Talk Elections

Sponsor: Scott

Scott, you of course have 24 hours to advocate for this. I trust that won't be a problem, unlike a certain other Senator whose display name begins with the same letter. :P

Some information from my administration...

I've had a dialogue with Afleitch and others also have in the Judiciary Committee... I don't want to clog this post by copying it all but I urge Senators to take a look

My concerns about this amendment remain and the question I pose to the sponsors is this...
What specific rights (minus gay marriage) are withheld from women and gays right now that lead you to sponsor this legislation? In other words, what problem are we trying to solve here...

We are trying to guarantee equal rights for all Atlasians regardless of sexual orientation or identity by incorporating it in to the supreme law of the land, our Constitution.

I understand that, but what rights are denied them now? I agree that marriage should be granted and have stood for this... but this law is broad and has many consequences which go far beyond righting obvious wrongs

Screw you, Yankee. :P

Unless you were talking about Seatown....in which case I say screw you for insulting a constituent of mine. :P

I'm a forward-thinking progressive. There doesn't need to be rights currently denied if there could be rights denied in the future. I don't expect you'd be the founder questioning why we need a right to bear arms asking "How is it denied now?". For me, it is about guaranteeing freedom to our citizenry. Your examples of consequences have been addressed many times so I have nothing to add there...the amendment is entirely sound. There are minor text changes that may be appropriate so long as the brevity and purpose of the current text remains intact.

I agree with your intention but my concerns have not been addressed... I believe the bill currently is too broad and would like to see an amendment specifically excluding single-sex organizations. If I want to start a Newberry Men's Club, I ought to be able to... same for the Women's Club which exists now. I should not be able to join the Women's Club if they don't want men as members

The fact that you don't know its not you, suggest that it might as well have been based on your attentiveness. :P

I'm sorry that you feel that way, but to reiterate what AG Afleitch ahs already had to..

We understand that it might be difficult for some of our more conservative Senators to vote in favor of protecting gay rights and gender equality. We have put this amendment forth because it represents our values and have explained how it would work with clarity.

1- my last comment did not involve restrooms, but in the Judiciary Committee I quoted Afleitch in which he appeared to contradict the statement you quoted

2- I would put my views on protecting gay rights up alongside any liberals, including you. This is not about gay rights- we are in agreement on specific rights gays do not have that they ought to have. This is about executing Ted Bundy with an ICBM...

Respectfully, I think you are confused about what this amendment will actually do. I'm happy to answer questions but I don't want to sound like I'm repeating myself over and over as I think the other Senators will find that unproductive. ;)

Right...I appreciate your position and believe we are united in intent, but not the method of how to get there. I look forward to a respectful discussion :)

How does this not require the abolishment of separate bathrooms for men and women in public buildings? It makes gender essentially the same as race and separate bathrooms for whites and blacks would not be legal.

Thank you Senator. Let me know if you have further questions.


AG Afleitch has already answered this.

This last sentence...
Is what concerns me greatly... could the President or AG elaborate? Does this simply mean that a building could not have a men's restroom without having a women's? Or does it mean restrooms must be unisex?

That doesn't really answer the question though. He just says that they will be able to and that transgendered individuals would be allowed to use the restroom of their post operation gender if they are post operation. But why would the establishments be permitted to maintain single-sex restrooms? That's a Separate-But-Equal reading. What is there actually in the constitution after this amendment to allow that type of discrimination other than just that we want to allow it?

What the amendment seeks to accomplish is very simple; it enshrines the idea that people of all genders and sexual orientations are seen equally under the law.  It doesn't necessarily provide women and members of the LGBT community with rights they don't already have, but it establishes a Constitutional safeguard for the rights that they do have.  But this is, of course, not the underlying issue with the amendment that divides this Senate.

Afleitch provided an excellent defense of the amendment and addressed why the law would simply not be in conflict with single-sex clubs and bathrooms.  Single-sex clubs and bathrooms are not established for discriminatory purposes, and because the right to assembly has already been established by the Constitution, this amendment will not come to odds with those institutions.  We must also remember that even without an ERA, separate bathrooms are protected under the law and this would not change if gender/sexual orientation equality is protected by the Constitution.

If some are still unconvinced by the arguments put forth by Afleitch, Napoleon and myself, I'd be willing to find common ground and modify the language so that it specifically includes exemptions for single-sex clubs and separate bathrooms; I would much rather to do so in order to pass the amendment with bipartisan support.  However, it is essential that modifications to the text do not refute the amendment's central purpose.

Unfortunately, Senator, that would remove the 'teeth" from the amendment.

It's quite obvious that things like restrooms , school locker rooms, sports organizations and such would not be affected by this amendment. Why weaken the amendment to pacify concerns that are not relevant to the amendment?

The only change that I think should be considered is what Mr. Moderate suggested- changing "sex" to "gender identity".

I would oppose changing sex to gender identity.... if some one has had an operation and has certain parts, that is his or her sex. If some one is biologically a male, that person claiming to identify as a female does not give him entry into a women's bathroom. You are opening the door to sexual predators who would exploit our tolerance for their sick gain...

First of all, it's offensive that you think transgender Atlasians are comparable to sexual predators.
Secondly, you are quite mistaken if you think that these people aren't already using the restrooms.
My last point is that it is rather stupid for us, as a government, to deny rights to our people out of a paranoid fear that some creep might try to abuse a restroom and make an illegitimate claim of defense, and further, that our good courts would rule in favor of said creep were there an issue.

This restroom scare is all smoke and mirrors.

How would that type of modification undermine the bill's intentions?  Either way, I don't think there would be any negative changes made to current law.


How so?  If a man is psychologically a female, shouldn't she be allowed to enter the bathroom facility that most suits her?

I believe my remarks make it quite clear that I am not equating transgenders with sexual predators... I am making a distinction between them and arguing that the latter can exploit laws meant to protect the former

I do not believe a transgender (assuming that means some one who has had a sex change operation) is the same as some one who claims to be another gender which doesn't match his or her biology....which to me seems rather silly. Can my granddaughters check the African-American box when they apply to colleges if they claim to identify as such?

I already pointed out how that is ridiculous in my last post.

"My last point is that it is rather stupid for us, as a government, to deny rights to our people out of a paranoid fear that some creep might try to abuse a restroom and make an illegitimate claim of defense, and further, that our good courts would rule in favor of said creep were there an issue."


You're confusing transgender and transsexual.


Strawman.

If that man has a Johnson- then HE should not be allowed to enter a female bathroom

If someone decides to use the law for sexual exploitation, then I don't see how they wouldn't be promptly dealt with for it.  The amendment only seeks to protect transgendered Atlasians, not permit perverted behavior.

Not all transgendered people can afford the necessary procedure to convert them to their natural sex, and not all may be willing to go through with the operation, but that doesn't mean they don't align psychologically with their desired gender.  I don't think your analogy is valid because race pertains more to physical appearance than gender identity.

How so? This amendment seeks to equate sex and sexual identity with race in terms of protected status...is it therefore irrelevant to suggest that a white person could claim to identify as an African-American just as a man could claim to identify as a woman?

Why?


Yes. Very irrelevant. And very much a logical fallacy.

Also, Scott- gender identity is inherently physical. I am sure you know biology, but here is the basis... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XY_sex-determination_system

And Napoleon- because some one with a Johnson is not a female!

Why must restrooms be separated by gender? Since you're the one raising this issue (it's actually a non-issue with regards to the amendment but...), I'd like to be able to understand your side some more.


That's a very simplistic way of looking at things. If you're going to cite Wikipedia, you might as well cite the proper article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_identity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_identity)

I agree with TJ here. Now, I don't think anyone who supports this wants there to be uni-sex bathrooms or locker rooms, but what is there preventing a future court from establishing it if they follow the current language? Someone could argue that separate bathrooms for men and women are unequal.

Of course I don't think uni-sex bathrooms are a big deal. Locker rooms would be though.

Let me clarify.  In my opinion, race isn't as much of a factor in a person's personality as does gender.  While it is true that both race and gender play an essential role in defining a person, there are little physical differences between whites and blacks whereas there are vast differences between males and females- the sexual makeup being most significant.

I don't believe it's my obligation to defend what is a nearly unanimously supported policy...it is common sense to divide males and females for personal business such as using the restroom. I believe it is clear that we need confirmation thru an amendment that this will not be altered

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.

Sbane, I am surprised that you would say that! TJ is wrong.

Let's take a look at the United States. The Equal Rights amendment that passed Congress in 1972 read as follows:

Let me assure you that a supermajority of the US Congress did not vote to force men and women into the same bathrooms. Why would that apply here? It's a right wing strawman that we should expose for what it is.

I would like to see a logical argument. If it is common sense and unanimously supported, surely you could conjure up a reason?

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

Please see my post right above this in response to Sbane...

Scientifically speaking, obviously there is a difference between genders. There is not similar scientific evidence to suggest there is anything called "race". It is more or less a social construct....gender on the other hand is not.

But you do find it acceptable for women to peep through stalls at other women? There must be a better reason for you to hold this position. I'd like to know, so I can better understand your point of view.

I was referring to 'psychical differences' being minor ones like skin color, but you are correct; couldn't have said it better.

It is simply the fact that men and women, when involved in private activity with exposed private parts, feel more comfortable being seen in such a state by those of their same gender... I don't have poll numbers to jutify this, it is simply a part of human nature or maybe our culture

Thank you Senator. That is more along the lines of what I was looking for. :)

How do you reconcile this with the fact that the gender binary is a flawed concept and doesn't take a range of gender identities into account?

As I already said before, I don't think the proponents here or in the US congress are in favor of uni-sex bathrooms. It just could be used later on to create uni-sex bathrooms. Of course that's not really a big deal.

And even dealing with the separate but equal argument, since gender differences are something that are a reality, as opposed to social constructs like race, a court would have much more of a case to rule that separation of the sexes is sometimes necessary, like in a locker room.

That really all depends.  Even so, if someone's caught peeping at another person in a stall, they would be prosecuted for it regardless of gender.

I'm not sure that actually is a possibility. Our lawmakers have sharp legal minds, and anywhere from 33% to 50% of the Congress has a law degree. I am confident that they would not have voted so strongly in favor of an amendment that would cause integration of restrooms. It's not like men are going to start playing in the WNBA or anything like that...

No problem Napoleon..., I am enjoying this discussion and I will admit that I am not educated on the concept of a range of gender identity... from what I do know there is no objective way to determine where a person is on that range. The objective determinant here is biology- what parts a person has. Could some one with male parts feel like a woman? Sure... I don't deny that, but there is no way to check that the person truly feels that way...even if there was, would we place a number on where that person is on the range?

I believe when we have to draw the line objectively and the physical aspect of gender seems to be our only option

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

()

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. :)

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

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 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.

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.

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?

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

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



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.

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

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

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.


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

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

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.

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?

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.

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?

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!!!

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

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

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!

Because it's a stereotype and it's hurtfully discriminatory. I get the feeling you wouldn't be suggesting that its ok to discriminate against blacks because they might be "better suited as janitors or basketball players".

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.

It's a dirty but textbook tactic, bringing abortion up where it obviously isn't relevant. Here it's used as part of an "everything but the kitchen sink" strategy of opposition. It's problematic first for implying that abortion isn't already guaranteed by the Constitution under our right to privacy and perhaps more importantly, part of a larger sexist history where men oppose women's rights by hiding behind abortion. Do any of our Senators look at this and see anything relevant to elective abortion? If so, please keep it to yourself because it would make you look quite foolish. No judge is going to rule in favor of elective abortion because women are given equal rights as men. ::)

It only guarantees that the facilities be provided equally for each sex. No one with a law degree would agree with this conclusion. It's illegitimate.

Thanks. I wanted to know why that analogy could not be used in court to create uni-sex bathrooms and I think you made a strong argument. Men and women are different with different bodily functions which would justify the use of different bathrooms. Does this not suffice Clarence? Also I am concerned about the language in your amendment being too vague. What you are trying to get out of your amendment, I think is already how this constitutional amendment is going to be interpreted.

The real question was how to separate this from the "separate but equal" argument made to justify segregation. I think Afleitch explained it pretty well that since men and women do have different bodily functions, separate bathrooms can be justified. It is different from race since people of different skin tones of the same gender are not really that different, compared to the differences between genders. We have been dancing around this the whole debate, but Afleitch explained it very well. I am satisfied that this amendment will not lead to uni-sex bathrooms, and thus any amendment from Clarence would be unnecessary. Not to mention the vagueness could open up a whole new can of worms.

All the ERA would require of you is to give everyone equal consideration. It is probable most of the people most capable of doing the job will be men, but that's not necessarily true. I was watching this documentary about the new Bay Bridge and there was a woman working on the construction team. And she seemed to be doing a good job.

OK... I am going to do my best to respond to all of these points in one post. If I miss some one's comments, please let me know...

Vagueness of my Amendment

I find it very amusing that this is the criticism of my amendment... this is my point about the ERA as a whole! If your concern is that a judge could conceivably interpret my amendment in a way that you would not want- please understand that a judge could do the same for the ERA which leads to my next point....

Abortion

Considering the fact that I provided a link to a state Supreme Court case in which ELECTIVE- not medically necessary- abortions were mandated to be covered due to the ERA, it is hardly irrelevant. It is clear that the ERA opens up a can of worms which none of us can predict and while Scott may not have proposed the ERA to spefically address abortion- it is clear that the issue has been connected in the past and could easily be in the future. Afleitch- my amendment also does not ban elective abortion... it simply makes it clear it is not a right provided by the ERA



Napoleon- this is absurd on two levels. Of course it is ridiculous to suggest I'd be fine with that, but it is also absurd to say that it is hurtfully discriminatory if I hired some one because they were more physically able. Is it discriminatory that I preferred to hire a woman whenever I hired a nanny or babysitter for my children? Perhaps you think it might be... but there are certain qualities that men and women have in more abundance. I am not offended that I could've never been a basketball star because I am 5'9...why would you take offense to a woman losing out on a construction job because other applicants were physically stronger or a man losing out on a job as a nanny because the parents felt more comfortable with a woman watching their children?

Restrooms

Sbane- while I agree that Afleitch's testimony on this issue is comforting, both Napoleon and especially Scott have made comments in this debate supporting the ride of a man who identifies as a female to use the women's restroom. This is very concerning to me. My amendment is an attempt to avoid this issue without specifically putting restrooms in the constitution

It doesn't matter what Napolean or Scott argue, it is how the amendment will be interpreted by the court that matters. Your concerns are being looked after in the amendment written as is.

Actually the text as written is typical of constitutional law and validated by the opinions of many legal experts. What you propose is vague, unclear, and unsuitable.

Your amendment implies that abortion isn't already a constitutional right.


I don't know why you keep making this argument. It is a poor one. To suggest that no women could ever be as physically capable as a man is flat out wrong.


Well, if that is so, could you explain to us how inequality of restroom convenience and quality is "biologically necessary"?

Napoleon brings up an interesting point about abortion.  Quite frankly, if Atlasia were to have a Roe v. Wade-esque case on its hands, I think the justices could easily rule that abortion be legal across the board on the basis that the Constitution protects privacy rights, even if abortion is not explicitly referenced in said document.

Clarence, I understand that your primary objection to the amendment is that it is what you see as 'vague,' but trying to clarify a vague amendment by proposing another vague amendment will not solve the problem.  If 'biologically necessary' is not defined by law, then the door can be opened to all sorts of different interpretations, and this could grant the go-ahead to judges for them to decide to what extent equal gender rights can be protected.  After considering this, I've become very reluctant to make any drastic changes to the amendment because I do not feel they are necessary as the ERA would not significantly alter current law.

And in my opinion, the notion that men are automatically more capable at something than women is extremely outdated; there are women that are stronger than men at certain things just as there are men that are stronger than women at other things, which is why I believe that the individual, not the gender, should be examined based on his or her personal traits.  If a construction company is choosing between a man and a woman for a job, and it chooses the man who happens to far less qualified than the woman, that is completely inexcusable and the woman should have the right to sue for that if she can prove gender bias being a factor.

Actually you will find this is different in our Constitution than it is in the US because Article III of the Third Atlasian Constitution says:


Whereas in the US, judicial review is held as an implied power in Marbury v. Madison instead of explicitly defined and pertains to implicit rights such as privacy.

Granted, the justices could still rule that way (or any way really) if they wanted, but it would require a few logical gymnastics not necessary in the US.


However, I don't see how this amendment would apply to abortions at all, seeing as how men cannot have abortions there can't really be government-induced inequality on the topic...

Yeah, I still think the Court could find a way around that.

If they do on the basis of privacy rights, it would be grounds for impeachment seeing as that would be a blatant violation of the Court's powers given in Article III. At some point we have to assume the Court would follow the literal meaning of the Constitution when we write these sorts of amendments, or else there's really no point in having a Constitution at all; the Court would just make whatever laws they want :P

I know, but courts have a way of surprising people sometimes, so I wouldn't be surprised if they managed to find a legal way of justifying it. :P

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.

This is my concern- which is why I put a link to the NM Supreme Court case which interpreted this the way I feared...

Normally, there is a distinction between acts and attraction, and this is important both in legal and psychological contexts. But from what you have said I see this amendment is meant to cover both as different aspects included under "sexual orientation."

Also, when do we vote on Clarence's amendment?

Hmm... that was boring :P

Whenever he actually introduces one. Just posting a text is not enough to be considered as an actual amendment. Why? Because their have been dozens of different texts of various things posted here in this thread. Unless it is labled "Amendment Proposed/Offered/Introduced/Filed" or he says "I offer this amendment" it is just another text that is meant to spur the debate along. I didn't see him do this when he posted the text being referred to as "Clarence's Amendment". The only appearence of the word amendment that I saw is the same that is present in the underlying text signifying that it is being offered to amend the constitution. So that doesn't count. :P

Oh, my understanding was that Clarence had proposed an amendment because he said he was a few posts before he wrote the text.  Nevermind.

In any case, the administration has requested that I call for a final vote on this bill.

I'm going to propose the following amendment:

For reasons previously stated, I consider that amendment unfriendly.

Sponsor Feedback: Hostile
Status: A vote is now open on the above amendment, please vote Aye, Nay or Abstain.

Aye

Nay

Aye

Nay

Nay

Nay, if we are discussing the amendment being proposed to the bill.

It think that such an amendment would result in the underlying Constitutional Amendment itself being rendered self-defeating in terms of its ultimate goals. So I will vote Nay.

Perhaps a better wording would have achieved the goal of the amendment author, but I don't know what that would be and none such was arrived at in the deliberations.

Vote on Amendment 50:33 by TJ in Cleve:

Aye (2): Clarence and TJ in Cleve
Nay (6): AndrewCT, Ben, NC Yankee, Redalgo, sbane and Scott
Abstain (0):

Didn't Vote (1): Seatown

The Amendment having received enough votes to fail, is not adopted.

Is Clarence going to introduce his text as an amendment?

I figure it is best to separate my amendments....

Amendment 1

No organization shall be required to alter its membership policies as a consequence of this amendment

The amendment is unfriendly.

I am sorry Clarence, but there is no indication of how this would be incorporated into the text. Therefore I have to flag this under Article 4, Section 2, Clause 1 of the OSPR. Could you please revise the text?

I'm sorry about that... this is intended to go underneath the entire ERA



Scott- I expected to get this designated unfriendly...but can you please explain why organizations such as womens' clubs or fraternal organizations should be expected to open their membership to all when gender exclusivity is one of the purposes of their existence?

I just don't feel that the amendment is necessary.  If it were, then I'd expect such a provision would have been included in the original text as it was written in 1923.

Also, after some thought, I've come to interpret the text of the ERA as it mainly addresses the government's relationship with its citizens, rather than those of private organizations/businesses with their members/consumers.

Sponsor Feedback: Hostile
Status: A vote is now open on the above amendment, please vote Aye, Nay or Abstain.

Nay

Aye

Nay

Nay

Nay

Aye


My concern is not over the sponsors' intentions for this amendment... or the President's or the AG's...my concern is how any court in the nation can interpret any piece of it for a situation. It is much too broad

However-I can see the writing on the wall. This will pass and pass as is...my amendments will not. I will not be proposing any more amendments to allow us to move on

Nay

---

Vote on the Amendment 50:34 by Clarence :

Aye (2): Clarence and TJ in Cleve
Nay (6): AndrewTX, Ben, NC Yankee, Redalgo, Scott and Seatown
Abstain (0):

Didn't Vote (1): sbane

The amendment has failed. Final vote Time?

Yes please.

Senators, this Constitutional Amendment is now at Final Vote, please vote Aye, Nay or Abstain.

Aye

This amendment is much, much too late.  AYE!

Aye

Aye

Aye!

AYE


I guess I would rather do right then be on the right here. The Regions can make the final say here.


This has enough votes to pass, Senators have 24 hours to change their votes.

NAY

Vote on Senate Passage of the Equal Rights Amendment:

Aye (7): AndrewTX, Ben, NC Yankee, Redgalo, sbane, Scott, and Seatown
Nay (2): Clarence and TJ in Cleve
Abstain (0):

Didn't Vote (0):

The Amendment has achieved the 2/3rds vote necessary for passage and is forwarded to the Regions for ratification.