrimination. Conservatives will hold the ERA up as proof that this originalist interpretation was correct. That is, if the 14th Amendment was intended to apply to all types of discrimination, then the ERA is superfluous. Thus, the 14th Amendment must have only been intended to apply to race-based discrimination. That could have severe consequences for laws that discriminate against other groups currently protected by the 14th Amendment.
2
I thought women already had equal rights. They are certainly doing very well in our society as compared to years ago. They run companies, they are in every single profession including doctors and lawyers and they hold political office. Today we have more women attending college than men.
This is really about abortion and liberals see they have been losing ground in this area. President Trump has been defending those on the right who are pro life which never occurred before. He has appointed pro life members to his cabinet and has many in his administration who are strongly for the movement. Laws have been passed to restrict abortion and they see abortion rights slipping away from them. Many Planned Parenthood facilities have closed and pregnancy centers are popping up throughout the country.
As a woman, I am for equal rights for all and not just one sex. Women have made tremendous gains and nothing has held them back except the women themselves. They can do anything they want and can achieve success in any area they want. They just need to really want it.
3
In Roman times, for a thousand years, the head of the family had the power to reject a child and order it abandoned, "exposed" in the place for that. Some died. Some were picked up and raised as slaves. Some few were adopted. The Greek story of Oedipus being exposed suggests this goes back even further.
Meanwhile in Carthage, parents gave their children to be burned alive in sacrifice at the altar of their god.
We rightly rejected those things.
Then we went further, and rejected abortion too, and even contraception. That is going too far, I think anyway, and many agree.
However, the judgmental tendency is an extension of things with which we agree. We must recognized that and reason with them. Instead, those who have strong feelings each way abuse the other and get nowhere for decade after decade.
We need to talk. We've given that up. Only the politicians benefit, by increasing our divisions to allow them to manipulate all of us.
Again, my own opinion favors a moderate position on abortion. I want to see the issue resolved on those terms, by a general move to the middle instead of pulling to the extremes.
2
The main thrust of this article is the Equal Rights Amendment. The article uses abortion to illustrate that, and so have I. Those ideas about abortion need to be generalized. I'm suggesting that our politics has pushed us to division, instead of pushing us to solutions. It does that to serve politicians' partisan needs to win the next election, not to provide good government or leadership.
The Amendment and issues tied to it are ultimately about good government, not about getting Jane elected instead of Mary or Joe.
2
The 1982 deadline and the rescission of approval by several states create confusion that will likely put the adoption of the ERA in the hands of the Supreme Court. Anyone want to bet what it will do?
3
Why should a woman have the right to decide whether or not to deliver a child I do/don't want or can/cannot afford?
When women give up that right, I'll consider your ERA.
I am still recovering physically from having given birth over 15 years ago. When men start carrying the babies then they can have a say but only over their own bodies.
3
WHY? That assumes that "the man" will be the One to take charge of the child--feeding the child, diapering, nursing, housing. Unusual, due to mom-hood and dad-hood mores and norms in now in firm existence. If or when he decides to leave or refuse responsibility, then She often picks up the slack; he disappears whether he made promises or not.
That's the facts. That's why. And it doesn't even take into account a child born of rape, a soul-searing event.
2
You already have the right to use a condom/get a vasectomy/refrain from sexual intercourse. In short, if you don’t want a baby, make sure you don’t make a baby. Now, about equal rights for women, what exactly is your objection?
5
1. "Rule of law" -- so sacred a value to the Left, when it comes to bashing people for pursuing patriotic, national goals that vary from the Left's agenda; but when "rule of law" interferes with the Left's agenda--like when the law explicitly says "you have seven years to approve this amendment" and it fails, and Congress still takes extraordinary (unconstitutional) means to prolong ERA's life and it STILL fails, and after adoption of the 27th Amendment Congress explicitly said ANY pending amendments that did not have 7 year caps in them (as all modern amendments do) are dead, and states have rescinded ratifications -- no, we can find some excuse to breath life into the corpse of ERA;
2. But wait -- I thought the Left was as so far beyond that hated "gender binary" into fifty shades of LGBTQIABCDEFG -- would it not offend the Progressive goal to enshrine "men" and "women" into the Constitution? (Might even tempt we to reconsider opposition to the amendment).
4
The fight for granting women constitutional status in the United States of America has gone on for centuries, and has been spread over the lives of generations of American women.
The response from the American conservative power structure has been mendacious and evasive, with a leading example being a 2002 statement by The Heritage Foundation that American women "enjoy full protection against gender-based discrimination."
Um, no, just plain no. In 2015, a United Nations study group reported "In the US, women fall behind international standards as regards their public and political representation, their economic and social rights and their health and safety protections." Even those voter ID laws work against women's ability to work for change by making registration more difficult where there is a name change, as happens routinely when women marry or divorce.
What we see is a silent continuation of the male exercise of power to keep women second class people -- so well expressed by John Adams when he wrote to Abigail Adams at the time of the founding of our country, that men "know better than to repeal our masculine systems."
And, mind you, the excuses that are trotted out are ludicrous. Mother's Day might become illegal? Really? No, this is just noise and nonsense. Corporations really do like have employees they can pay less -- women. Institutions like keeping operating policies simple -- by not considering women.
Bring on the ERA!
22
Replying to "A.Man" too weak to give his name....Your line saying grandiously that you are offering to bargain away womens', girls', men's and boys' right to be free of Sex Discrimination IF women agree to try to strike a raw deal with a rapist, for example, or to accept only when Your own needs are met? You are going to say no to abortion no matter how urgently needed by mom or family until you get your way . Then you will "grant" us females the right to the Equal Rights Amendment IS NOT JUST OUR ERA--YOURS, TOO.
4
“Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.”
And on account of sexual orientation, race, and religion.
6
So are we ratifying an amendment that bans "sex" discrimination (which is what Congress and the states that ratified in 1972-73 understood they were doing) or the fictions of "gender" that are now being read into sex discrimination legislation by courts and the former administration, although nobody ever voted for them?
Semantics matter. I wish writers (apparently even those who worded the proposed amendment) would use the word gender, rather than ‘sex’. It is a far more accurate description of what is intended, at least from my perspective.
2
Gender includes more ideas, and those ideas were not current at the time this was written and initially voted by many states.
3
I certainly hope so. Here in NC our Lt Gov in the 1970s railed against passing ERA because he "puts women on a pedestal" and didn't want to demean them by voting for equal rights.
4
I pray it will be more successful than the Voting Rights Act.
5
ERA in TrumpAmerica? This has as much of a chance of becoming a reality as universal healthcare.
1
Remarkable passion on the part of those opposed. Since the 1970's, the very idea of equality for women has created such pearl clutching and fan snapping that big, strong conservatives all across the country have had to get out the smelling salts. Why, the notion that mother was equal to father is positively vapor inducing! Hard to believe they're still out there, but they live large in this comments section.
21
I think the ERA as currently written should be updated to explicitly support the rights all persons no matter their gender, sexual orientation, race, religion, ethnicity, cognitive ability, physical ability, medical condition or mental health. Spell it all out. Bring it in line with what we have learned since it was first written.
4
Love it. Maybe some day there will also be an amendment protecting equal rights regardless of sexual orientation or gender identification.
Nah. Not in America.
1
As a man, a son and a brother to women, I have always thought that the very need for this amendment is an abomination. Thank goodness there is a decent chance its final passage is in sight.
What a friend we have in donald. How ironic.
11
In 1978, a group of friends and I drove to Washington from New Jersey to march in support of the ERA. It was my first visit to the nation's capital, and we met the governor of NJ Brendan Byrne, who passed away earlier this year, also marching in support. It was a glorious day.
How frustrating it was that the amendment was not ratified. And how frustrating it is that, even today, many people commenting on this editorial are dragging out the same stupid, ill-informed, scare-mongering excuses that we heard all those years ago. We are still moving backwards for half of the population.
11
There you go again NY Times, overkill.
Women in theory and mostly in practice have achieved equality in this country post app. 1980. The difference pre and post is like night and day.
Don't play the gender card. We tried it after the great strides in racial equality app. 1970 and it almost ruined major cities including NYC with lifelong welfare, ruined housing market, damaged minorities who were taught they have to be on the dole forever.
Don't do that with women, ie since we have been discriminated against so long in this country prior to app. 1980 we have to be given special treatment in the Constitution and coddled forever as damaged goods that can't make it on our own.
Yes have women's group mentoring women how to get ahead in various fields, general areas etc. but don't start the since we are women we have to get 50% of everything whether we are qualified or not.
Learn from history or forever be condemned to repeat its worst aspects.
2
A wonderful rallying point for women and men who loath insidious discrimination and its evil progeny. Blind, very predictable opposition was in various forms used to oppose other Constitutional Amendments particularly women's suffrage. Hard to believe than when my parents were born, their mothers couldn't vote in this beacon of freedom. Trump and his acolytes provide enough outrage to energize a ratification movement. Hey, these amendments have new relevance. Read the 25th and say a prayer.
5
The VW van had its last ride in Nov. '16. This article was penned by those that missed saying goodbye; possibly becasue they weren't expecting a then departure. Which is another indication of their disconnect from America; as most of their would be NOW Youth -- don't even know of such a proposed amendment. Perhaps now (pun) they'll begin to understand how they lost. Will they ever allow themselves to heal? (pun)
1
“Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.” Are there any examples to demonstrate the need for this amendment?
.
"...on account of sex.” Maybe reword this to fit a more fluid interpretation. "...on account of sex, real or imagined, in the past, present and future."
.
You have to think this is top of the list for a few hundred people.
With this person, Donald Trump, and his pals The Republicans, I just keep obsessing on the world that will be left for my grandchildren and their generation.
The battles we faced as young women and young citizens are the battles today’s youth behold. What a selfish, insensitive, uncaring country this is. So disappointing for a grandma to see and believe.
HELP!
2
It is astonishing that we are still having this debate. As evidenced by the extraordinary leadership and composure of the woman who landed the SW jet after an engine explosion, women are clearly the equal of men. If the comparison were applied to Trump, I cannot think of a woman who DOES NOT EXCEED Trump in every category imaginable.
It is also clear that Trump's snake oil delivery and hardball tactics have eviscerated the legislation and executive branches of gov. All that's left is the judiciary and that's teetering. I submit that it's time we take to the streets, like the 60's and 70's when we needed to end the hideous war in Vietnam and pass the 1965 Voting Rights Amendment. Citizen's United has permanently neutered congress so it's time to stop waiting and demand action NOW. Shut down all business and government for a few days and the good old boy's club will get the message.
4
Utah is one of them.....really, based on what facts? My legislators will not even respond to my e-mails on very basic issues here. The Red Party here has about a dozen people running this Saturday at their state convention against Romney and most of their views are down right scary. Constitutional Libertarians in my state are in control and they are not family friendly.
4
As savvy millennials outnumber baby boomers, what the GOP stands for is opposed by voters in both parties. Women are turning on the GOP. In fact, the presidency of Donald Trump is truly the worst ever for women.
He's coddled serial spouse abusing staffers until forced to fire them, while plagued by lawsuits and complaints from women he's upset: 19 women had allegations about their interactions with him.
Millions of women rallied against him on his inauguration day, as well as a year later. His administration? Full of men, and he's placed mostly regressive males in key judicial positions.
Misogyny has defined this entire autocratic reign.
He said a woman should be punished if she had an abortion for any reason. Still doesn't support equal pay. Objectifies women with sexist rhetoric. Even weighed in on Stormy Daniels' looks!
Rolled back The Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces Executive Order. Made it easier for federal contractors with routine violations of sex discrimination to get contracts. Never committed to paid family/medical leave programs. Slashed Medicaid, made it hard for the disabled to remain employed.
Boldly sidelined the White House Council on Women and Girls. Even his attorney general--top law enforcement official--opposed the Violence Against Women Act. At worst, this should be a one-term presidency + a resignation is increasingly feasible.
8
It's interesting to see that "conservatives" are simultaneously opposing a Constitution that would literally endorse equality of men and women, and rejecting the first African-American president because in their perception he cannot be but a Muslim, and, they tell us, "Islam" is bad because it want to convert the entire world all while ... opposing the equality of men and women.
As far as I remember, Matthew 7:5 already explained how Jesus taught us to deal with such a situation:
"You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye."
And then we're not even talking yet that it has been proven beyond any doubt that it's birth control and preventive information that lowers the number of abortions, NOT making it illegal and taking away women's birth control all while keeping it perfectly legal for a man to have sex with a woman without a condom, AND then to refuse to take responsibility for the child.
So yes, I agree with the headline here. Trump IS the perfect poster child when it comes to hypocrisy, ignorance and active discrimination against women. Adoring to hire prostitues means adoring to have sex without any love, it certainly doesn't suggest that he "loves women".
6
If the ERA gets another chance I hope its supporters do a better job of promoting it. Last time the anti-ERA bunch put out so much misleading information the amendment itself got lost in the smoke. I remember hearing one vociferous opponent finally admitting she “hadn’t read the whole thing.”
2
I totally agree -- the nonsense that men and women are not equal has gone on quite long enough.
Equality of all is one of the bedrocks of our republic. We have even fought a terrible war over it. It is high time this was enshrined in our constitution.
4
" ... After all, they’ll always have racism to fall back on. And with the tax cut fizzling, I predict that we’ll be seeing a lot of implicit — even explicit — appeals to racism in the months ahead."
Which statement, Paul, speaks volumes about our so obvious racism, not only directed at black people, but also directed at all who are a shade darker than white, and at all who believe in any God, other than their Christian God.
All of us, reasonable empathetic people, are hoping that the midterms will lay waste the Trump and his Republican handlers agenda, but now I fear the midterms will come and go, and Trump and his Republican handlers will be unscathed, chiefly due to his much adored strongman rhetoric, and by November he will have ended the nearly 70 year ceasefire on the Korean peninsula, bringing North Korea into the community of respected nations.
The Democratic party, it's backers, and those of us who believe in Democratic Socialism, had better come up with a viable alternative, an alternative that will withstand a Trumpian onslaught, otherwise we will be dealing with Trump through his second term, accompanied by larger and larger bites taken out of the nearly dead American dream, resulting in a permanently economically enslaved poor and middle-class, on its way to penury.
Ah, but look, what a lovely Spring morning, everything in nature is raring to emerge, revitalized from the long cold winter; perhaps we can emulate nature and begin to end the Trumpian nightmare.
4
It's long, long overdue and there is no reason why an "enlightened" society shouldn't embrace it. Let's get it done.
9
It's so important symbolically, not just for Americans, but to help restore America's leadership role as a beacon of equal rights in the eyes of the world.
Women's rights are always the last attended to, and for women of color, the last of the last. Look at what's just happened in India. Look at Africa and Boko Harum. Look at the practices of ISIS and what they do to the women and girls they kidnap. Look at the Rohingya.
Women are still treated as chattel the world over, actually worse than chattel, because who treats their property the way some women are treated?
Yes, please, can we get it done during the term of the president who, as his fired FBI director says, "treats women like meat"?
3
I think the solution to this problem is simple: Elect a woman president. That should take care of it for all time, practically speaking.
1
The dream of a woman President died in 2016. As long as we have the idiocy of the EC, no close election will result in a win for the popular choice. That precludes a woman winning because any election with a woman candidate will be close, due to deep and broad misogyny.
1
“Right on” (also from the ‘60’s)
The ERA wouldn’t have helped Cosby, but a lot of other broken men—from media to government—might still be working; and maybe the grandfather of them all might not have even been nominated to the Supreme Court.
Still pushing that from-the-top stuff. All that centralized power grabbing that Democrats love and Republicans laugh at, because they figured out how to work Federalism.
Insanity is doing the same thing repeatedly expecting different results.
And think of this: as bad as Federal interventionism is now, thanks to the Commerce Clause finagle, how much real authority would States retain if the ERA were exploited in every possible way? And remember, it could be exploited by bad actors as easily as good ones.
2
My remarkable wife, the mother of our six daughters, my feminist mother and many amazing colleagues have each and all been outspoken and effective advocates of women's rights fighting to sustain the efforts since 1848 to forge an alliance to defend those rights. Many have courageously forged ahead to free women from the burden of arrogant men. In doing so they have in reality also defended the rights of all of us and our democracy from the encroachment of arrogant men who like our current president radically endanger our Nation. With one voice we must pledge to forever defend our treasured democracy and the liberties and rights of every woman, man and child without regard to gender identity, race, religion or national origin.
11
Deadlines missed, states rescinding their ratification, ambiguous drafting. This sounds like something on which we'd expend valuable political capital and spend years pushing to an inconclusive end. I think the safer route would be to start over.
2
It is really ironic that the US constitution still does not have the ERA. Recently they had a historidal lesson in TV dealing with the draft of the German Constitution, which is called Grundgesetz, under the oversight of the Allied Command, e.g. Americans, British and French.
There was a heavy debate going on about article 3 with the wording "Men and women have equal rights. The state will promote the actual implementation of equal rights for men and women and will do everything to abolish existing disadvantages." The conservative forces fought tooth and nail to prevent this explicit wording or have at least a heavily watered down wordin in the text. Eventually the original wording was accepted, not least driven by the fear that the Americans would not approve draft constitution. So, thanks to the US we have this article in our constitution. Isn`t that ironic in view of this debate in the US?
By the way, we have 5 articles in our constitution, which can never be changed. Article 3 is one of them.
7
Should the ERA read "“Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of GENDER" instead of banning discrimination based on SEX?
Or would the "originalists" say they have the same meaning?
Congress extended the deadline for ratification once, back in the 1970s, and the Supreme Court ruled that once a State had ratified an amendment, it could not rescind. The 27th Amendment was initially passed by Congress back in the 1790s, along with the Bill of Rights. So the ERA remains passed and ratified by at least 35 states. It might take another act of Congress to extend the deadline again, but time is on the side of the supporters of the ERA.
5
I remember talking about the ERA to my stepmother in the late seventies, early eighties. She got a mildly fearful, apprehensive look on her face: "But what will I do? I don't have a college education?" Nothing would have happened to her had the ERA passed, not to mention that she and my father already ran a successful business. I've certainly made some inaccurate assumptions in my time. Most of that more traditional generations has passed on, but the need to message effectively never changes. If there is to be a movement to revive the ERA, any anxieties need to be addressed respectfully. The non-college educated white voter that democrats neglected and trump captured would be the most likely source of resistance. Listen to them and demonstrate how the ERA would help their lives, especially the lives of their children and grandchildren. Be prepared for whatever Phyllis Schlaflys pop up, the modern version likely coming from the evangelical community.
11
Thank you for your editorial. I have been able to keep up with a few developements on the ERA over the past few years, but for some reason, it's been difficult to keep the news about the movement together. I participated as a rank and file SEIU member to support the ERA in the late 1970s as I recall in Richmond, VA. Although it was a bright sunny day, the streets were virtually empty. The March had been scheduled on some kind of special holiday and the government offices were empty.
Perhaps the next round in Richmond will be more successful. I am also cautiously optimistic about the final ratification in Illinois. No matter how many times, however, that we point to evidence that there is a majority approval of the population on progressive issues, and repeated attempts to reject the regressive attacks on our advancing public freedoms and acknowledging rights, either the media or the present Republican deniers seem to be happy in their own world.
In my world, different person's differences are only acknowledged as: The color of your skin is very beautiful, or the choices in which you express your gender are refreshing and welcome, etc. Is this so hard to understand?
3
I am absolutely for an amendment with this exact wording. But if race and gender based affirmative action programs are still sustained under this amendment, as you claim, I deeply oppose it. Affirmative action programs willfully deny employment and educational opportunities to individuals based on immutable characteristics. Additionally, this amendment does not specify what type of equality we are aiming for. Do we wish for equality of outcome or equality of opportunity? This is an important distinction that must be made known.
4
And non-affirmative action also willfully denies employment to the other set of people. So your point is?
2
I'm all for ratifying the ERA. But I must confess, we understand gender with some more nuance now. How will transgender rights affect the ERA? We owe it to ourselves to think it through, so that we can maximize our chances of success when the crunch comes.
3
Our world has changed in the century since this amendment was first introduced. Let's start with this, Sex, or the more common word "gender" is now a social construct.
California, a state that is often a social trendsetter, has eliminated the traditional binary classification on drivers licenses. Traditional roles, which translated into limitations of opportunities for women, are going fast when not gone altogether.
A century ago when this law was first proposed women were less than five percent of professions such as law and medicine, now they are close to a majority of this now entering.
When society has been transformed by the multifaceted process of culture change, this amendment takes on a different meaning, one that could have unintended consequences.
6
What are some of the unintended consequences?
12
Well. Sex is determined genetically in humans, and its expression is, like all genetically determined traits, variable and environmentally influenced. So let's have a little common sense in the discussion. The meaning of the text of the amendment could not be clearer. Rights cannot be denied on account of sex. Opposition to this cannot be justified in a democracy.
4
Hard to believe that the country that stands for democracy among all the nations of the world, doesn't offer women equal rights under its Constitution.
21
In addition to being a missing constitutional provision that's being sought to be restored to its original place, the ERA represents the collective aspirations of the civilised sections of humanity also, hence its successful conclusion is imperative to justify the American claim of being a modern democratic Republic. As about the doubts, legal hurdles. and technical issues surrounding the ERA, one shouldn't forget that the quest for freedom and justice has always confronted insurmountable problems and challenges before its realisation, be it the American quest for freedom from the British colonial rule or the quest for justice reflected in the Civil rights movement.
14
"Here at home, his administration has been hostile not only to abortion access, but even to birth control."
I will never ever understand how and why conservatives keep beating the drum to ban birth control AND abortion.
The party that has so many sex scandals among it's hypocritical male politicians would insist that their out of wedlock girlfriends abort (eg, Elliot Broidy) but the rest of the country can't?
Yes, female quality needs to be enshrined in the constitution because it's so easily flouted in real life.
Oh, GOP males love women alright, but only in their "proper" place.
98
As I understand it, the reason they want to curtail access to birth control is the same reason they have done their best to ensure that 90% of counties in the US have no abortion provider. Women who can decide whether and when they have children have much more control over the rest of their lives than women who cannot. We can compete with for educational opportunities and careers. Some people don't like that. They don't want the competition. Patriarchy has worked in their favor, they think, and they want it to continue. The most successful societies are those in which everyone is able to strive and reach their full potential, and for many underperfomers, full equality for women means the end of a lifetime of coasting into plum positions because they are male.
5
It is truly the time to enshrine equal rights for women in the Constitution.In June it will be 99 years since Congress gave women the right to vote.How appropriate it would be that a century later they are granted equal rights under the law.
52
Appropriate?!
More like appalling! 100 years late...
3
In a way, this is important to show that the Constitution can be edited. It's been static for too long, for decades forcing the court system to right many wrongs that the states should collectively address as part of the union.
Our body politic has been mired in bitter partisan warfare and has been frozen in time. This might obliquely promote positive and progressive engagement.
20
Shouldn't it include the word "chosen" sex? As it stands now, at least till the 9th Circuit in Lenin's Bay Area gets its cleric-hands on it, it implies born biological sex. In any event, seems redundant, but a nice cultural Marxist add-on.
7
Wishful thinking for Times editorial board.
Prior to Election Day we hear accusations that Mr. Trump abuses, assaults, grabs, fondles and forcibly kisses women.
Then we hear him say ten years before that he grabs women’s crotches.
Then on Election Day running against a white woman he gets 52% of white women to vote for him!
23
One little edit: let’s change “sex” to “gender”.
15
If the (original) intent was to ensure equality of biological gender, then this does not need to be changed. Except perhaps for XYY or XXY individuals
That "one little edit" means we get to start a forty-six-year -year struggle all over.
Nan Socolow
West Palm Beach, FL | Pending Approval
May equal rights for women be enshrined in our Constitution. And soon. And while Congress is at it, may the Second Amendment be abolished, repealed, (like Slavery and Likker). It's too much to ask, but here's hoping the 45th President of our United States of America will also be repealed and replaced, either by the 25th Amendment or by pitchfork and angry e pluribus folks in our hinge of history.
18
Reasons to hate Trump
Stock market at all time highs
Unemployment at all time lows
Housing prices all time highs
Tame inflation
Emerging talks with NK
Jobs coming back to the US
I don't know libs.....sounds pretty good too me.
10
-Stock market down from all time high, erratically fluctuating because traders hates uncertainty and know that no one wins in a trade war
-Housing market showing the symptoms of a bubble as it did before the crash
-3 decades of US presidents have cut deals with NK that have all fallen through
-What jobs have come back to America from overseas?
29
I can come up with a completely different set of reasons: at the top is sustain for our constitution and the rule of law.
3
45 has always had an uncanny knack to be at the right place when the inheritance fairy is apportioning gifts. Just as he was lucky enough to be born into a nouveau riche family whose paterfamilias was a pimp who grew his money well, so too he might be lucky enough to receive something else as part of an inheritance plan directed at him....something like an economy running well enough to support high bond prices, stockmarket higher and climbing and seemingly self-repairing after its last beating by Bush 43.
Prior to the ‘self-repair’ the entire globe was afraid that we all were freefalling into another 1930s style Great Depression. Pres. O managed to stop the freefall and shore up the economy—stockmarket et al— and leave enough life in it to allow Congressional Republicans to scrape up enough to be able to engineer their major tax reform, leaving us, the Nation, more broken and more in debt than ever before.
Ain’t it great. 45 is just genetically lucky when it comes to inheritances!
3
While the women’s movement was energized by Trump the women’s movement is still a not a clear majority voice even amongst women
Trump and then Moore in Alabama both got a majority of the white women’s vote in their elections
And amongst white non-college educated white women both got around 70% of the vote.
If Trump’s misogyny and Moore’s pedophilia didn’t convince these voters that these men are not worthy of holding office why should we think these same voters care about the ERA?
9
Those white women are not a majority of all voters. And I think some of them have changed their minds.
2
Frankly, I don't care if those women care about the ERA or not. They'll still benefit, though. And...you're talking about Alabama. A red state whose "voters" vote against their own best interests.
'Oh no.. does this amendment mean men won't be able to spit on women in public anymore?... Will the members (property) of my harem be freed from their bondage? Curse you New York Times!' Setting aside the jokes ...I can't believe I have to say that... women are already treated equally under US law. Why push for an amendment when equal protection already exists? .. Because it's a blank check for future 'equalizing' laws. One thing NYT, what's a right? Healthcare is a human right; could jobs be as well? What if a company (let's call it Facebogoogapple) employed a majority men? Hiring quotas would only be administering equality then fellow citizens! New rights seem to come out every year. Surely all people have the right to shelter? The right to food? The right to speak with your family (on a low cost nationwide plan)? The right to transportation to see their loved ones? Ah, but the ambiguous ERA would only enforce equal rights for men and women. Although... men do own the majority of property. They control the telecom industry, agriculture, energy... Gender 'science' tells us that 10,000 years ago, a caveman and his cavewoman (property) decided upon the duties of the sexes for all eternity. She got the short end of the deal. Honestly, this country is, like, worse than Saudi Arabia. Has anyone seen the sad women in red cloaks on the TV? Time for some equalizing!
6
Careful not to skin your knees as you descend that slippery slope
1
I enjoy all the scholarly citations you make for your claims
1
Johnny B not all that Goode,
Methinks you doth protest too much. If it's just a silly little exaggeration to pass the ERA, because women are already "treated equally under US law", why not just humor us and pass it anyway? What are you afraid of?
2
How bizarre that in the 21st Century women still do not have equal rights under the law. Why should gender disqualify you from equal rights?
37
Even of the worst people, you can always find something good to say about them if you look hard enough. For instance, Phyllis Schlafly is dead. Long live the E.R.A.
22
Are you kidding? While I think it's absurd the ERA was never passed, the times are much less liberal. The red states are redder than ever. ERA isn't going to get passed any time soon.
2
There’s a thin line between increasing desperation and sheer fantasy. The editorial board just crossed it.
3
"Having a sexist in the Oval Office" puts it gently indeed. By the accounts of many women and inadvertently by his own Trump is a sexual predator, guilty not merely of inappropriate behavior but of recurrent sexual assault.
That such an individual could be the President poisons America every day.
50
It is not hard to think of reasons why ERA will help women in this country. Here are just a few:
1. Harvey Weinstein.
2. Roy Moore.
3. Bill O'Reilly.
4. Matt Lauer.
5. the guy in Oval Office.
6. Roman Polanski.
And thousands more like them who are not so well-known.
21
There is an interesting aside in the just released Comey memos. Comey wrote that Trump told him that Putin had told Trump that russia has the most beautiful hookers. Which means that the second most powerful man on the planet (behind Xi Jinping) spends some of his time as president discussing the merits of hookers with the president of Russia.
Charming...
30
Would commenters still support ERA passage if the headline said "A rebuke to Clinton and Weinstein..." instead of "a rebuke to Trump..."?
3
Yes! Absolutely. Even more so, perhaps.
Unlike your stereotype, liberals are more likely to want to see their politicians take consistent, principled stands.
The Right, in contrast, is filled with rank hypocrisy, with evangelicals backing sexual assaulters, amoral, irreligious, dishonest men; conservatives shredding the Constitution and tradition simply to get a conservative, rightwing justice on the Court; Republicans putting party before country just to pass a massive tax giveaway to the rich and the corporate elites; and with Republican leadership looking the other way while the so-called president attacks the press, the Constitution, and the rule of law.
Sad!
3
Yes. They would.
1
Yes.
1
You're living in a dream. In order for this to be recognized, you have to believe that missing the deadline by 36 years doesn't matter and that the rescissions by three ratifying states don't count. Either proposition is absurd and both together are preposterous.
4
Actually, it was five!
While the deadline issue may be an obstacle, not sure that recession is!
2
Thanks, Trump. You have unwittingly bought this issue to our national attention. It's not just a " Women's issue ". It's about basic fairness and decency. I'm 58 years old, and have sincerely tried to live a decent, compassionate life. ALL my life. But I'm weary, and getting disillusioned and occasionally enraged. Why ? Because I have a Daughter, and two Granddaughters. Why must we fight the same battles over and over ???
Why are some Men excused for their obnoxious behavior, and even Crimes ??? Especially for Women, AND the good Men that love them : WE are the change that we have been waiting for. It's on US, no one else. It's now, or never. We own our bodies, AND our souls. Get to work.
48
I have never been able to reconcile the fact the Constitution of post-war Japan enshrines equal rights to every sex, while the United States Constitution still does not. Their Article 14 states that “All of the people are equal under the law and there shall be no discrimination in political, economic or social relations because of race, creed, sex, social status or family origin.”
17
Time travel is real! You can fly to the USA and experience life in the 19th century.
24
What Ruth forgot to add was "After they are born"
“I would like my granddaughters, when they pick up the Constitution, to see that notion — that women and men are persons of equal stature,” she said.
4
I have winced my whole life hearing countless (mostly male) politicians quoting "All men are created equal" from the Declaration of Independence as if that were something to be proud of about our history. I wonder if we would think the phrase "All whites are created equal" should be celebrated. Our country was founded on male supremacy. "Men" meant exactly that. ONLY men are created equal. #TimesUp for celebrating that or even calling our country's original government a democracy. Susan B. Anthony correctly labeled the U.S. system of government as "an oligarchy of sex." It's time to correct that in word and deed.
19
Don’t forget: it even all white men were created equal. It should have said, “All propertied men are equal. Anyone without property, be they slave or white, have no say, no right to vote.”
Less pretty writing that than writing “All men are created equal,” for sure, but so much more true.
1
I can't think of a logical reason not to ratify this amendment; it is a shame that humans are not more logical--equality would be much quicker in the making.
5
I hope that Florida and Virginia will ratify it. All people should have equal rights, period.
8
Unfortunately, in heavily-Mormon Utah, the founding dean of the Brigham Young University "Law" School was asked by the LDS General Authorities to write a screed denouncing the ERA back in the 1970s.
And indeed Rex Lee (father of Tea Party ultra-conservative Utah Senator Mike Lee) did just that. He authored a screed (with a complimentary forward from the dean of the Notre Dame Law School) called "A Lawyer Looks At the ERA".
Looking at it now, it seems laughable (including worrying about same-sex bathrooms and same-sex clothing, and including a ridiculous chapter on sexual assault and rape implying that men couldn't be raped because of their "different plumbing"). It also implied that the amendment might force the LDS Church to treat women equally, including ordaining them to the clergy, which is verboten in Mormondom.
There are still eight copies in the Library of the BYU "Law" School.
8
Many countries in the world have a provision in their constitution explicitly granting equality to both sexes. That we don’t is a shame. But then again, the US is an outlier in many things and not always in a good way. It is the most religious country in the Western world by far. I suspect this is the reason why such a commonsense measure as ERA has had to wait decades and even now its passing is not guaranteed. Unfortunately the American religion (I am not sure it should be called Christianity) has devolved into the policing of the female genitalia instead of being concerned with metaphysics or morality.
10
The ERA discriminates against "genderqueer" people, i.e., those who are between genders or multigender or have no gender; those who move between genders or fluctuate and those that are third gender or other-gendered. How can the editors be so brutally cruel to the people who who really need protection.
2
The ERA doesn't discriminate *against* the LGBQT community; instead, it is designed to *ensure* equal right for women. Big difference!
Claiming that it hurts gay rights would be like saying that the Black Lives Matter campaign or ending racial voter suppression discriminates against gays.
The ERA also serves as a stepping stone for expanding the Civil Rights
Act to cover gender not just sex — and for an Equal Rights Amendment based on gender.
For sure, it would be better if the amendment had originally stated “gender” rather than sex, but it is still a big positive.
1
Generally, anti-discrimination efforts need to be focused. Minority groups seldom fight multiple battles at the same time. Gays picked out marriage. LGBT are now fighting over enlistment in the military.
This article pretty much concedes that the ERA would have little practical effect and it’s passage would be largely symbolic.
There are lots of issues with real life consequences that are more important than the ERA. including equal pay, discrimination in hiring, and access to abortions. If the ERA can be passed without drawing attention from more important matters then go for it. But similar efforts suggest that you don’t get many bites at the apple. And the ERA doesn’t seem to be the right battle.
1
The ERA is, shamefully, long overdue. I hope it passes in Trump’s face, then, a second later, he’s impeached and convicted. Too much to ask?
2
"Enshrining women’s rights in the Constitution ... during this presidency, would be particularly fitting". -- And more, it would be a slap in the face of the uncouth boor in the White House, who well deserves it.
However, the E.R.A., if passed, would it be the 34th? It would be equally important to pass then also the 35th(?), that expands the citizens' right to bear arms EVERYWHERE AND ALWAYS. This is the best deterrent against violent street crime.
1
The 231 year old Constitution needs some editing.
In the original 1787 document, women were considered part of the household, subservient to the male head of household in polity and economic rights.
It's way past embarrassing that the United States of America is yet willing to let a small minority, who still subscribe to that 18th Century cultural anachronism, defy a simple declaration of equality for half of our citizenry in the highest legal standard of the nation.
It is now time that women knew their place, with certainty, and without reservation.
6
How many years have we women awaited for the ERA fight to be resurrected? What a marvelous cause during this time of political and societal confusion, amorality, and polarization. We can do it. It is there for us to attain. Let us not succumb to the spins and hypocrisy of the misogynist. Let us not be swayed by the inevitable arguments from evangelicals. I am tired and weary of being "second." We are more than Adam's rib. We are equal and demand that society no longer try to control who we are, our individuality, and ability to soar. An Equal Rights Amendment now!
6
Careful what you has ask for; the ERA might negate advancement for women because these quota-like decisions now favoring women would be eliminated. Bottom line, this isn’t 1972 and the Constitution already protects all individuals. More wasted time and effort on something whose time has passed.
3
Unlike "MeToo," adopting the ERA would mean solid, not just symbolic, progress and real change, not just limited improvement marred by excessive sensationalism, witch-hunting, and unscrupulous wealthy lawyers becoming wealthier.
Whether this is any kind of tangible possibility mainly depends on the internal politics of a handful of US states. Without a razor-sharp focus on that, all bets are off.
7
How might a strict constructionist conservative majority rule on said amendment. Duh.
I'd rather see the editorial space used constructively on how to organize in red state legislatures, or some attainable goal.
We can do both.
As in the past, members of the Southern Baptist Convention will be in opposition because their understanding of the Bible is that the male is always the patriarch of the family.
2
I remember marching for passage of the ERA in 1974 in Manhattan with many women. I can remember the nasty foul mouthed language used by MEN, along with being spit on, beer and other liquids thrown at us and MEN indecently exposing themselves along the parade route. I hope this gets passed without the abuse women had to endure through that march 44 years ago.
12
The Board is in the habit of making blanket attacks against religious conservatives. These folks are minorities with extreme beliefs which the Board consistently characterizes as bad faith. Here, the Board speaks of fearmongering.
I've been friendly with a number of religious conservatives, including my barber, a former landlord, several co-workers and a neighbor. I don't hesitate to talk to the ones I know best about our core beliefs. And it's not any different from debating anyone I disagree with. They don't put on their bad faith mask before telling me what they think about premarital sex, for example. They are matter of fact and sincere and they are respectful of the fact that I disagree. There's no fire and brimstone and no fearmongering, just ordinary argument based on premises that are very different from mine.
There is no indication that the Board has had any reasonable arguments with anybody on the religious right. In fact, it seems likely that they have had no contacts at all.
I think the Board is wrong when it states that the views of the religious right -- which we all disagree with--are generally a result of bad faith. I am pretty certain that most of these folks aren't manipulative liars. To suggest that they are bad people is a result of ignorance and prejudice and violates the principles of liberal tolerance.
1
Most of the opposition comes from religious conservatives. Think about that. What about toleration for others? I guess their religion is only concerned about trying to force their beliefs on the rest of us.e
5
May equal rights for women be enshrined in our Constitution. And soon. And while Congress is at it, may the Second Amendment be abolished, repealed, (like Slavery and Likker). It's too much to ask, but here's hoping the 45th President of our United States of America will also be repealed and replaced, either by the 25th Amendment or by pitchfork and angry e pluribus folks in our hinge of history.
folks today.
4
I appreciate the clear explanation of why ratifying the ERA matters.
But it's not just a rebuke of Donald Trump; I agree with Comey on this one. It's a rebuke on the behavior Donald Trump exemplifies, that so many women have experienced.
Using Trump as a poster boy for sexual harassment, sadly, gives him attention he so desperately craves, and your headline feeds that frenzy.
Let's spread that attention around, and call the men in our own neighborhoods to a greater sense of responsibility for their own behavior.
144
Sad, isn't it, that in 21st century America we still have people who fight tooth and nail against the notion that men and women should have equal rights?
15
"Equality" of many sorts has always been the weak spot in American socioeconomic and political life, laws and institutions. Instead, we tend to (at least tacitly) cherish the individual's "liberty" to be antisocial, to accrue , and to dominate others.
1
Yes, sad but true. Take a look at some of the comments, here on this thread :(
2
A basic fact about the ERA to clarify. It protects women against government discrimination. It doesn’t talk about private discrimination. It prohibits a quota on the number of women who work at the EEOC. It doesn’t help if such a quota is set by IBM. That should help explain why Trump’s sexism makes the ERA more important. Obviously, enacting the ERA would be a challenge. But the effort is better justified because Trump is running the government.
2
Why are men so frightened of equality with women being the law of our land?
Why do men (in general #notallmen) complain so much and fight so hard to continue inequity against women (in general #yesallwomen)
It's much more fun when we all get to play together on equal footing.
10
I support full equality under the law for both sexes.
I am not a constitutional scholar.
I ask this as a matter of information.
If a military draft were reinstated would women have to be drafted and sent into combat. Certainly women should have full military opportunities. The recent heroic actions of Captain Schults on the Southwest flight [and also of other women] demonstrate this.
The question is not of OPPORTUNITIES but could women [who do not want to go into combat] be REQUIRED to do so.
Would the ERA forbid any gender based affirmative action.
Insurance premiums for life insurance show a difference for men and women presumably because women on average live longer. Whites live on average longer than blacks.But courts have struck down differences on premiums based on race. Would the ERA ban different sex based premiums.
Women on average earn less than men. Certainly men and women doing same job with same level of experience should be paid the same.
An historical note. In the 1930's rich phony women opposed including domestic servants [most of whom were poor women] from inclusion under minimum wage legislation because the rich phony women wanted an access to CHEAP labor.
Certainly injustices against women should be addressed. It should be done thru legislation rather than thru a general constitutional amendment which no one wants to have literally enforced.
4
David, effective and enduring legislation is difficult to pass and dependent upon subsequent administrations enforcing it to its letter and intent. Consider the current assault on the ACA. That’s why I believe such legislation needs the constitutional support of an amendment.
8
http://wamc.org/post/dr-vanessa-may-seton-hall-university-labor-law-and-...
Domestics represented the largest category of women workers before 1940 but were excluded from wage and hour legislation until 1974. In contrast, many women industrial workers were covered by labor laws as early as 1908. By 1938, New Deal labor legislation covered both men and women. How had domestics been left out of these reforms?
My research found that opposition to labor laws for domestics came from an unlikely source. In 1938, reformers launched a nationwide campaign to pass state labor laws for workers not covered by the federal Fair Labor Standards Act, including domestics. In New York, two bills proposed a minimum wage and maximum hours for domestics. Surprisingly, prominent WOMEN’S organizations, including the YWCA, the Consumers' League, the League of WOMEN Voters, and the WOMEN’S City Club, refused to fully support the bills. These groups had lobbied hard for the Fair Labor Standards Act. They had written, campaigned for, and championed much of the progressive legislation that made the New Deal transformative. A bill for domestic labor standards could not pass without their support.
Why were they so reluctant? First, the members of these organizations were middle and upper-class WOMEN worried about maintaining access to CHEAP household help. They, like professionals today, depended on domestics to do the housework while they pursued other interests.
2
To Bev G.
I understand your point.
However I do not think anyone wants ALL legislation to be gender neutral.
Maybe it is better to have the ERA and then legislatively make exceptions
as in the draft etc.
This has never been more timely. Prevent Handmaid's Tale before it's too late.
14
The E.R.A.'s time is long overdue. This article sums up so well the arguments why its time is now, but primarily it is the equal, solid legal ground where it places women alongside and equal to men under the U.S. Constitution, and both will be better for it.
For those who argue that states should be allowed to rescind their former ratification on the argument that it must be ratified contemporaneously, they are pushing us backward from the 21st century and away from human rights. Men and women should be equal under our Constitution today and for future generations.
Regarding a time limit to pass it, the only other amendment I've found that was assigned a time limit was the 18th, for Prohibition, which was given seven years to pass. There should be no time limit on human rights.
We in Illinois wait for the House to vote in the coming days. And I hope to raise a glass with my fellow Illinoisans, men and women, in celebration. Utah, Virginia, and Florida, we will pass this baton to you with our sincere encouragement.
14
I expect that ratification of the ERA and final incorporation into the U.S. Constitution would be a messy affair, and ultimately may fail. But even if it fails, it will add momentum to the continuing progress toward the genuine equality that our country has always promised, but rarely delivered. As long we remain the United States of America, the goal remains the same, the effort will continue.
13
Well, one positive action. However, I still feel like I've been slapped in the face almost daily. I'm a supporter of social justice, public health, environmental health, etc. I'm 79 years old and I remember rivers on fire and the awful smog in Los Angeles and DDT killing so many species.
This administration is driving us backwards. Happily putting corporation's bottom lines above public health and environmental health.
I probably cry at least every other day about the damage this admin is doing.
One thing I'm baffled by ... where are the protest songs? Remember the Viet Nam War? We had great muscians writing and playing great protest songs. I think it made a difference.
31
The passing of the Equal Rights Amendment is not a rebuke to President Trump, but rather an affirmation of all the women who worked for equal rights. This is not about Trump or any one man, it’s about women and their rights.
160
What rights are women missing or being denied? Please tell us. I despise the false argument that because the population is 53% female-all public office holders must be too or it is "discrimination".
1
The reason affirmative action has survived court challenges is that, although race-based, it is not discriminatory. As a white person, I received an AA grant to attend an historically black college. If the ERA were passed, then women's colleges would be required to admit men, and to take affirmative actions to promote gender diversity.
How many traditionally women's colleges still don't admit men? I can't think of any here in the Midwest, but maybe elsewhere? I thought that that was long gone.
2
I would be perfectly happy with that.
It's disingenuous & the height of political theatrics to give people false hope that the ERA has any chance of passing. It doesn't. It's over. A federal court has already ruled on this issue in 1981. In Idaho v. Freeman the court held it is a right of a State to rescind its ratification vote on proposed Amendments as long as those Amendments haven't acquired the required three-fourths ratification vote. The court also ruled the old extension of the ratification deadline of the ERA was invalid. The Court said that the congressional act of extending the time period for ratification was an improper exercise of Congress' authority under article V. Idaho vs. Freeman, was very clear. The time extension was unconstitutional & states could constitutionally withdraw their previous support. Five did. The issue was later brought before SCOTUS who dismissed the case as moot, since the purported extension had already expired. Even if ERA advocates get the required 38 states there will be a lengthy court battle. the current SCOTUS given it's conservative leaning will uphold the the Federal court's decision. And they should. To do otherwise creates a dangerous precedent. Truthfully the current plan to revive the ERA is so outrageously dishonest — for backers to say both previous time limits can be ignored, that prior court rulings are irrelevant & that the previous state ratifications are still valid — it's mind boggling that anybody could argue it with a straight face. Time to move on.
15
There were long battles over civil rights and the needed legislation -- and while we're not done yet and have further to go as a nation to undue and make amends for the institutional racism harming our country -- it's not wrong to want the promise (and full power and protections of the law) as spelled out in the Equal Rights Amendment.
51
It is much easier for Bill (presumably a male) to say with a straight face that it's time to move on from a discussion of equal rights for women. The fact that our nation's legal foundation does not recognize women as equal is not something that more than 50% of our population can simply walk away from because it directly and personally affects their lives. For our nation to engage in an open debate about who we are as a society is a necessary and healthy endeavor. Hundreds of thousands of woman across the country are more than ready for it.
99
No one is asking that we move on from a discussion of equal rights for women. You have misinterpreted what I wrote. But it's absurd to pretend that our nation's legal foundation does not recognize women as equal. In the past forty years hundreds of laws have been passed at the local, state, and national level that underline this very fact. 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 is more important issues that need to be addressed.
2
It is a continuing shame that we have not ratified this amendment.
70
My jaw literally dropped when I saw this editorial. I had no idea this was even a possibility and I somehow missed the news that there were still some states considering it.
The passing of the ERA deadline in June of 1982 was a hard slap in my face as a young woman graduating from high school that year. It was also the dawning of my realization that Baby Boomers were dumping the values they sold me as a mesmerized child in their psychedelic space-faring egalitarian utopia. It all went downhill from there. I was lucky to get an abortion on demand that year, no questions asked, before that right too was horse-traded to the "Moral Majority" in exchange for tax cuts. No wonder I delved into punk when Reagan was first elected (thank you, Jello Biafra, for "In God We Trust, Inc.").
Perhaps there's still time to make good on some of those promises before they all shuffle off the mortal stage. I know I've done my part voting actually viable, pro-choice/pro-equal rights Democratic in every presidential and mid-term election since the year I thought the ERA had died.
71
In 1982, the Baby Boomers were in their 20's and 30's, not yet a politically powerful cohort. In any case, the ones I knew were in support of the ERA, and likely still are. Sorry about your disillusionment, but I think an older generation were doing the horsetrading at that time.
26
I also had thought the ERA had died. I still have my ERA bracelet and a necklace. Time to start wearing them and pushing for it again!
5
Thank you, Lynn. You spoke for me, as well.
Except that he would get credit for something that happened on his watch. The irony is worth it though.
35
I'm using your comment as a leader as I post this to my page on Facebook. Thank you
2
I support an equal rights amendment at the federal level because of pay inequality. Women and minorities still make less than white men so having a constitutional amendment declaring that we're all equal would help level the playing field. But the world has changed since the 70's and the definition of equal rights has expanded. I would only support this if it's expanded to protect us based on gender, race, religion, and sexual orientation. There are still parts of this country where discrimination in all forms is alive and well.
33
Given the deadline is over 30 years past this would be contentious in this hyperpartisan environment it will never be law.
11
Have you, as a white male (probably), ever had to fight for justice? I have always loved the story about the little train, chugging uphill, saying "I think I can...I think I can...".
Well we can only hope. Let us remember that the Koch brothers are only two states away from *their* goal of a complete constitutional convention--not an amendment, mind you, but a right wing constitutional convention. I'm not sure *any* amendments would emerge intact out of that process.
75
We could use a genuine Constitutional Convention.
2
I don't know why this fact isn't treated like a five-alarm fire by Democrats and regularly presented as front page news worthy of ongoing analysis and editorials.
Come on, New York Times. Tell the world about the greater possibility of a Constitutional convention brought to you by the Koch Brothers. And Dems, wake up and get fighting!
15
Who would have thought, that a misogynous president would preside over the E.R.A. re-affirmation...in spite of our 'macho' society still reluctant to follow basic human rights, universal in nature, where women are co-equal with men, and in perfect harmony, as intended.
32
Women, like minorities, are protected by the equal protection clause, civil rights laws, and a variety of other laws directed at specific rights. And they are protected by Roe v. Wade. There are plenty of laws but enforcement is sketchy.
The real problem is enforcing the laws, not adding more of them. And as a lawyer, adding the ERA for women, but not minorities, concerns me. If women get the ERA and minorities get nothing like it, there will be an argument that whatever rights the ERA adds are rights that minorities lack because they don’t have an ERA. I would only support a new rights law if it protected women and LGBT and blacks and Hispanics and the disabled and so and so on. If extra legal protection is needed — which I doubt—I can’t come up with a good reason to protect only one group of folks who are the victims of discrimination.
13
You argue that passage of the ERA wouldn't do anything for minorities. Of course it would.
Passage of the ERA would include women of color, LGBT women, etc. But blocking passage of the ERA would block it for women of all groups. So rather than allow passage of a law that would benefit all women regardless of orientation, you'd be blocking it because it benefits straight white women as well... and that doesn't make things better, it's just more of what you oppose: discrimination.
I understand and share your anger over the mistreatment of people of color, but I don't see any good from refusing an improvement in the law because it doesn't exclude a group. That doesn't make things better. It just makes you like them.
Don't let the hyper-partisan fog of war cloud your judgement. Good things that are good for all are not suddenly bad for all because they don't fit the all-or-nothing political atmosphere.
4
That "group of folks" is a bit more than half the population, and includes all women - black, white, Latina, Native American, lesbian. It frankly also includes all men - if they are discriminated against! So it's a win for everyone. You may be too young to remember, but the fear monger Schafly was vehement that the ERA would give "special rights" to homosexuals. That argument has been trotted out by the right wing for decades. It is ironic that the homophobia that killed the ERA, has greatly abated because gay people "came out" and other Americans - across all color and ethnic spectra - found out they were discriminating viciously against members of their own families and against some of their friends. Maybe someday we will come to realize that we are all one big family and the viciousness will stop. That Trump got to be President is not a good omen.
10
“Only one group of folks”???Since when is a majority of the population only one group of folks? Only a certain kind of man can believe that women are not entitled to equal rights. You are either born a boy or a girl and yet you mr. believe that equal rights should only happen when all The other more recently identified genders get equal rights? How about men relinquish their superiority until we are all acknowledged as equal!
8
As high school girls in 1973, we were so excited about the ERA.
The backlash to the '60s arrived in full in January 1981 with the inauguration of Reagan and the Moral Majority, Religious Right, and Phyllis Schlafly.
Like all movements, it's one step forward, two steps back. #onward
222
Think about your last line for a minute...you're implying that all movements will never go forward. That's absurd.
She meant two steps forward, one step back. I hope.
6
I'm always amazed how the push to ratify the ERA just seemed to fade away. It's never even mentioned. And that's an interesting point. I would bet that an overwhelming percentage of young people don't know there isn't an ERA provision for women in the Constitution because it hasn't been an issue much in the news for decades so they are unaware. And when they find out--in these times--I think it will be impossible to stop. It better be
146
Extraordinary. This is indeed long overdue. Hoping...
113
This is extremely encouraging!
76
Yes.
46
Excellent! And thank you! This editorial surprises me, as I thought the ERA would never surface again as a real proposal in my lifetime. Let this be the start of another groundswell for women's rights!
I remember very well the disappointment in 1982 of that very close failure to pass. And it is more than time to put the ridiculous arguments against it to rest. Phyllis Schaffley was a menace, mobilizing fear and nonsense just like we see today from the White House down through the rest of the conservative/Republican hierarchy that now includes even more extreme far right-wing opponents.
Women will not see true equality unless the ERA is finally made part of the Constitution. Justice Ginsberg is right again.
387
I'm almost afraid to tell that Pennsylvania actually has an equal rights clause that entered in 1968 when the PA Constitution was restructured and amended. I think our present General Assembly would take steps to nullify it if they could.
1
White women have always been treated more equally than black women. And the feminist behind the ERA carries on that divide. Donald Trump won a majority of white women voters in every caste and class in 2016.
1
I would like it to read:
"Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex. And creeps like Trump should never be allowed anywhere near girls' dressing rooms."
212
Didn’t #MeToo start after the Harvey Weinstein situation?
8
Yeah, but that was after Trump bragged about his grabbing prowess.
2
“Deadline, schmeadline.”
That might be a popular refrain amongst ERA supporters, but I think most first year law students would be a bit more cautious... I wonder at the nameless “legal experts” you cite.
Do you really think you can amend the Constitution quite so casually?
Do you really think the Supreme Court would just give the deadline issue a pass?
Pro tip for people looking for lawyers— you can hire one to make almost any argument you like, but that doesn’t mean that the lawyer thinks it’s a winning argument. Or that any court will agree.
Ethical lawyers will tell you that up front. The less ethical - or the ones so starry-eyed that they themselves are deluded - won’t.
10
That would be Guilani!
7
Pro tip. Your daughter is smarter than you. And if you don’t have one, too bad.
6
I never supported the Equal Rights Amendment, because it never was what its title suggested: it’s an equal rights bill for women, yet another class-based protection muddying up our constitution. I would support in a New York minute a constitutional amendment that swept away all these acts and even amendments and replaced them with “Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state for any reason not demonstrably related to the physical or mental ability to perform a job competently.”
Virginia perhaps but probably not likely for another generation at least. Florida and Utah? Giveth me a break. It’s not even in remote sight.
18
Your proposed wording is extremely narrow. The purpose of the ERA is to ensure equal justice for women in the eyes of the law, not just in the workplace. We have the EEOC for that, feeble though it might be. The argument that the ERA muddys up the Constitution is spurious at best. Ensuring that half the citizens of the US be guaranteed equality before the law trumps aesthetics.
210
Why should women have to wait even longer for the idea of your New York minute amendment to be even suggested, let alone written? The ERA has cleared the first hurdles and is ready to be fully ratified now. Sure, your idea is great and it should have been clearly stated as such in the beginning when the Constitution was written. Heck, even Abigail Adams told John to ensure the convention didn't forget the women while slaves weren't even considered human. But it wasn't done for all the classes of people outside of your privileged group and the Founders created the amendment system precisely because they knew things would change eventually.
Telling me you're against final ratification of the enshrinement of my equal rights simply because it makes the Constitution too muddy for your taste despite the fact that muddy IS Constitutional is typical of a man who has already got his and couldn't care less about the rest of us in the here and now.
62
There are people who still(!!!) think being "homosexual" or transgender are illnesses related to that very "mental ability". Plus the class enumerations help drive the point in to the ignorant-and-worse (and, by the Ninth Amendment, are harmless).
So we'll still need additional "class-based" patches with or without that replacement.
9
While it would have been fascinating to watch what the E.R.A. might have accomplished had the country managed to push it over the line in the 1970s, the fact remains that it is hidebound by the 7-year time limit that its authors needlessly plugged into it (or that perhaps was a legislative compromise to get the two-thirds vote to put it before the States). A time limit is something that some, but not all, proposed constitutional amendments have had since the early twentieth century, and in retrospect it was an awful idea . . . but there it is.
I understand why the E.R.A.'s proponents want to try to push it through with some kind of retroactive magical thinking -- that somehow, despite both the 7-year time limit and the four-year extension having expired, life can still be breathed into the Amendment. They are doing so because the presence of an antediluvian caucus in Congress, abetted by anti-democratic tools like gerrymandering, more or less guarantees that no such amendment would make it through Congress today.
But if the last two states sign on, years of litigation will ensue over whether the Amendment is valid. Both the time limit and the attempted rescission of the ratification by some states will be valid issues. The 27th Amendment, of course, had no time limit. While it would be wonderful if the E.R.A. were in the Constitution, the current E.R.A. is unlikely to survive such legal challenges, and perhaps the better approach would be to start from scratch.
17
Starting from scratch should be NO PROBLEM, let's go!
3
What a magnificent irony it will be. I am so glad I have lived so long. Hallelujah.
153
As lifelong residents of Illinois my wife and I have done and will do everything in our power to help pass the ERA in our state.
271