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

[Napoleon]

Well, couldn't a gay guy conceivably get more than that much of a glance when we are taking a piss in a urinal? Surely there are some perverted ones.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

I don't see any problems with this, and given the detailed testimony of the Attorney General, it has my support.

[Napoleon]

I don't see any problems with this, and given the detailed testimony of the Attorney General, it has my support.

We're happy to have you on board, Senator.

[Sbane]

And while I have never been inside a women's bathroom, is there anything special in it that a pervert would be able to exploit to get himself off? Do women walk around naked in there? As far as I know they all have their own stalls so visibility won't be a problem like it would be in male bathrooms with our urinals...not like there is a big problem there or anything.

Most stalls are not completely enclosed...there is a small area with the hinge where some one could see thru...I also believe it would make nearly all women uncomfortable

Well, couldn't a gay guy conceivably get more than that much of a glance when we are taking a piss in a urinal? Surely there are some perverted ones. Same with lesbians...couldn't they also want to sneak a peek? Why isn't this a problem currently? Don't you think it is because behavior like that would be immediately cracked down upon, either by the bathroom users or authorities. The biggest difference in this case would be that women might be physically unable to do anything against a guy creeping in the bathroom.

That is exactly the issue I believe... men,regardless of how they identify sexually, are normally stronger physically then a woman and would be more able to commit sexual assault

Yeah, but why would they be more likely to commit sexual assault in a bathroom rather than anywhere else?

I think you pretty much have this right...we can discuss this theoretically but people think differently. Women probably would not like men hanging about in their bathrooms, even if they were gay. And men also would not like wo....actually wait a second, men might like women hanging out in their bathrooms come to think of it.

[CLARENCE 2015!]

And while I have never been inside a women's bathroom, is there anything special in it that a pervert would be able to exploit to get himself off? Do women walk around naked in there? As far as I know they all have their own stalls so visibility won't be a problem like it would be in male bathrooms with our urinals...not like there is a big problem there or anything.

Most stalls are not completely enclosed...there is a small area with the hinge where some one could see thru...I also believe it would make nearly all women uncomfortable

Well, couldn't a gay guy conceivably get more than that much of a glance when we are taking a piss in a urinal? Surely there are some perverted ones. Same with lesbians...couldn't they also want to sneak a peek? Why isn't this a problem currently? Don't you think it is because behavior like that would be immediately cracked down upon, either by the bathroom users or authorities. The biggest difference in this case would be that women might be physically unable to do anything against a guy creeping in the bathroom.

That is exactly the issue I believe... men,regardless of how they identify sexually, are normally stronger physically then a woman and would be more able to commit sexual assault

Yeah, but why would they be more likely to commit sexual assault in a bathroom rather than anywhere else?

I think you pretty much have this right...we can discuss this theoretically but people think differently. Women probably would not like men hanging about in their bathrooms, even if they were gay. And men also would not like wo....actually wait a second, men might like women hanging out in their bathrooms come to think of it.

Hahahaha... however I do believe we are on the same page. I wll propose an amendment tomorrow which will deal with my personal objections- in terms of bathrooms and sex-exclusive organizations

[Napoleon]

I urge Senators not to disgrace our honorable Constitution by inserting language telling us who can use what toilet and when. This is a ridiculous idea that should be met with strong opposition.

[Sbane]

I don't see any problems with this, and given the detailed testimony of the Attorney General, it has my support.

I will also be supporting it since I do believe the Supreme Court is competent enough to decide when separation of the sexes is necessary and when it isn't. I still agree with TJ though that this could lead to a case about uni-sex bathrooms, in which case I hope common sense prevails. In any case I will be supporting Clarence's amendment so we make it clear to begin with.

[Sbane]

I urge Senators not to disgrace our honorable Constitution by inserting language telling us who can use what toilet and when. This is a ridiculous idea that should be met with strong opposition.

I think women will actually prefer to use bathrooms without men in it. So I will be supporting Clarence's amendment. We can theoretically argue why it isn't a big deal, and I do think if put into practice in the real world will not be a big deal, but it's something that really no one wants so putting it into this amendment is harmless.

[Napoleon]

I will not be the President who (literally) supports adding toilet talk to our most honorable document, our Constitution. If such an amendment is adopted, I will have to withdraw my support, unfortunately.

I've offered evidence from the nation's top law enforcement official as well as the fictional US Senate and House of Representatives, and many state legislatures to support my position. This debate has taken an absurd and embarrassing turn. Not to mention the fact that the proponents of that exact text were (who knew?!) women. So you guys are suggesting that a) the Attorney General is lying b) that the United States Congress wants to open up female restrooms to sexual predators or something like that and c) that women themselves are advocating that those scary predators be allowed in.

Its also a great insult to the effort and intellectual capabilities of the women who have fought for this text for generations.

Can I get an eternal facepalm?

[CLARENCE 2015!]

Well here we go again Napoleon...

The reality is that the Equal Rights Amendment has not been adopted in the fictional USA... many women oppose it for reasons I have outlined in my statements in opposition, such as opening them up to be drafted and infringement on women's organizations. The AFL-CIO opposes it for other reasons.

I am not suggesting the AG is lying...giving one's opinion isn't lying, nor is disagreeing with his opinion which I strongly do. Let's not pretend the AG is without any bias- just as I am not! We have our views and his testimony, which I appreciate and respect, was influenced by his personal views

I have strong objections, shared by others in this body and many across the country...rather then oppose the bill because of these objections- I am choosing to offer an amendment to compromise and create a situation where I and others can support this bill. I am disappointed that you are reacting the way you are to my intention to propose an amendment which- if passed- will lead me and others to back this bill...

A bill does not have to be 100% to your liking...the 3/4 draft compromise sure as hell wasn't to mine, but I voted for it because it was the result of a good faith effort to find middle ground on the issue.

Listen to this classic...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7knIi3LGf4M

[Napoleon]

Well here we go again Napoleon...

The reality is that the Equal Rights Amendment has not been adopted in the fictional USA...

The ERA was voted for by 354 Representatives and 84 Senators. You're opposed to something that was a mainstream position even in 1972.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't know what your link is but an amendment talking about restrooms is a disgrace to our Constitution. Your objection happens to be detached from the legal reality of the text. How do you compromise with a position that isn't even rooted in reality?

I'm not accusing you of trying to use this to mask your opposition, but it simply isn't a truthful argument. This amendment would in absolutely no way mandate unisex restrooms. The only way this amendment would possibly affect restrooms is ensuring that men and women are each offered the proper facilities. What this amendment provides is equal rights under the law. Our right to privacy laws protect us from having to share toilet facilities simultaneously with members of the opposite sex.

You are saying I am not compromising but you're unwilling to even consider the facts that have been repeated over and over.

[CLARENCE 2015!]

As for the ERA- I'm very familiar with its passage in Congress. Had you been born yet? The odd part of this all is that it is still not in the US Constitution... that means somewhere at some time, some people must have disagreed with your views on this issue. It was not ratified and consistently lost support when its fallacies were pointed out...virtually every woman I knew at that time when the ERA regularly made news opposed its passage

As for the toilet amendment- I don't plan to include the word toilet in my proposed amendment so you can sleep soundly tonight. As for the legal reality- that is open to debate. I believe the broad nature of the ERA can lead to unexpected and unwanted consequences... others have historically shared that view. My proposed amendment will be a good faith effort to reach our mutual intent with the passage of the ERA without those negative consequences

I'm now 70 years old and refuse to let myself get drawn in to a catfight on the web about a fake ERA to a fake constitution... so I will see myself to bed and continue this discussion tomorrow after proposing my amendment

[Napoleon]

Had you been born yet?

Your use of ad hominems has elevated the quality of this debate.
 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't really believe that every woman you knew opposed it, but your anecdotal evidence is unreliable regardless. Women have always favored the ERA by overwhelming margins, and men do too. You might have been misinformed of the facts in the past, but I don't see why you can't take a look at the evidence. The people who disagreed with the mainstream position then were old Southern white males near exclusively.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I guess the question I'm asking is how you believe your legal opinion is more qualified than the experts.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I'm now 70 years old and refuse to let myself get drawn in to a catfight on the web about a fake ERA to a fake constitution... so I will see myself to bed and continue this discussion tomorrow after proposing my amendment

If Atlasia is that trivial to you, why are you here?

[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.

[Donerail]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Better?

[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?

[Sbane]

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.

[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.

[CLARENCE 2015!]

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?

Yes!!! What is the problem with this? If a man is more physically able to hold a job in construction, why shouldn't I be able to hire him for that reason?

[CLARENCE 2015!]

I'm now 70 years old and refuse to let myself get drawn in to a catfight on the web about a fake ERA to a fake constitution... so I will see myself to bed and continue this discussion tomorrow after proposing my amendment

If Atlasia is that trivial to you, why are you here?

Precisely because it is that trivial... in "real world" politics, the issues we discuss elsewhere on this board have an impact on my life. Whether taxes, foreign policy, the election, etc...these issues matter and I can understand those who become passionate and get angry over these issues considering their importance. The fantasy board does not have an impact on a single life so we should be able to have debates and discussions free from anger and free from a complete disregard for other's ideas... some times I break that, some times Napoleon does, and others. Whether this passes or fails, the rights of any one would not change so people for crying out loud, TAKE IT EASY!!!

[CLARENCE 2015!]

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

[CLARENCE 2015!]

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

[Napoleon]

All of these amendments should be defeated and rejected. That is all.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I must declare that amendment unfriendly because in my opinion, the word 'necessary' is far too vague in nature that its definition could be stretched to fit the agenda of judges who don't like the amendment- and this, of course, would defeat its purpose entirely.  I am also not in favor of including anything related to abortion in this amendment.  This amendment was not meant to address the abortion issue; that is a discussion for another day.

I will be at the beach today, so I will not be able to partake in much discussion until later tonight.  Peace!