Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 06-10-2019, 10:33 AM
Dale Sams is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 4,806

The ERA being interpreted as an amendment to make women equal to men....but...


..any unintended effects that help men you can think of?

Couldn't a guy getting shafted in a divorce challenge based on that?

That may be too nebulous, but how about a guy challenging a prison sentence in which women usually receive a lighter sentence.

Ok...maybe my first example was more solid.


Anyone?
  #2  
Old 06-10-2019, 10:38 AM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 14,338
One may be that male fashion models and porn stars would have to be paid as much as their female counterparts. AIUI, this is one career field in which women usually earn considerably more than men.

Also, daycare centers and kindergartens couldn't discriminate against male job applicants.

As far as prison sentencing goes, my WAG is that men wouldn't be getting lesser sentences than they currently do; women would be getting heavier sentences than they currently do. So men might not actually "benefit."
  #3  
Old 06-10-2019, 04:02 PM
Broomstick's Avatar
Broomstick is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NW Indiana
Posts: 28,361
Potential benefits for men:

More equal treatment in divorce - a man earning less than the woman getting alimony, for example.

More equal treatment in child custody cases.

Probably others, but those two are the first to leap to my mind.
  #4  
Old 06-10-2019, 05:27 PM
mikecurtis is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: chicago
Posts: 1,459
First, let me say that the ERA doesn't propose to make women equal to men. It proposes that women ARE equal to men and as such deserve the same rights and privileges.

But, more to your op: It's the exact argument that RBG used in Craig v Boren in 1976.

Quote:
Originally Posted by More Perfect
"Equal protection of the laws” was granted to all persons by the 14th Amendment in 1868. But for nearly a century after that, women had a hard time convincing the courts that they should be allowed to be jurors, lawyers, and bartenders, just the same as men. A then-lawyer at the ACLU named Ruth Bader Ginsburg set out to convince an all-male Supreme Court to take sex discrimination seriously with an unconventional strategy. She didn’t just bring cases where women were the victims of discrimination; she also brought cases where men were the victims. In this episode, we look at how a key battle for gender equality was won with frat boys and beer.
https://www.wnycstudios.org/story/sex-appeal
  #5  
Old 06-10-2019, 06:13 PM
Dale Sams is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 4,806
So...you guys are smarter than me on this subject but as I understand it...the basic function of an ERA is to provide the protection that the 14th amendment has been interpreted to do so. Right? The 14th amendments ancillary interps can change over time, but an ERA would provide the protection the 14th amendment has been used for.

Is that correct? Thats sort of what I got from John Oliver.
  #6  
Old 06-10-2019, 08:21 PM
mikecurtis is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: chicago
Posts: 1,459
So. . .it's all kind of a lesson in tortured logic.

The words woman and female appear nowhere in the Constitution.
It isn't until Amendment XIX that the one and only time the word sex appears.
In the original version of the Const (incl the Bill of Rights) there are 2 kinds of humans specified; persons and citizens. All citizens are persons, of course. But, originally, not all persons were citizens. Citizens could vote and hold office and be lawyers and all the things related to official govt business. In 1787 women maybe could be considered persons, but were never considered citizens.

We spring ahead to the late 1860's and the XIII, XIV, and XV Amendments.
XIII freed the slaves.
XIV made all persons born in USA citizens, and gave them equal protections.
XV allowed that ALL citizens could vote.
Surely women's rights could be established under the equal protection clause of XIV. Not so fast, says the court. Taken as a whole those three amendments are talking about ex slaves and granting them citizenship. And by the mores of the day citizens still did not include women. So the equal protection clause seems to only apply to black men.

Now we're at 1919, and the XIX Amendment. And, finally, the Const says something specific about women. But all it says it that they have the right to vote. It still does not give women full citizen status.

Jump ahead to the 70's. Women have been voting for 50 years. They're in Congress. They're lawyers and judges. They're running companies. They;re everywhere doing everything men do. Surely they're considered citizens now and are protected fully by the Constitution. And the Court's reply is. . .Probably. . .

So that's where we stand today. That women are PROBABLY the same as men, with all the same rights and privileges. Probably.

But, it's still not completely resolved. Just the other day a Supreme Court Judge said this (actually said in 2011)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Antonin Scalia
Yes, yes. Sorry, to tell you that. ... But, you know, if indeed the current society has come to different views, that's fine. You do not need the Constitution to reflect the wishes of the current society. Certainly the Constitution does not require discrimination on the basis of sex. The only issue is whether it prohibits it. It doesn't. Nobody ever thought that that's what it meant. Nobody ever voted for that . . .
So, it seems that, unfortunately, the issue is still up for debate, and the ERA proposes to end that debate.

mc
  #7  
Old 06-10-2019, 08:33 PM
Jonathan Chance is online now
Domo Arigato Mister Moderato
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: On the run with Kilroy
Posts: 22,684
Quote:
Originally Posted by Broomstick View Post
Potential benefits for men:

More equal treatment in divorce - a man earning less than the woman getting alimony, for example.

More equal treatment in child custody cases.

Probably others, but those two are the first to leap to my mind.
Happens now. I got both alimony and child support - as well as primary custody - in my divorce and that was in South Carolina.
  #8  
Old 06-10-2019, 08:44 PM
Projammer's Avatar
Projammer is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: SW Arkansas
Posts: 6,614
Women will be expected to deal with their own toilet seats.

Well, somebody was going to say it.
  #9  
Old 06-10-2019, 09:13 PM
Broomstick's Avatar
Broomstick is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NW Indiana
Posts: 28,361
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan Chance View Post
Happens now. I got both alimony and child support - as well as primary custody - in my divorce and that was in South Carolina.
Equal treatment of men in cases of family law is certainly more common than it used to be, and I'm glad you were treated fairly, but it's by no means universal in the US.
  #10  
Old 06-10-2019, 09:53 PM
Telemark's Avatar
Telemark is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Yet again, Titletown
Posts: 22,603
Quote:
Originally Posted by Broomstick View Post
Equal treatment of men in cases of family law is certainly more common than it used to be, and I'm glad you were treated fairly, but it's by no means universal in the US.
Yeah, but you don't need an amendment for that. The laws on the books now are gender neutral (for the most part) but it's the implementation of those laws that is the problem.
  #11  
Old 06-11-2019, 12:46 AM
nearwildheaven is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 12,575
MHO: The ERA is an obsolete concept and has been for many years. It was a valid thing when it was drafted in the 1920s, but in the meantime, laws have been passed that cover the things its writers had in mind.
  #12  
Old 06-11-2019, 12:58 AM
Nava is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Hey! I'm located! WOOOOW!
Posts: 41,585
Only, those laws are piecemeal. Saying "those laws cover it" is akin to saying "well, several States already recognize SSM, so there's nothing to be gained from Federal recognition."

ERA also affects transexuals and people with problematic genitalia and/or genetics and, while it doesn't affect privately-held companies, it affects people in interactions with any branch of the US government. Parental benefits from a US body would have to be offered equally to any parent, for example.
  #13  
Old 06-11-2019, 07:41 AM
blindboyard is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Newark
Posts: 2,163
I doubt it would actually help men, but it would certainly provide a new legal casus belli to relitigate all sorts of issues. The selective service. Any form of affirmative action. Lack of Ashton over make underachievement in schools, and lack of admissions to universities. Enforcement of child support and alimony. The existence of alimony, as based on the assumption that men will adopt traditional provider roles. Men having to pay child support for children they didn't want, even make rape victims, because the safety valve of abortion isn't available. Companies that have maternity leave but don't have paternity leave. Criminal sentencing. Title XI kangaroo courts on college campuses. The predominate aggressor doctrine in domestic violence cars. The existence of women only domestic violence shelters and rape crisis centres.

Everything's up for grabs.
__________________
This island is made mainly of coal and surrounded by fish. Only an organizing genius could produce a shortage of coal and fish at the same time.
-- Nye Bevan, Daily Herald, 25 May 1945
  #14  
Old 06-11-2019, 08:33 AM
Robot Arm is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Medford, MA
Posts: 23,366
Colleges like Smith and Wellesley would have to accept men.
  #15  
Old 06-12-2019, 11:19 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,424
Quote:
Originally Posted by nearwildheaven View Post
MHO: The ERA is an obsolete concept and has been for many years. It was a valid thing when it was drafted in the 1920s, but in the meantime, laws have been passed that cover the things its writers had in mind.
Right. From 1868 until the 1970s, the 14th Amendment was not held to cover most things that today we think of as pretty basic in "equal protection of the laws." So much so that states were free to prohibit women from voting and a further amendment was requires to guarantee women's suffrage.

Starting in the 1970s, the Court started applying the 14th Amendment to women, thereby obviating the need for the ERA. Indeed, in the early 1970s, the ERA had huge momentum which faded after the Court changed its jurisprudence.

To pass the ERA today would get rid of this sensible dynamic and arguable apply equal treatment in ALL absurd respects instead of just in the intermediate scrutiny approach. For example, at a public university, a man should be allowed to play on the women's volleyball team; such a thing would destroy women's sports.
  #16  
Old 06-13-2019, 12:05 AM
BeeGee is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 1,338
But if the courts decided that the fourteenth amendment applied to women 100+ years after it was passed, it could just as well decide that since it isn't specifically spelled out out doesn't apply.

If there's room for interpretation -- which there obviously is or it wouldn't have taken all that time for women to be franchised-- , then there's room for that decision to be reversed. And if you think it's silly to think that the courts can't be persuaded that previous decisions can't be wrong, may I direct your attention to Roe vs Wade. Thought we'd settled that one, but apparently not.

Last edited by BeeGee; 06-13-2019 at 12:06 AM.
  #17  
Old 06-13-2019, 12:16 AM
Nava is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Hey! I'm located! WOOOOW!
Posts: 41,585
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robot Arm View Post
Colleges like Smith and Wellesley would have to accept men.
Are they the government?
__________________
Evidence gathered through the use of science is easily dismissed through the use of idiocy. - Czarcasm.
  #18  
Old 06-13-2019, 12:32 AM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 14,338
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nava View Post
Are they the government?
IIRC, if they receive federal funding, they cannot gender-discriminate under the ERA.
  #19  
Old 06-13-2019, 03:04 AM
Broomstick's Avatar
Broomstick is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NW Indiana
Posts: 28,361
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robot Arm View Post
Colleges like Smith and Wellesley would have to accept men.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nava View Post
Are they the government?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
IIRC, if they receive federal funding, they cannot gender-discriminate under the ERA.
Both Wellesley and Smith are private colleges, not public or government supported (individual students might get government financial aid, but that's not the same as the school itself getting funding).

Also, Smith already admits men to its graduate and certificate programs.

Wellesley is a bit more strict - they only admit women, and by their criteria that means they won't admit transmen but will admit transwomen. But then, their whole raison d'etre is to educate women. But since they're a private school they're allowed to do that.
  #20  
Old 06-13-2019, 07:51 AM
Robot Arm is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Medford, MA
Posts: 23,366
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nava View Post
Are they the government?
Would the ERA, if passed, only require that public institutions not discriminate on the basis of sex? If it would dictate that men and women be paid the same when working for private companies, I don't see how a private college could still discriminate in admissions. When the Masterpiece Cakeshop in Colorado refused to bake a cake for a gay wedding, it was debated whether anti-discrimination laws applied to a private business. I think most people here felt that they did.

Or, if women-only colleges could continue under the ERA, they might become ineligible for any government funding, like research grants. I don't know how much Wellesley and Smith rely on those sources now, though.
  #21  
Old 06-14-2019, 12:30 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,424
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robot Arm View Post
When the Masterpiece Cakeshop in Colorado refused to bake a cake for a gay wedding, it was debated whether anti-discrimination laws applied to a private business. I think most people here felt that they did.
Nitpick. That wasn't the debate. Anti-discrimination laws indisputably apply to private businesses. Nobody disputed the idea that Masterpiece Cakeshop would have to sell a dozen cookies or a premade cake to a gay or lesbian person.

The narrow argument in that case was that by requiring Masterpiece Cakeshop to bake a custom made wedding cake for a same sex marriage, the anti-discrimination law violated the Constitution by infringing on the freedom of speech and religion of the owners.

Further, this was a Colorado state law and had nothing to do with specific grants of power to the federal government. With or without the ERA or the 14th Amendment, private anti-discrimination laws are a separate beast. They are either enacted by the plenary power of a state government or under the interstate commerce clause by the feds.
  #22  
Old 06-16-2019, 09:15 AM
Robot Arm is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Medford, MA
Posts: 23,366
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Nitpick. That wasn't the debate. Anti-discrimination laws indisputably apply to private businesses. Nobody disputed the idea that Masterpiece Cakeshop would have to sell a dozen cookies or a premade cake to a gay or lesbian person.

The narrow argument in that case was that by requiring Masterpiece Cakeshop to bake a custom made wedding cake for a same sex marriage, the anti-discrimination law violated the Constitution by infringing on the freedom of speech and religion of the owners.

Further, this was a Colorado state law and had nothing to do with specific grants of power to the federal government. With or without the ERA or the 14th Amendment, private anti-discrimination laws are a separate beast. They are either enacted by the plenary power of a state government or under the interstate commerce clause by the feds.
You're correct that the legal arguments about Masterpiece Cakeshop were about a religious exemption from anti-discrimination laws. I was referring to the debate about the issue here on the boards. As I remember it, there was quite a bit of discussion about whether a private business should be allowed to discriminate, regardless of whether it was for religious reasons.

All of which is a bit beside the point. If, as you say, anti-discrimination laws indisputably apply to private businesses, I can't see how an Equal Rights Amendment to the U.S. Constitution wouldn't apply to admissions at single-gender colleges, whether public or private.
  #23  
Old 06-16-2019, 09:53 AM
Ellis Dee is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: New England
Posts: 14,191
Or women-only gyms like Curves. (Is that still a thing?)
  #24  
Old 06-17-2019, 08:15 PM
Northern Piper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is gone. For now
Posts: 29,008
Since the ERA is a constitutional amendment, why would it have any application to a private business?
__________________
"I don't like to make plans for the day. If I do, that's when words like 'premeditated' start getting thrown around in the courtroom."
  #25  
Old 06-17-2019, 11:06 PM
Robot Arm is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Medford, MA
Posts: 23,366
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Piper View Post
Since the ERA is a constitutional amendment, why would it have any application to a private business?
I hope one of our resident legal eagles will correct me if I'm wrong, but amendments to the Constitution aren't inherently limited to the actions of government. The 13th Amendment prohibited anyone from owning slaves. The 18th Amendment prohibited anyone from manufacturing or selling alcohol, until the 21st Amendment said they could again. Those amendments applied to private businesses and individuals, so it seems to be within the bounds of constitutional authority.

Reading the text of the ERA on Wikipedia, though, I'm not quite so sure.
Quote:
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.
Maybe it does apply to treatment under the law only. If that's the case, and the amendment did pass, I wonder how noticeable the effects would even be.
  #26  
Old 06-18-2019, 05:40 AM
Broomstick's Avatar
Broomstick is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NW Indiana
Posts: 28,361
I suspect that it would have similar effects to the first amendment which, for examples, allowed a religion to discriminate which is why it's entirely legal in the US for the Catholic Church to only permit men to be clergy, or some types of private clubs to bar members of other races.

Meaning that some of the scare tactics about what it would or wouldn't require wouldn't apply. You could still have men-only or women only clubs at least on a small scale, as an example.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:54 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017