Reviving the US Equal Rights Amendment

[lpetrich]

I came across this at Salon's online site: Could the Equal Rights Amendment be added to the Constitution in 2019? Amanda Marcotte interviewed Kamala Lopez, creator of documentary Equal Means Equal | The definitive documentary film on the status of women in America Amanda Marcotte herself is a regular contributor to Salon.

 Equal Rights Amendment has is its complete statement:

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.

Although the US does have antidiscrimination laws, KL wants something firmer than such laws: a Constitutional amendment. She also noted that when she started out in 2009, a lot of people didn't seem to think that it was necessary. But with the Trump presidency, a lot of people started feeling not so sure. When she came out with her documentary "Equal Means Equal", the ERA needed three more states. But with Nevada signing on in 2017 and Illinois in 2018, the ERA needs only one more state. KL states that her fellow activists will be making efforts in Virginia and Arizona, and that they want big turnouts to impress state legislators.

Equal Means Equal | The definitive documentary film on the status of women in America -- one can get it online.

Cate Blanchett to Play Phyllis Schlafly in FX TV Show ‘Mrs. America’ | IndieWire

To the list of international megastars who have made the jump to TV, add Cate Blanchett. FX announced Tuesday that Blanchett will star in the planned drama “Mrs. America.” The limited series will focus on the ’70s-era fight for the Equal Rights Amendment.

Blanchett will play Phyllis Schlafly, headlining a roster of pivotal figures during the legal and public battle to pass the amendment. In addition to being an outspoken opponent of the Equal Rights Amendment, Schlafly also took stances against same-sex marriage during her decades in public life as a voice in the American conservative movement.

 

[lpetrich]

The Equal Rights Amendment dates back to 1921, as the next step after women getting the vote. But it did not go very far for nearly fifty years after that. It was revived as a result of the 1960's revival of feminism, and in 1971, it was reintroduced. It was endorsed by the House of Representatives that year, and the Senate the next year. It was sent to the states with a deadline of 1979. It got 35 of the necessary 38 states by 1977 before stalling. That deadline was rather controversially extended to 1982, but no additional states ratified it then and five states tried to revoke their ratifications: Idaho, Kentucky, Nebraska, Tennessee, and South Dakota.

This was because of Phyllis Schlafly's "Stop ERA" movement. Despite having been a political activist for a long time, she posed as a concerned housewife, and she got a lot of success in convincing many housewives of the alleged dangers of the ERA. This was despite both parties, three presidents, and a lot of state legislatures supporting the ERA. It was the first big success of the "New Right".


The current effort got Illinois and Nevada, and it is now targeting Virginia and Arizona. Of these states, I'd give Virginia the best chance for passage, since it and Florida are the most pro-Democratic of the remaining states. Republican gerrymandering might get in the way, however.


More broadly, I think that the ERA is a casualty of the end of the Sixties reform era. Arthur Schlesingers I and II have noted that the US goes through cycles of liberalism alternating with conservatism, cycles of reform alternating with stagnation. We have been living in Gilded Age II for the last 40 years, with no clear sign that it is going to end anytime soon. I remember when the beginning of Bill Clinton's presidency seemed like it was going to end, and likewise with he beginning of Barack Obama's presidency. But it didn't on either occasion. As to movements from below, the Wisconsin Revolt failed, and the Occupy movement disintegrated. The opposition to President Trump and the recent success of the Democrats in the House may be what ends it, but I wouldn't feel very confident about that. In any case, the revival of the ERA fits in with this recent progressive wave.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Much like the Patriots winning the Super Bowl this year, it'd be nice, but I'm not expecting it. Every state could sign off on this in 2019, and I still think DC has been so thoroughly damaged, that red tape would still bind it from getting stapled to the Constitution. The GOP appears more concerned enabling the tantrums of their President than to actually govern anymore.

 

[dismal]

it'd be nice

Why? What would change?

 

[thebeave]

it'd be nice

Why? What would change?

Women have to sign up for Selective Service, maybe? Getting the privilege of watching your fellow soldiers getting their heads blown off on the battlefield?

This may be one of those things where you need to be careful what you wish for.

 

[Jarhyn]

it'd be nice

Why? What would change?

Women have to sign up for Selective Service, maybe? Getting the privilege of watching your fellow soldiers getting their heads blown off on the battlefield?

This may be one of those things where you need to be careful what you wish for.

And why would women need to be protected from this when men aren't?

 

[dismal]

it'd be nice

Why? What would change?

Women have to sign up for Selective Service, maybe? Getting the privilege of watching your fellow soldiers getting their heads blown off on the battlefield?

This may be one of those things where you need to be careful what you wish for.

I'm guessing that would happen if someone brought it to court now. There are a whole litany of cases where the 14th Amendment has been applied to women. It's not in anyway controversial that it does.

ETA:

I guess there is a case in the works:

https://www.courthousenews.com/judge-allows-men-to-challenge-male-only-draft/

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Equal rights bad.

 

[dismal]

Equal rights bad.

If you need it dumbed down to that level it would be:

Equal rights already.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Equal rights bad.

If you need it dumbed down to that level it would be:

Equal rights already.

I'm parodying the "orange man bad" meme.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Equal rights bad.

I remember the actual arguments against the ERA that were brought out at the time.

The local diner had a poster of a men's restroom, with four men staring at the one woman using the urinal.

Men would be forced to go to women doctors. Lesbian demonstrations in the classrooms of our once-proud schools. Men having to ride side-saddle. Women-friendly sports crowding football off the screen. Turning the flag to Pink-White-Blue.
Clint Eastwood having to have a female costar in every flick. Dirty Harriet.

Lots of outrageous bullshit scare tactics, people being quoted on the news with these claims and no one questioning their sources.



Seems like the time is actually ripe for another ERA drive, now that you mention it.

 

[Trausti]

What would the amendment do? An example would be helpful. The 14th Amendment already provides for equality and more - and not just for gender.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

What would the amendment do? An example would be helpful. The 14th Amendment already provides for equality and more - and not just for gender.

Yeah. While I'm for equal rights I question what this would do that isn't already done.

 

[Jarhyn]

What would the amendment do? An example would be helpful. The 14th Amendment already provides for equality and more - and not just for gender.

Yeah. While I'm for equal rights I question what this would do that isn't already done.

Explicit standing and undeniable basis for claims on the basis of sex, without any exception for rational basis.

 

[dismal]

What would the amendment do? An example would be helpful. The 14th Amendment already provides for equality and more - and not just for gender.

Yeah. While I'm for equal rights I question what this would do that isn't already done.

Explicit standing and undeniable basis for claims on the basis of sex, without any exception for rational basis.

So, your position is the 14th amendment does not bar the government from discriminating against women?

That’s quite an extreme retrograde belief. Ruth Bader Ginsburg might give you a kick in the crotch for that belief.

I assume you would then overturn all the Supreme Court decisions that falsely claim it does?

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

I do remember the ignorant and vicious Phyllis Schafly claiming the ERA would mandate single sex bathrooms. No lie too big and too outrageous. This sort of grotesque nonsense scared the lil right winged clowns into opposing the ERA tooth and nail.

 

[Trausti]

I do remember the ignorant and vicious Phyllis Schafly claiming the ERA would mandate single sex bathrooms. No lie too big and too outrageous. This sort of grotesque nonsense scared the lil right winged clowns into opposing the ERA tooth and nail.

Good start. So the ERA would not mandate single sex bathrooms. What would it do?

 

[dismal]

I do remember the ignorant and vicious Phyllis Schafly claiming the ERA would mandate single sex bathrooms. No lie too big and too outrageous. This sort of grotesque nonsense scared the lil right winged clowns into opposing the ERA tooth and nail.

Good start. So the ERA would not mandate single sex bathrooms. What would it do?

I think the ERA supporters' argument is this: Sure, we already have a Constitution that requires the government to treat all people equally. But the ERA would require the government to treat women equally too.

The premise contained in ERA supporters' arguments seems clear enough. They don't think women are people.

 

[Jarhyn]

Explicit standing and undeniable basis for claims on the basis of sex, without any exception for rational basis.

So, your position is the 14th amendment does not bar the government from discriminating against women?

That’s quite an extreme retrograde belief. Ruth Bader Ginsburg might give you a kick in the crotch for that belief.

I assume you would then overturn all the Supreme Court decisions that falsely claim it does?

Correct. It does not. It was passed explicitly before women's sufferage was realized, and jurisprudence has held, repeatedly, that it does not explicitly apply to women, particularly where a "specific government objective" may be concerned. An ERA would hold that there is no such valid specific government objective.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

What it would do is pose a serious problem to gender-specific legislation, such as VAWA.