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

[groovychk.livejournal.com]

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.

[deviantgm.livejournal.com]

"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.