SENATE BILL: Equal Rights Amendment (Sent to the Regions)

[afleitch]

Senators, why has this debate has descended into the scatalogical? There is a pre-occupation with toilet facilities when this amendment has nothing to do with with them. I re-iterate; the biological difference between men and women with regards to their sanitary needs is not something that the ERA will affect. It does however mean that if an establishment has toilets clearly labeled 'Men' but no facilities for women then it would be in violation of the ERA. I dread to think that any establishment (even gay bars) don't provide facilities for both sexes in 2012 so the point is probably moot. It also means that baby changing facilities should be accessable to men (if an establishment chooses to make baby changing facilities available) as providing such facilities in a womans restroom only would be in violation of the ERA.

The ERA does not mandate anyone to provide toilets, or changing facilities or lockerooms but if it does, it has to provide them for both sexes either as individual facilities or unisex facilities. It is as simple as that.

[afleitch]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Better?

Given that perceived 'biological differences' between the sexes and the resulting capacity or capability of each sex being able to do or not do specific tasks is the root cause of sex discrimination, why should an exemption be made for it? Surely 'biological difference' can be used to justify hiring a woman over a man in a child nurturing role or a man over a women in a labour role?

[afleitch]

Senators, why has this debate has descended into the scatalogical? There is a pre-occupation with toilet facilities when this amendment has nothing to do with with them. I re-iterate; the biological difference between men and women with regards to their sanitary needs is not something that the ERA will affect. It does however mean that if an establishment has toilets clearly labeled 'Men' but no facilities for women then it would be in violation of the ERA. I dread to think that any establishment (even gay bars) don't provide facilities for both sexes in 2012 so the point is probably moot. It also means that baby changing facilities should be accessable to men (if an establishment chooses to make baby changing facilities available) as providing such facilities in a womans restroom only would be in violation of the ERA.

The ERA does not mandate anyone to provide toilets, or changing facilities or lockerooms but if it does, it has to provide them for both sexes either as individual facilities or unisex facilities. It is as simple as that.

Could someone not claim in the future that the separate facilities are unequal so we need Uni-sex bathrooms. I personally don't think it's a big deal, but I do think this amendment could lead to that.

I thought that my quoted post already adressed that. The ERA concerns itself with what is known as 'Equality of Rights under the Law.' That wording is very specific and is grounded in the tradition of equality before the law. It forms the basis of Article 7 of the Universal Decleration of Human Rights. I have no idea why this argument is getting bogged down with concern over toilets. A womans right to equality is not diminished by there being a male bathroom. It is diminished if there is a male bathroom but not a female one. A Catholic's right to worship is not diminshed by there being a Protestant church, it is diminished if a Protestant church is allowed but not a Catholic one. No one is arguing that our freedom of worship means that we will be forcing everyone to use one big church!

Now some use the analogy of segregation in that there used to be seperate facilities for people of colour and of course now there are not. The difference is however that white men and black men do not have have different bodily functions requiring seperate bathrooms. The division there was a constructed one as political definitions of 'racial difference' was being used as a reason to seperate individuals

May I also remind Senators of the legal strength of privacy laws which would covers the continued seperation of public toilet and changing facilities.

[afleitch]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is SJoyceFla's proposal but with an added clause... this clause is meant to protect Moose International and Women's Clubs, organizations along those lines and not for example Augusta National. If you believe there is better wording avaiable- please suggest

I am adding the bolded clause based upon the following 1998 New Mexico Supreme Court case... http://nrlc.org/news/1998/NRL12.98/Doug.html

I am a little confused here. Do you want to tag onto the ERA Amendment an amendment effectively outlawing elective abortion?

The New Mexico Constitution in this example states; 'No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law; nor shall any person be denied equal protection of the laws. Equality of rights under law shall not be denied on account of the sex of any person.'

The ruling in [/i]New Mexico Right to Choose NARAL v Johnson[/i] concerned funding for 'medically necessary' abortions, not elective abortion.

(Citation: 'New Mexico's Equal Rights Amendment requires a searching judicial inquiry to determine whether the Department's rule prohibiting state funding for certain medically necessary abortions denies Medicaid-eligible women equality of rights under law. We conclude from this inquiry that the Department's rule violates New Mexico's Equal Rights Amendment because it results in a program that does not apply the same standard of medical necessity to both men and women, and there is no compelling justification for treating men and women differently with respect to their medical needs in this instance.')

It was concerning a ruling that defined an abortion as “medically necessary” when a pregnancy “aggravates a pre-existing condition, makes treatment of a condition impossible, interferes with or hampers a diagnosis, or has a profound negative impact upon the physical or mental health of an individual.”

The ERA does not allow for abortion 'on demand'; it would however ensure that a woman could not be denied a termination without due consideration given to her medical need. A position, I am sure, that most Senators will find entirely reasonable.

[afleitch]

By sexual orienation it is understood to mean heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual. The American Psychological Association does not consider sexual attraction towards objects, animals, youth as a 'sexual orientation' as there can be no reciprocation. In the case of children there can be no legal reciprocation.

If this is the assumed understanding, what does the "toward adults" part add?

It was added because ironically it was the issue of sexual orientation that I considered would have been the controversal inclusion. From past experience people don their skis and set off down the slippery slope thinking that making any concession to same sex adult relationships on the basis that same sex sexual orientation is inherent in some people means we'll be mandating paedophilia and dog sex.

For me the interpretation of the law even without the addition of the word 'adult' would be clear. Bear in mind that by 'sexual orientation' this amendment is not exclusively about LGBT individuals. So using an example a man can have a heterosexual attraction (that is paedophillic or ephebophillic) to a young girl but it is naturally against the law for him to act on it as minors are incapable of consent. However there is a distinction between sexual orientation and sexual acts. Sex with minors, children, dogs and lampposts for example are categorised as sexual/psychosexual disorders. I very much doubt that this classification will change. However I decided to include the term 'towards adults' in order to help define the terms in which the umbrella term of 'sexual orientation' would be protected. This is less direct that actually outlining precisely what sex acts are deemed okay (consenting adult to consenting adult) as I would never want that put in the constitution.