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]

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.