Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 36

Thread: Reviving the US Equal Rights Amendment

  1. Top | #21
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Burnsville, MN
    Posts
    3,428
    Archived
    2,911
    Total Posts
    6,339
    Rep Power
    41
    Quote Originally Posted by Jason Harvestdancer View Post
    What it would do is pose a serious problem to gender-specific legislation, such as VAWA.
    Or, it would do no such thing, except for to make the legislation interperable as expressly applying equally to everyone, and thus alleviate a great deal of the whining certain people do about the "biases" in the bill.

  2. Top | #22
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Burnsville, MN
    Posts
    3,428
    Archived
    2,911
    Total Posts
    6,339
    Rep Power
    41
    Quote Originally Posted by Derec View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Jarhyn View Post
    Or, it would do no such thing, except for to make the legislation interperable as expressly applying equally to everyone, and thus alleviate a great deal of the whining certain people do about the "biases" in the bill.
    The VAWA is clearly biased against men. Even the very name is sexist and exclusionary.
    And that ERA that you keep railing against would have the effect of making it not be, as the amendment would make it directly interperable as gender non-specific

  3. Top | #23
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    16,804
    Archived
    42,293
    Total Posts
    59,097
    Rep Power
    87
    Staff Notice
    X Posts about ladies night moved to separate thread

  4. Top | #24
    Administrator lpetrich's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Location
    Eugene, OR
    Posts
    8,359
    Archived
    16,829
    Total Posts
    25,188
    Rep Power
    82
    Will Congress Ever Ratify the Equal Rights Amendment? - The Atlantic

    After describing how Virginia's legislature rejected the ERA the first time around, the article continued with "On January 15, 2019, the Virginia Senate voted to approve the ERA. The resolution now goes back to the House that rejected it 40 years ago."
    But advocates also formulated a new path to ratification, which they dubbed the “three-state strategy.” It is this: (1) Win ratification in three of the 15 states that have not yet ratified the amendment—thus bringing the total number of ratifications to 38, and then (2) Win passage of a congressional resolution retroactively extending the deadline.

    Step one is nearly complete; the Nevada legislature approved the amendment in 2017, and Illinois did so in 2018. If Virginia approves it this time, the three-state strategists will ask Congress to pass a statute proclaiming that the measure has been approved by 38 states.

    Then the real fight will start.
    The House will likely approve it, but Senator Mitch McConnell will likely try to block it, I think. He wouldn't want to let the lib-buh-ruhls have a victory, I'm sure.

    The article then got into the history of the 27th Amendment, "No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of representatives shall have intervened." It was introduced in 1789, and it was ratified by a grand total of 6 states out of the necessary 10 states of back then.
    Flash forward to 1982, when a University of Texas undergraduate named Gregory Watson wrote a term paper suggesting that citizens could still push the pay amendment to ratification. His instructor gave him a C, but Watson devoted himself to the project for the next decade, until on May 9, 1992, Michigan became the 39th state to sign on.

    Final ratification took place amid a national outcry against Congress after a (by today’s standards) very mild scandal involving generous check-cashing privileges at a bank for members of Congress. Public opinion was such that no member had the nerve to obstruct it. So on May 18, 1992, the archivist of the United States certified the amendment as part of the Constitution, and both chambers later affirmed his decision.
    Time limits first appeared in the 20th century. The 18th, 20th, 21st, and 22nd Amendments were all time-limited, while the 16th, 17th, 19th, and 23rd ones were not. The ERA itself includes no time limit, but the resolution language does, as did 3 other amendments. After the adoption of the 27th Amendment, ERA supporters decided that they might do a similar job in resurrecting that amendment.

  5. Top | #25
    Administrator lpetrich's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Location
    Eugene, OR
    Posts
    8,359
    Archived
    16,829
    Total Posts
    25,188
    Rep Power
    82
    Virginia election results are a big deal for the Equal Rights Amendment - Vox
    The Equal Rights Amendment is closer than it’s ever been to becoming a reality after Democrats took control of both the House and Senate in Virginia on Tuesday. But even if the state ratifies the ERA, there’s still a looming legal debate over whether it can actually be enshrined in the United States Constitution.

    ...
    Virginia’s ratification doesn’t directly translate to the ERA finally making it into the Constitution — it’s decades past the deadline Congress set for that to happen. The ERA’s supporters say there’s a legal workaround, so we may soon find out whether it will work.
    So it's one more step ahead.

  6. Top | #26
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Winter Garden, Florida
    Posts
    1,052
    Archived
    1,496
    Total Posts
    2,548
    Rep Power
    54
    I suspect that (average) men would actually benefit from this amendment, likely more than women, since it would be about the laws. VAWA would be an easy first target if the amendment is ratified & enforced in the manner it's worded in the OP. Legal protection against genital mutilation could be extended to include boys. Selective service would be another target. Would love to see Selective Service fall & see prison time for anyone who would mutilate the genitals of any child, regardless of sex. Her clitoris her choice; his foreskin his choice. Holding both sexes to the same standards in domestic law sounds pretty good to me.

  7. Top | #27
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    South Pole
    Posts
    10,366
    Archived
    3,444
    Total Posts
    13,810
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Terrell View Post
    I suspect that (average) men would actually benefit from this amendment, likely more than women, since it would be about the laws. VAWA would be an easy first target if the amendment is ratified & enforced in the manner it's worded in the OP. Legal protection against genital mutilation could be extended to include boys. Selective service would be another target. Would love to see Selective Service fall & see prison time for anyone who would mutilate the genitals of any child, regardless of sex. Her clitoris her choice; his foreskin his choice. Holding both sexes to the same standards in domestic law sounds pretty good to me.
    Agreed. And this is something I have seen numerous MRAs push for and seen many feminists oppose them on. If Feminists really do now want equal rights across the board, then that's fantastic.

  8. Top | #28
    Administrator lpetrich's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Location
    Eugene, OR
    Posts
    8,359
    Archived
    16,829
    Total Posts
    25,188
    Rep Power
    82
    ERA: Virginia General Assembly votes to ratify Equal Rights Amendment - The Washington Post
    • House of Delegates: 59-41, all D's, 3 R's
    • Senate: 28-12, all D's, 7 R's

    ‘At last, at last’: Women who fought for ERA for decades exult at Virginia vote - The Washington Post
    Rep. Carolyn B. Maloney (D-N.Y.), the lead House sponsor of the ERA in Congress who is trying to remove the ratification deadline, said in a statement that the Virginia vote Wednesday was “truly exhilarating.”

    “When I look at the issues that policymakers have debated for many years, the reasons why we need the ERA become even more apparent,” her statement said. “A constitutional amendment is forever. It cannot be repealed, rolled back or expire. It is not subject to the whims of who controls Congress, a statehouse, or the White House.”
    I wouldn't bet on it being forever. Undoing its passing will be difficult, but still feasible. It has happened with the Prohibition amendment.
    Anne Schlafly Cori, president of the Eagle Forum and daughter of renowned anti-ERA activist Phyllis Schlafly, denied the importance of Virginia’s vote.

    “If it’s illegal, there’s no impact,” she said. “Time has not made [the ERA] any better. The ERA never had anything to do with women. . . . It’s been so long since we’ve had a public conversation about [the ERA] that people say yes, they’re for it. But the more they learn about it, the less they like it.”
    Like mother, like daughter.

  9. Top | #29
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Located 100 miles east of A in America
    Posts
    26,123
    Archived
    42,473
    Total Posts
    68,596
    Rep Power
    100
    This is not settled and is likely headed to the court. Is there a time limit on these things? Can states unratify ratification if it hasn't become an amendment yet?

  10. Top | #30
    Administrator lpetrich's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Location
    Eugene, OR
    Posts
    8,359
    Archived
    16,829
    Total Posts
    25,188
    Rep Power
    82
    The Equal Rights Amendment and the drive for ratification, explained - Vox
    Foy says the resurgence of interest stems from a combination of factors like the Women’s March, the Me Too movement, and the confirmation of Justice Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court even after he was publicly accused of sexual assault. “Women are now understanding that none of our fundamental rights are really guaranteed,” she said.

    ...
    Ratification in Virginia, however, is far from the end of the fight over the ERA. Congress set a deadline of 1982 for states to ratify the amendment, meaning Virginia’s decision comes almost 40 years too late.

    Democrats in Congress are working to remove this obstacle. In November, the House Judiciary Committee passed a resolution to eliminate the deadline, and it’s expected to pass the full House. But such legislation will have a harder time in the Republican-controlled Senate.

    Meanwhile, some states are actively fighting the amendment. Last year, Louisiana, Alabama, and South Dakota filed a lawsuit in an effort to force the federal government to let the 1982 deadline stand. And President Trump’s Justice Department issued guidance earlier this month stating that Congress does not have the power to change the deadline. Whatever happens next, a court battle over the amendment is all but inevitable.
    So it's not yet the end.

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
  •