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

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

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.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

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.  That said, I urge my colleagues 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".

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.

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...

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

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

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.

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?

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.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

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!

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.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

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!

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.

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.

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

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

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!

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

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.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

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

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

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

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.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

By a vote of 2-1, the Committee recommends that the ERA be passed in its current form.

By a vote of 2-1, the Committee discourages amending Senator TJ's revisions to the legislation.

And finally, by a vote of 2-1, the Committee discourages amending Senator Clarence's revisions to the legislation.

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

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

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.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

For reasons previously stated, I consider that amendment unfriendly.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

Nay.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

The amendment is unfriendly.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

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.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

Nay.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

Yes please.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

Aye.