ERA

[Nation]

Whether or not you want an amendment, we're still a ways away from true equality -- if that's even possible.

[12th Doctor]

Whether or not you want an amendment, we're still a ways away from true equality -- if that's even possible.

Your right about that.  Personaly, I believe that me and women are "equals" though not "equal" if you understand what I mean?

[ShapeShifter]

The ERA: A Brief Introduction
 
   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.

Why would anyone be against this is beyond me?

I'm against the amendment, not the ideals expressed by it.

Why would you be against the amendment??? and be for the ideals expressed in it??? That seems inconsistent to me.

Because we already have and ERA it's called the 15th Amendment.

Amendment XV

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

Please tell me how does that have to do with ERA???

Sorry, I meant the 14th Amendment.

 Why do we need the ERA if we have the "equal protection" clause of the 14th Amendment?

    The 14th Amendment was ratified after the Civil War, in 1868, in order to deal with race discrimination. (Ironically, it added the word "male" to the Constitution for the first time in referring to the electorate.) It was first applied to prohibit sex discrimination in 1971, in the Supreme Court decision Reed v. Reed, but it still allowed legal differentiation by sex to stand in many cases. Several subsequent Supreme Court decisions (Craig v. Boren in 1976, United States v. Commonwealth of Virginia in 1996) have raised the standard of protection against sex discrimination under the 14th Amendment, but sex discrimination claims still do not get the highest level of judicial scrutiny ("strict scrutiny") that race discrimination claims get. If ERA opponents believe that women already have the full protection of the Constitution through the 14th Amendment, they should have no objection to clarifying that guarantee through the specific wording of the ERA.

Source:

http://www.equalrightsamendment.org/faq.htm

Just admit it, you don't want women to have equal rights.

No, I just don't want superfalous amendments added to the Constitution.  The "male clause" was changed by the 19th Amendment, it only applied to voting.  If you read the Amendment it provides for equal rights for ALL citizens.

This is not a superfalous amendment and the 19th Amendment only addresses the right to VOTE only. That is the only right it addresses to. Why are you so against having our constitution state that women and men are equal in ALL rights? Do you have something against women?

Why is the ERA needed?

    The Equal Rights Amendment affirms that both women and men hold equally all of the rights guaranteed by the U. S. Constitution. It would provide a remedy for sex discrimination for both women and men, and give equal legal status to women for the first time in our country’s history.

    The most important effect of the ERA would be to clarify the status of sex discrimination for the courts, whose decisions still show confusion about how to deal with such claims. For the first time, “sex” would be a suspect classification like race. It would require the same high level of “strict scrutiny” and have to meet the same high level of justification – a “necessary” relation to a “compelling” state interest – as the classification of race.

source: http://www.equalrightsamendment.org/faq.htm

For more detailed information,

http://www.equalrightsamendment.org/why.htm

[12th Doctor]

The ERA: A Brief Introduction
 
   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.

Why would anyone be against this is beyond me?

I'm against the amendment, not the ideals expressed by it.

Why would you be against the amendment??? and be for the ideals expressed in it??? That seems inconsistent to me.

Because we already have and ERA it's called the 15th Amendment.

Amendment XV

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

Please tell me how does that have to do with ERA???

Sorry, I meant the 14th Amendment.

 Why do we need the ERA if we have the "equal protection" clause of the 14th Amendment?

    The 14th Amendment was ratified after the Civil War, in 1868, in order to deal with race discrimination. (Ironically, it added the word "male" to the Constitution for the first time in referring to the electorate.) It was first applied to prohibit sex discrimination in 1971, in the Supreme Court decision Reed v. Reed, but it still allowed legal differentiation by sex to stand in many cases. Several subsequent Supreme Court decisions (Craig v. Boren in 1976, United States v. Commonwealth of Virginia in 1996) have raised the standard of protection against sex discrimination under the 14th Amendment, but sex discrimination claims still do not get the highest level of judicial scrutiny ("strict scrutiny") that race discrimination claims get. If ERA opponents believe that women already have the full protection of the Constitution through the 14th Amendment, they should have no objection to clarifying that guarantee through the specific wording of the ERA.

Source:

http://www.equalrightsamendment.org/faq.htm

Just admit it, you don't want women to have equal rights.

No, I just don't want superfalous amendments added to the Constitution.  The "male clause" was changed by the 19th Amendment, it only applied to voting.  If you read the Amendment it provides for equal rights for ALL citizens.

This is not a superfalous amendment and the 19th Amendment only addresses the right to VOTE only. That is the only right it addresses to. Why are you so against having our constitution state that women and men are equal in ALL rights? Do you have something against women?

Why is the ERA needed?

    The Equal Rights Amendment affirms that both women and men hold equally all of the rights guaranteed by the U. S. Constitution. It would provide a remedy for sex discrimination for both women and men, and give equal legal status to women for the first time in our country’s history.

    The most important effect of the ERA would be to clarify the status of sex discrimination for the courts, whose decisions still show confusion about how to deal with such claims. For the first time, “sex” would be a suspect classification like race. It would require the same high level of “strict scrutiny” and have to meet the same high level of justification – a “necessary” relation to a “compelling” state interest – as the classification of race.

source: http://www.equalrightsamendment.org/faq.htm

For more detailed information,

http://www.equalrightsamendment.org/why.htm

But the part that mentions "male" also ONLY addressed the right to vote.  That was my point.  The part that states equal pertection applies to ALL citizens.

[Beet]

Whether or not you want an amendment, we're still a ways away from true equality -- if that's even possible.

I agree. And I support this amendment for long term purposes, and because I don't think it would lead to radical consequences. The Supreme Court can "find" anything it wants, ERA or no ERA. This amendment is needed to prevent "backsliding" just as the 14th and 15th amendments were needed to prevent backsliding on civil rights.

[ShapeShifter]

The word male only appears in the 14th Amendment in reference to voting.  Soulty is right.  This means that the only rights which are gender specific are voting rights, which was already addressed by the 19th Amendment.  No other mention of gender was made in the 14th Amendment, and it is traditional legal theory to assume that all alternative wordings of law were condidered by the writers and rejecting as wanting.  The writers of the 14th could have made the whole amendment gender specific, but didn't, and we must assume that this decision was deliberate.

In other words, Soulty is right, the 14th protects women as equal.  As to why I oppose an amendment that ony clarifies existing law, it is not, as you suggested, because we hate women.  We understand that the constitution (as htmldon alluded to) is not a plaything for radicals who wish to enshrine their agenda, it is a near-sacred document that is to be kept brief when possible.  When unnecessary laws are passed, liberties can be lost for no gain in return.

I am not a radical and I don't wish to enshrine my "agenda"

That argument of leaving the constitution the way it is - is a weak argument. What if we were back in the early days when it was okay to discriminate against blacks? Someone can use the same arguement of, "no no, we don't need change by radicals" That is simplifying the situation by saying, we don't need to chage the constitution. By the way, is discrimination of someone base on sexual orientation cover by the constitution? I would bet it is not. Would you be against amending the constitution to include gays base on, "no no, these are radicals, we should not let them "soil" our "sacred" document". First off, this "sacred" document is used in the courts of law. It has practical use. It is not some work of art. It is the LAW of the Land.

with that said, I would invite you to consider another passage from the website I have been sourceing. I am not even sure you guys have even been reading it with the arguments you have been presenting.

In practice:

The practical effect of this amendment would be seen most clearly in court deliberations on cases of sex discrimination. For the first time, "sex" would be a suspect classification requiring the same high level of "strict scrutiny" and having to meet the same high level of justification – a "necessary" relation to a "compelling" state interest – that the classification of race currently requires.

The VMI decision now tells courts to exercise "skeptical scrutiny" requiring "exceedingly persuasive" justification of differential treatment on the basis of sex, but prohibition of sex discrimination is still not as strongly enforceable as prohibition of race discrimination. Ironically, under current court decisions about sex and race discrimination, a white male claiming race discrimination by a program or action is protected by strict scrutiny, but a black female claiming sex discrimination by the same program or action is protected by only skeptical, not strict, scrutiny.

We need the ERA to clarify the law for the lower courts, whose decisions still reflect confusion and inconsistency about how to deal with sex discrimination claims. If the ERA were in the Constitution, it would in many cases influence the tone of legal reasoning and decisions regarding women’s equal rights, producing over time a cumulative positive effect.

source: http://www.equalrightsamendment.org/why.htm

On that note, all this debating is really getting me worked up and I think maybe, just maybe ... I should think about pursuing a career in Law. hey, I once did get accepted to medical school.

"The radical of one century is the conservative of the next. The radical invents the views. When he has worn them out the conservative adopts them." - Mark Twain (Notebook, 1898)

[The Dowager Mod]

it's not about voting rights.
as long as women average less pay for the same work as men the ERA is needed.

[ShapeShifter]

I am not a radical and I don't wish to enshrine my "agenda"

You may not think of yourself as a radical, but you seem to hold a number of positions that are out of the mainstream, ie radical.

That argument of leaving the constitution the way it is - is a weak argument. What if we were back in the early days when it was okay to discriminate against blacks? Someone can use the same arguement of, "no no, we don't need change by radicals" That is simplifying the situation by saying, we don't need to chage the constitution. By the way, is discrimination of someone base on sexual orientation cover by the constitution? I would bet it is not. Would you be against amending the constitution to include gays base on, "no no, these are radicals, we should not let them "soil" our "sacred" document". First off, this "sacred" document is used in the courts of law. It has practical use. It is not some work of art. It is the LAW of the Land.

I never said this.  You are manufacturing quotes and then attributing them to me, and I don't care for it.  Here is what I actually said, "We understand that the constitution (as htmldon alluded to) is not a plaything for radicals who wish to enshrine their agenda, it is a near-sacred document that is to be kept brief when possible.  When unnecessary laws are passed, liberties can be lost for no gain in return."  I said "near-sacred", not "sacred".  My follow up explains why.  "When unnecessary laws are passed, liberties can be lost for no gain in return."  I never said anything about "soil"ing the Constitution, so don't put it in quotes implying that I said it.  I didn't say never to change the Constitution, I said not to change it unless there is a compelling reason.

with that said, I would invite you to consider another passage from the website I have been sourceing. I am not even sure you guys have even been reading it with the arguments you have been presenting.

In practice:

The practical effect of this amendment would be seen most clearly in court deliberations on cases of sex discrimination. For the first time, "sex" would be a suspect classification requiring the same high level of "strict scrutiny" and having to meet the same high level of justification – a "necessary" relation to a "compelling" state interest – that the classification of race currently requires.

We need the ERA to clarify the law for the lower courts, whose decisions still reflect confusion and inconsistency about how to deal with sex discrimination claims. If the ERA were in the Constitution, it would in many cases influence the tone of legal reasoning and decisions regarding women’s equal rights, producing over time a cumulative positive effect.

None of this comes from the Constitution.  "Strict scrutiny", "Compelling state interest", this all comes from judges, who through their interpretations have construed the 14th Amendment to allow for Affirmative Action.  No Constitutional Amendment was needed.  You are making my points for me.  If we don't need an Amendment for Affirmative Action, why would we need one for preferential treatment for women?

As for clearing up lower court decisions, the reason that there is confusion about lower court decisions is usually either a) The plaintiff has a case of dubious merit, or b) The judge can't read.  None of this would be fixed by the ERA, because cases about equal pay usually rely on manipulation of statistics and even in legitimate cases, incompetent judges can still make mistakes.

I never said you said anything. You are the worst person on this board to debate with. This has to be the 20th time you start off by saying, but but but I never said that.

[ShapeShifter]

So let me get this straight, I should let you invent quotes and attribute them to me?

I gave you the actual quote, which is irrefutable evidence that I in fact did NOT say what you said I said.  Try to keep the gloves up.

I was making a point when I made those quote up and never did I say, john ford said this. calm down. jeez. stop jumping to conclusions and debate the substance of the issue and stop using weapons of mass distraction

[dunn]

So let me get this straight, I should let you invent quotes and attribute them to me?

I gave you the actual quote, which is irrefutable evidence that I in fact did NOT say what you said I said.  Try to keep the gloves up.

I was making a point when I made those quote up and never did I say, john ford said this. calm down. jeez. stop jumping to conclusions and debate the substance of the issue and stop using weapons of mass distraction

are you a rep now?

[ShapeShifter]

So let me get this straight, I should let you invent quotes and attribute them to me?

I gave you the actual quote, which is irrefutable evidence that I in fact did NOT say what you said I said.  Try to keep the gloves up.

I was making a point when I made those quote up and never did I say, john ford said this. calm down. jeez. stop jumping to conclusions and debate the substance of the issue and stop using weapons of mass distraction

are you a rep now?

No!!!! I just like Blue. I always thought Democrats were blue. I don't like Red - makes you look like the devil. Blue is a nice color to the eye - unlike that red. However, I was thinking, maybe I should play the role of a Republican in the future for a day or a week. Personally, I like to explore different point of view.

[dunn]

So let me get this straight, I should let you invent quotes and attribute them to me?

I gave you the actual quote, which is irrefutable evidence that I in fact did NOT say what you said I said.  Try to keep the gloves up.

I was making a point when I made those quote up and never did I say, john ford said this. calm down. jeez. stop jumping to conclusions and debate the substance of the issue and stop using weapons of mass distraction

are you a rep now?

No!!!! I just like Blue. I always thought Democrats were blue. I don't like Red - makes you look like the devil. Blue is a nice color to the eye - unlike that red. However, I was thinking, maybe I should play the role of a Republican in the future for a day or a week. Personally, I like to explore different point of view.

blue is nicer

[nclib]

I definitely support the ERA.

As ShapeShifter said, it would place gender discrimination on the same level of severity as racial discrimination.

The VMI case was an example of how, despite the 14th and 19th amendments, the ERA is still needed.

[Beet]

LABOR RESEARCH ASSOC. (December 18, 2003)

Government Study Says No Improvement in Gender Pay Gap Over Two Decades (Dec. 18, 2003)

Equal pay for women remains stubbornly elusive, according to a new government study, the most comprehensive survey on the subject ever conducted.

Women still earn about 80 cents on the male dollar, even accounting for variables like work patterns, industry, occupation, race, marital status and job tenure, all of which can affect pay levels, according to a congressionally commissioned study by the Government Accounting Office that examined 18 years of data on more than 9,300 Americans.

“When we account for differences between male and female work patterns as well as other key factors, women earned, on average, 80 percent of what men earned in 2000,” the authors wrote Reps. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) and John Dingell (D-Mich.), who commissioned the GAO study.

The survey tracked the work and life histories of men and women who were between ages 25 and 65 at some point between 1983 and 2000.

So many factors contribute to this glaring pay gap, according to the new research.

 “Work patterns are key,” the authors said. “Women have fewer years of work experience, work fewer hours per year, are less likely to work a full-time schedule, and leave the labor force for longer periods of time than men.”

The authors note that working women with family responsibilities make choices of occupation and of how, when and where they work, which can affect their career advancement or earnings. In some cases, workplace policies and expectations still do not reflect the demographic reality of single working parents, according to the researchers.

“We found that before controlling for any variables that may affect earnings, on average, women earned about 44 percent less than men over the time period we studied,” the authors said. But after controlling for all the independent variables included in their model, the pay gap was narrowed by to about 21 percent over the same period.

In the year 2000, women earned 79.7 cents to every dollar men earned. In 1983, according to Maloney, women earned 80.4 cents on the male dollar.

"The world today is vastly different than it was in 1983, but sadly, one thing that has remained the same is the pay gap between men and women," Maloney said.

"After accounting for so many external factors, it seems that still, at the root of it all, men get an inherent annual bonus just for being men. If this continues, the only guarantees in life will be death, taxes and the glass ceiling. We can’t let that happen," said the congresswoman, whose district includes parts of Manhattan and Queens.

 Said Dingell: "The wage gap is real, it is persistent and it is costing hardworking families thousands of dollars annually. This not just a women's issue – it's a family issue. The price of a family should not be a woman's career."

 The study also revealed that African American women earn about 6.6 percent less than white women and that African American men make about 19 percent less than white men.

Notably, men with children appear to make 2.1 percent more than those without, while women with children earn 2.5 percent less than those without, according to the GAO study. Married men, meanwhile, earn about 8.3 percent more than men who have never been married.

 The authors supplemented their data with interviews with earnings and workplace issues experts as well as employers. The study did not contain data on health insurance and pension benefits, nor on workers’ education quality, field of study, cognitive ability or social skills.

 This study is a follow-up to a 2002 Maloney/Dingell-commissioned GAO report on the glass ceiling for female and male managers.

 Maloney and Dingell said they want to establish a new center for the study of women and workplace policy at a public university, which would focus on solutions to the earnings gap and publish annual guides on best practices for employers and family friendly workplaces for women.

[angus]

I strongly support women's right to walk around topless on the beach, just like men do.

But I'm against the draft.  For both genders.

Pretty sure I don't support this amendment or any other, for the reasons htmldon outlined.  Basically we shouldn't have to amend our constitution to do this.  You can't compare the ERA to the 19th amendment.  The 19th amendment was necessary as it addressed a formal change in our highest law.  The ERA addresses nothing.

[Beet]

Congratullations, you've dug up a report by two extremist congresspersons and declared it the most comprehensive study in the entire history of America/Western Civilization/the World/the Universe.

Too bad just about every other survey shows the opposite.  Even if this was right, a constitutional Amendment is not required, we already have the Equal Pay Acts of 1963 and 1999.

I'm so over this thread.

1. I didn't declare it anything, I just copied and pasted from the story. An 18-year longitudinal study with 9,300 subjects is hardly lightweight.

2. The report was done by the GAO, not the Congresspersons, who don't have time to do such an extensive report.

3. ShapeShifter has already explained what the ERA would do.

[nclib]

Congratullations, you've dug up a report by two extremist congresspersons...

Maloney is a staunch liberal, but Dingell is definitely a moderate.

[Nym90]

Agreed, Dingell was my Congressman for a while when I lived in Ann Arbor (after he beat Rivers in the member vs. member primary in 2002) and he's definitely moderate.