Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 36

Thread: Reviving the US Equal Rights Amendment

  1. Top | #11
    Elder Contributor Keith&Co.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Far Western Mass
    Posts
    17,844
    Archived
    24,500
    Total Posts
    42,344
    Rep Power
    78
    Quote Originally Posted by GenesisNemesis View Post
    Equal rights bad.
    I remember the actual arguments against the ERA that were brought out at the time.

    The local diner had a poster of a men's restroom, with four men staring at the one woman using the urinal.

    Men would be forced to go to women doctors. Lesbian demonstrations in the classrooms of our once-proud schools. Men having to ride side-saddle. Women-friendly sports crowding football off the screen. Turning the flag to Pink-White-Blue.
    Clint Eastwood having to have a female costar in every flick. Dirty Harriet.

    Lots of outrageous bullshit scare tactics, people being quoted on the news with these claims and no one questioning their sources.



    Seems like the time is actually ripe for another ERA drive, now that you mention it.

  2. Top | #12
    Contributor Trausti's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Northwest
    Posts
    5,930
    Archived
    372
    Total Posts
    6,302
    Rep Power
    60
    What would the amendment do? An example would be helpful. The 14th Amendment already provides for equality and more - and not just for gender.

  3. Top | #13
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    26,527
    Archived
    96,752
    Total Posts
    123,279
    Rep Power
    99
    Quote Originally Posted by Trausti View Post
    What would the amendment do? An example would be helpful. The 14th Amendment already provides for equality and more - and not just for gender.
    Yeah. While I'm for equal rights I question what this would do that isn't already done.

  4. Top | #14
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Burnsville, MN
    Posts
    3,422
    Archived
    2,911
    Total Posts
    6,333
    Rep Power
    41
    Quote Originally Posted by Loren Pechtel View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Trausti View Post
    What would the amendment do? An example would be helpful. The 14th Amendment already provides for equality and more - and not just for gender.
    Yeah. While I'm for equal rights I question what this would do that isn't already done.
    Explicit standing and undeniable basis for claims on the basis of sex, without any exception for rational basis.

  5. Top | #15
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    texas
    Posts
    10,329
    Archived
    18,348
    Total Posts
    28,677
    Rep Power
    70
    Quote Originally Posted by Jarhyn View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Loren Pechtel View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Trausti View Post
    What would the amendment do? An example would be helpful. The 14th Amendment already provides for equality and more - and not just for gender.
    Yeah. While I'm for equal rights I question what this would do that isn't already done.
    Explicit standing and undeniable basis for claims on the basis of sex, without any exception for rational basis.
    So, your position is the 14th amendment does not bar the government from discriminating against women?

    That’s quite an extreme retrograde belief. Ruth Bader Ginsburg might give you a kick in the crotch for that belief.

    I assume you would then overturn all the Supreme Court decisions that falsely claim it does?

  6. Top | #16
    Contributor Cheerful Charlie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Houston, Texas
    Posts
    5,198
    Archived
    3,884
    Total Posts
    9,082
    Rep Power
    59
    I do remember the ignorant and vicious Phyllis Schafly claiming the ERA would mandate single sex bathrooms. No lie too big and too outrageous. This sort of grotesque nonsense scared the lil right winged clowns into opposing the ERA tooth and nail.
    Cheerful Charlie

  7. Top | #17
    Contributor Trausti's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Northwest
    Posts
    5,930
    Archived
    372
    Total Posts
    6,302
    Rep Power
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by Cheerful Charlie View Post
    I do remember the ignorant and vicious Phyllis Schafly claiming the ERA would mandate single sex bathrooms. No lie too big and too outrageous. This sort of grotesque nonsense scared the lil right winged clowns into opposing the ERA tooth and nail.
    Good start. So the ERA would not mandate single sex bathrooms. What would it do?

  8. Top | #18
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    texas
    Posts
    10,329
    Archived
    18,348
    Total Posts
    28,677
    Rep Power
    70
    Quote Originally Posted by Trausti View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Cheerful Charlie View Post
    I do remember the ignorant and vicious Phyllis Schafly claiming the ERA would mandate single sex bathrooms. No lie too big and too outrageous. This sort of grotesque nonsense scared the lil right winged clowns into opposing the ERA tooth and nail.
    Good start. So the ERA would not mandate single sex bathrooms. What would it do?
    I think the ERA supporters' argument is this: Sure, we already have a Constitution that requires the government to treat all people equally. But the ERA would require the government to treat women equally too.

    The premise contained in ERA supporters' arguments seems clear enough. They don't think women are people.

  9. Top | #19
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Burnsville, MN
    Posts
    3,422
    Archived
    2,911
    Total Posts
    6,333
    Rep Power
    41
    Quote Originally Posted by dismal View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Jarhyn View Post

    Explicit standing and undeniable basis for claims on the basis of sex, without any exception for rational basis.
    So, your position is the 14th amendment does not bar the government from discriminating against women?

    That’s quite an extreme retrograde belief. Ruth Bader Ginsburg might give you a kick in the crotch for that belief.

    I assume you would then overturn all the Supreme Court decisions that falsely claim it does?
    Correct. It does not. It was passed explicitly before women's sufferage was realized, and jurisprudence has held, repeatedly, that it does not explicitly apply to women, particularly where a "specific government objective" may be concerned. An ERA would hold that there is no such valid specific government objective.

  10. Top | #20
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Lots of planets have a North
    Posts
    6,014
    Archived
    5,115
    Total Posts
    11,129
    Rep Power
    59
    What it would do is pose a serious problem to gender-specific legislation, such as VAWA.

Similar Threads

  1. Office of Civil Rights to Suppress Rights to Legal Medical Care
    By Copernicus in forum Separation of Church & State
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 01-22-2018, 10:21 PM
  2. WI court: 4th amendment? What 4th amendment?
    By Underseer in forum Political Discussions
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 03-04-2016, 01:36 AM
  3. Replies: 34
    Last Post: 11-20-2015, 03:09 AM
  4. Does the 14th Amendment have a comma issue like the 2nd Amendment?
    By repoman in forum Political Discussions
    Replies: 42
    Last Post: 08-30-2015, 01:03 AM
  5. Equal marriage means less sex
    By hinduwoman in forum Pseudoscience
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 05-07-2014, 02:23 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •