"
The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) was a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution designed to guarantee equal rights for women. The ERA was originally written by
Alice Paul and, in 1923, it was introduced in the Congress for the first time. In 1972, it passed both houses of Congress and went to the state legislatures for ratification. The ERA failed to receive the requisite number of state
ratifications (38) before the final deadline set by Congress of June 30, 1982, and so it was not adopted. Feminist organizations continue to work at the federal and state levels for the adoption of the ERA."
Think about it. 30 Years ago, did you ever imagine
gays and lesbians being granted the right to legally marry? Compared to the ERA, gay marriage, must have seemed that much far afield, off the radar (to use a topical metaphor), a political impossibility.
I submit that the reason why the ERA didn't become the law of the land was because it's time had not come. Now that it's apparent time is here, why do you think it hasn't been picked up again?
15 comments:
Because it isn't needed... ?
Not needing something never stopped liberals before.
The idea for this post came to me after reading Troopers "Problems of a shopkeeper"
Where, having once stopped a scheme to get money from himself and other business owners in his area, the libs are back at it again.
They are relentless.
"to get money from himself"
I meant the libs want to set up a scheme to take money from Trooper in the name of helping the homeless.
If the ERA were proposed today...
Who are we kidding. The ERA was the end of the Amendment approach.
Much, much easier to have judges poke around the Constitution and make it mean whatever is wanted.
I don't think we'll ever have another amendment. Which, sad to say, is really the beginning of the end of the Constitution. The amendments were a declaration of a certain view, that to have more rights, more rights must be specified. Now that it can mean anything, soon it will mean nothing.
Which is why Obama can get away with things that Nixon couldn't have even dreamed of.
Because the splooge stooges have won the war on women. Total defeat, salted the earth, and ravaged every one of them. That's what we do.
Agree with Paddy. Judges are doing all the dirty work now.
I find it interesting that most of the criticism leveled at the ERA back in the 70s that were labeled "fear mongering" are now reality in this century. I speak of girls being forced to share bathrooms and locker rooms with members of the opposite sex because transgendered.
I think they got that pretty much right... people weren't opposed to equal rights, they were opposed to redundancy.
Also... really liked how she explained that for her to be a person, she had to assume that the other amendments already included her.
So, if I take it that women believe in their hart that they don't need to be told they are equal in order for them to be and feel equal... why is it that other groups (Blacks Hispanics) don't share the same, or... nowhere near that particular belief or conviction?
Paddy:
"Who are we kidding. The ERA was the end of the Amendment approach.
Much, much easier to have judges poke around the Constitution and make it mean whatever is wanted."
Pretty much agree, but as far there being no further amendments:
"The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures. None of the 27 amendments to the Constitution have been proposed by constitutional convention."
What could we as a nation get behind that would gain the support of 2/3 of both the House and Senate? It does seem pretty impossible in these days of the 24/7 news cycle and the internet. If there were one, would it most likely be to decrease individual liberty?
Lem... white privilege.
(Said only partly in jest.)
I get that.
Equality does not apply equally when it's different... or something.
That's why math is so important.
Honest... what is it, the 14th? So, it didn't identify people by race because the constitution has to be totally generic.
Am I not supposed to apply the Constitution to myself until it contains the words "Oh, and we meant sex, too, not just being a person born here or naturalized, because it's totally understandable if someone figures that a person with a vagina isn't actually included under "person"."
It really is insulting, you know.
The problem is that the protected classes that the progressives cater to do not want to be "equal."
They want preferential treatment in all things. Affirmative action in everything.
Equal is so eighteenth century. Those old white man who wrote the constitution did not know beans.
Sometimes when I'm in a crabby mood I think so, too, Trooper.
But mostly I think that there has been such a *thing* for so very long about how everyone is out to get you if you're a minority (or a woman) that no one has a clue anymore what equality looks like because they've been convinced that you white men are simply given anything you want.
If there's something I'm angry about, it's that everyone is conditioned to expect a boot in the face instead of any energy whatsoever being put into constructive, positive messages, like the fact that life is hard work for everyone and *everyone* wants to help you if you treat them like a decent person who will help you starting the first time you meet.
If there's something I'm angry about, it's that everyone is conditioned to expect a boot in the face instead of any energy whatsoever being put into constructive, positive messages, like the fact that life is hard work for everyone and *everyone* wants to help you if you treat them like a decent person who will help you starting the first time you meet.
Well said.
Post a Comment