groovychk | Equal Rights Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

Didn't you hear? It would mandate homosexual rape of infants and make abortion a sacrament.

Oh yeah... and same-sex marriage (the horror!) and unisex bathrooms (yeah - this would happen -????) and taking away pension benefits of dead husbands from poor widows (wtf? why in the hell would this change?).
There is ABSOLUTELY NO REASON FOR THIS NOT TO BE LAW.

I agree with you Ginny...it just makes sense!

It is already covered by the Constitution as it stands right now. The fear from a limited government perspective is that the same people who argue (illogically) that the 2nd amendment is meant to grant rights to the government would use this to force private citizens to conform to their standard of behavoir.,

Me? I'm all about equal rights with respect to the law, but I support an individual or a company's right to discriminate.

It is not covered. 14, 15 and 19 don't cover it and without express statement of it as law it can be interpreted however the states and the people want. That's all fine if you're a guy. I am more than willing to force private citizens to comply with this law. Pure Libertarianism and laissez faire capitalism do not work - they are utopian ideals. Unless you are willing to kill a lot of people until only those that agree with the concepts and practices are left - they won't work. And trying to implement those principles will lead to social darwinism.

Please tell me where in the Constitution it enumerates my rights based on my being male, and I'll concede the point. Otherwise, the Constitution already covers the issue.

Another point... you do realize that the law only addresses the government, right? Billy Bastard the chauvanist can still choose to discriminate on a personal level. All the law does is repeat the protections the Constitution already has in place.

Pure libertarianism has never been tried, but that's beside the point. I'm not even arguing for libertariansm... I'm arguing to preserve the basic rights of the individual. If someone wants to be a bigoted racist, I want them to be free to do so. Granted, I'd not shop at their business or buy their goods, but I do recognize their right to be that way.

The fun part about libertarianism, incidentally, is that is requires no compulsion. No one needs to die... everyone just needs to respect other people's property and rights. Out of ANY political philosophy, it is the only one that defaults to personal freedom.

Article 1, Article 2, Amendment 14, Amendment 20, Amendment 25

Specific language for he and him throughout. "That person" is used at times so it can be argued that the gender specificity is intentional.

Clarifying Amendments are the rule - so this needs clarification.

If I were to rewrite it I might write it as so:

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.
2.) All instances of gender specific references (he, him, his) in Article 1, Article 2, Amendment 14, Amendment 20 and Amendment 25 are considered gender inclusive and not gender restrictive.

Or something similar.

Once and for all.
--

This is clarification - and it doesn't spell out anything extra for women. It just clarifies that women are included for all and that no gender can be discriminated against specifically for being that gender.

"Equality of rights under the law" - clarifies.
--

I don't care what Bubba thinks about women - but he is not going to oppress me because of that. I don't extend that freedom to people. Being a bigoted racist needs to be controlled. I am not a social darwinist and I don't believe that we should just continue on as the pathetic animals we are. Some structure and guidance is needed and that's part of what the US is supposed to be.
When I was younger I was a Libertarian party member. Right after I dropped out of the Republican party.
I dropped the Libertarian party when I came to the realization that we are still far too animalistic to be allowed anarchic freedom.
I don't support government getting involved in all aspects of everything and don't take support of this amendment to advocate such - but it does need clarifying - and we do need structure.

"Being a bigoted racist needs to be controlled."

Which is why bigots are social outcasts. The majority of people don't want to be associated with that kind of behavior. When we allow a bigot to express his or her opinion, we are afforded the unique opportunity to punish hom (or her) socially for his or her views.

Some people think homosexuality ought to be controlled. If they gain the upper hand, are you comfortable allowing them to control the behavior they consider undesirable? I wouldn't. I prefer to allow people to express their opinions and run their businesses as they please... even if I find them utterly detestable.

The libertarians I associate with are not anarchists. Anarchy is an unworkable system. What we do advocate is personal accountability and personal social responsibility, versus the current model of gunpoint charity and forced friendliness.

also - it is sexist and absurd to be against this. when the contitution was written it did not include women - even for voting - so it needs correction and clarification. this country is not about anarchy - and freedom is not about oppression. unbelievable.

How is it sexist? I understand that the Constitution was not originally construed to include women. Were the Constitution still interpreted that way, I would agree that something should be done. It is not seen like that anymore, though. Women are considered by any enlightened individual to have the same inalienable rights as any other individual.

Sexism would be my claiming that women didn't deserve equality. In contrast, I'm saying that women ARE equal in the eyes of society. You can call my stance idealistic, but to call it sexist is completely wrong.

"Current interpretation" is one of the exact reasons I want this clarified. Let there be no reinterpretations. Let not societal changes or religious movements or ecological upheavals change that interpretation. Clarify the goddamn thing.
It is sexist because it refuses to consider the realities of history and of the kind of creatures we as humans are in general.
The vast majority of opposition? Men. Men that see no need for it. Easy to say when there has never been a question of your rights.
There's a need and it certainly doesn't hurt anything. It prevents more problems going forward to be sure.

Note: I asked the women I know before I responded. My question detailed the amendment, noted my thoughts on the entire thing, and asked if I was missing a key point. For the most part, they agreed... seeing no need for an amendment. Maybe that's just my social circle... but it does dispel the myth that only men see no need for the amendment.

If the goal is to prevent re-interpretation, an amendment will not serve that goal. If our society ever devolves to the point of the majority considering women inferior again, there would be nothing stopping those same ignorant people from submitting a new amendment to counter the old.

It is by far mostly men that oppose it.
And I'd love to talk to those women - I think they have some seriously messed up ideas about our Constitution and history as well as the human race.

Putting it into law is useless because it can be changed??? It isn't that easy to make a Constitutional amendment - and they would have to argue specifically for making women second class to get it past - and the required number of states would have to agree. No - I think your argument against my argument is a red herring.

I can't say one way or the other who the majority is that opposes it, because I've seen no data either way.

No, putting it into law is simply useless. If we're putting it into law to protect against a potential future populace with anti-women views, we run the risk of having them change (or ignore) any safeguards we put into place. If, however, society is equitable enough that the majority of its citizens recognize the equality of all people, then the amendment isn't necessary... unless, of course, one wishes to control personal behavior by later "reinterpreting" the intent of the amendment. Which brings me back to my primary reason for not supporting the amendment, really... I fear that it will be used as a means of controlling personal behavior in addition to its stated goal of equality under the law.

It's not useless - anymore than any other part of the Constitution is useless.
To say it doesn't matter says that the whole system is trivial.
We are not at the wonderful level of equity and enlightenment that you seem to think we are. We need this now - not just for the future.
Truly - I am still baffled why it is opposed. If it takes away special priviledge on either side... yay!
Enshrine equality... and if it did get overturned - at least we would know that during this part of history we were getting better and almost there.

If we're referring to government equality, then yes... we are just about there. With notable exceptions, there is little to be done. And again... my opposition is on the potential abuses, not on the amendment itself.

The realities of history, incidentally, have shown that the U.S. has generally staggered in the direction of personal freedom. To recognize that is not sexist.

Humanity in general has also staggered in the direction of tolerance and freedom.

Either way, there is no sexism involved. I might as well call YOU sexist for insisting that women need special legislation to retain their equality. If one were reading into things, one might think that you were taking the position that men are, as a rule, tyrannical. THAT would be sexist. Believing in the human race? Not so much.

Yes yes - call me sexist for wanting to guarantee the equality of all. I'll sit back while we look at history and realize how ridiculous that is.

I'm not calling you sexist. I'm pointing out that you're as sexist as I am... that is, not at all. You do not want your comments to be construed as anti-male because they aren't. I do not want my comments construed as anti-female because I am not. Where we differ is not in our desire for equal rights... we differ in the areas of what freedoms individuals should be afforded, and in the necessity for an amendment.

Hehe - this gets my brain going and makes me smile. Infuriating at times - but don't take this the wrong way please :-)
And damn if I didn't recognize the 14th amendment - I was looking at that and thinking "that's already in there somewhere isn't it?"
It actually crossed my mind that you might be doing that - but I was too lazy to go look.

I cheat; I have a pocket Constitution w/ amendments.

... Because it would give a leg to stand on for same-sex marriages and the legal benefits thereof.

Still too many people who think the faint risk of that is bad. Many of those also feel it's a threat to their religion and their version of God.

Though, I think "gender" may be a better term in the present climate.

Indeed. I think a lot of people have that problem as well.

Aye. People have to have SOME way to feel better about themselves. Might as well be by controlling and crushing others.

Come to the dark side.

Equal Rights Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject