The Equal Rights Amendment...What Do You Think Of It?

[Revoltingest]

The ERA has been in the news lately.
Ref....
Equal Rights Amendment - Wikipedia

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.[8][9]

What do you think it will do?
What won't it do?

 

[Rival]

Has the US anything like The Equality Act 2010?

"It requires equal treatment in access to employment as well as private and public services, regardless of the protected characteristics of age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation. In the case of gender, there are special protections for pregnant women."

 

[Nakosis]

The ERA has been in the news lately.
Ref....
Equal Rights Amendment - Wikipedia

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.[8][9]

What do you think it will do?
What won't it do?

Sounds good to me, I think men have been getting the short end of the stick lately.

 

[Revoltingest]

Sounds good to me, I think men have be getting the short end of the stick lately.

I'm not convinced the ERA will change that...or anything.

Consider the military draft:
Only men are eligible.
Is this a denial or abridgement of our rights?
Government would argue no because it's just men's obligation to serve.
That is if we have a low lottery number, are the right age, are healthy,
aren't transgender, aren't in the clergy, or don't have an exempt religion.
Id est, we lose no right by being forced to serve in the military.

I find the language of the amendment both vague & redundant under
current federal law.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Consider the military draft:
Only men are eligible.
Is this a denial or abridgement of our rights?

The draft is a denial of rights regardless of who is eligible or ineligible.

 

[Revoltingest]

Has the US anything like The Equality Act 2010?

"It requires equal treatment in access to employment as well as private and public services, regardless of the protected characteristics of age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation. In the case of gender, there are special protections for pregnant women."

We do.
Although the pregnant woman classification would apply under "family status" protections.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I find the language of the amendment both vague & redundant under
current federal law.

But that current federal law isn't the Constitution, so it could ne repealed much more easily than a constitutional amendment.

 

[Revoltingest]

The draft is a denial of rights regardless of who is eligible or ineligible.

Constitutional lawyers would ignore your simple & logical assessment.
They'd make hyper complex arcane arguments which entirely eschew
reason, in order to serve preservation of the status quo.

Should I have hidden that post behind a spoiler warning of cynicism?

 

[Revoltingest]

But that current federal law isn't the Constitution, so it could ne repealed much more easily than a constitutional amendment.

The probability of that is vanishingly small.
What would the ERA achieve, other than constitutional enshrinement?

 

[MountainPine]

I think it's another step to pushing for a Marxist government in America..

 

[Rival]

I think it's another step to pushing for a Marxist government in America..

What the f*ck?

 

[columbus]

I find the language of the amendment both vague & redundant under
current federal law.

This. Even when I was a feminist I thought so.

hat would the ERA achieve, other than constitutional enshrinement?

Create another ton of division in society, as different people insist that their interpretation of the amendment must be adhered to by everyone or they'll file lawsuits galore.
Tom

 

[tytlyf]

Good for this. Glad Illinois finally recognizes sex(s) as equal.

 

[esmith]

Equal rights as specified specifically in the Constitution, or rights as an opinion of what the Constitution says?

 

[Revoltingest]

Create another ton of division in society, as different people insist that their interpretation of the amendment must be adhered to by everyone or they'll file lawsuits galore.
Tom

Any specifics in mind?

 

[Revoltingest]

Equal rights as specified specifically in the Constitution, or rights as an opinion of what the Constitution says?

You rascal....you know as well as I do that it will always be the latter.

 

[esmith]

Good for this. Glad Illinois finally recognizes sex(s) as equal.

It is biologically impossible , at this time, for the sex(s) to be equal no matter what government says.

 

[Revoltingest]

It is biologically impossible , at this time, for the sex(s) to be equal no matter what government says.

Leave it to bureaucrats & lawyers to fit a square peg into a round hole.

Notice:
The above post is not a double entendre.

 

[columbus]

It is biologically impossible , at this time, for the sex(s) to be equal no matter what government says.

It's possible for them to be equal before the law. Which they are now.

Any specifics in mind?

In a country dominated by extremists and recreational outrage?
Where a popular TV show gets cancelled because someone used a reference to a movie in a political lampooning?
I would rather not think about the specifics, rather like I would rather not think about haggis.

Tom

 

[esmith]

Leave it to bureaucrats & lawyers to fit a square peg into a round hole.

Notice:
The above post is not a double entendre.

you sure????