Equal Rights Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

[groovychk]

Originally published at Twixel.net. You can comment here or there.

So tell me folks -

What in the hell is wrong with this? -

–
ARTICLE

SECTION 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.

SECTION 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

SECTION 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.
–

I’m baffled by the opposition. Mind blowingly baffled.
Granted - Two years is too long to wait for taking effect - but still… come on!

Comments

[deviantgm.livejournal.com]

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.

[groovychk.livejournal.com]

"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.

[deviantgm.livejournal.com]

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.

[groovychk.livejournal.com]

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.

[deviantgm.livejournal.com]

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.

[groovychk.livejournal.com]

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.

[(Anonymous)]

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.

[deviantgm.livejournal.com]

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.

[deviantgm.livejournal.com]

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.

[groovychk.livejournal.com]

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.

[deviantgm.livejournal.com]

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.

[groovychk.livejournal.com]

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.

[deviantgm.livejournal.com]

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