# Equal Rights Amendment: How do you think this is going to play out now? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 1, 2018, 4:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/equal-rights-amendment-how-do-you-think-this-is-going-to-play-out-now/815239 "2018-06-01T04:21:42Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2018, 4:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/equal-rights-amendment-how-do-you-think-this-is-going-to-play-out-now/815239/1 "2018-06-01T04:21:42Z")
Illinois just ratified the ERA, which puts it at 37 states, only one short of the 38 required (but then again five states also rescinded their ratification, so the ERA is either at 32 or 37, depending on whether one considers rescinding to be a valid action.) Once one more state ratifies, then it will be either 33 or 38 - and we can expect some intense debate about that, since 38 means the ERA passes but 33 means it doesn’t…but then there is also the issue of Congress’ deadline for the ERA to be ratified, which expired in the 1980s. There will no doubt be many who will argue that the Congressional deadline was invalid. So how do you think this will play out? Will SCOTUS (assuming it’s SCOTUS that handles this) say the 5 states’ rescinding of the ERA “counts” and that it has not yet reached the 38 needed, by the time the next state ratifies it? And will the Congressional seven-year deadline from the Carter/Reagan era still be upheld? ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2018, 7:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/equal-rights-amendment-how-do-you-think-this-is-going-to-play-out-now/815239/2 "2018-06-01T07:20:48Z")
At 38, it would probably need to go the Supreme Court, even if everyone in DC was all for it and no state felt the need to oppose full implementation, just so that there was no ambiguity before policy started being made based on it. The Supreme Court, I would expect, would declare that States can back out of their vote simply because the Supreme Court leaves matters of politics up to the actors in question. If the actors say that they rescinded before ratification, then the Supreme Court is liable to defer to them. The SC will probably not mention the deadline, simply because why get into the question at all if the votes are still insufficient. The Supreme Court likes to be a bunch of lazy bastids when it comes to issues they can get away with bypassing. If it comes back again, many years later, with a sufficient set of active votes for ratification and someone decides to challenge it on the question of the due date, I would expect the Supreme Court to rule the due date unconstitutional, since the Constitution makes no mention of deadlines nor the power of Congress to establish any rules for the Amendment process beyond those declared in the Constitution. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2018, 8:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/equal-rights-amendment-how-do-you-think-this-is-going-to-play-out-now/815239/3 "2018-06-01T08:05:40Z")
If the Supreme Court’s smart they’ll pass on deciding on the issue of de-ratification. They’ll want to keep their options open on that one for future decisions. My prediction is that they will instead rule on the deadline issue. You can make an argument over whether the deadline ended in 1979 or 1982 but it was clearly over when Nevada and Illinois ratified the amendment. So while the ERA is a good idea, it wasn’t ratified in time to be enacted. ---
**Author:** ![Musicat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/musicat/32/20189_2.png) [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2018, 8:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/equal-rights-amendment-how-do-you-think-this-is-going-to-play-out-now/815239/4 "2018-06-01T08:20:24Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > My prediction is that they will instead rule on the deadline issue. You can make an argument over whether the deadline ended in 1979 or 1982 but it was clearly over when Nevada and Illinois ratified the amendment. So while the ERA is a good idea, it wasn’t ratified in time to be enacted. Where does the legislature get the power to set a deadline? ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2018, 10:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/equal-rights-amendment-how-do-you-think-this-is-going-to-play-out-now/815239/5 "2018-06-01T10:00:24Z")
I’ve been saying for a few years now that next time the Dems control Congress, they ought to bring back the ERA, but include equal rights for LGBT persons in there too. At this late date, I think it would be a disservice for them to get behind the 1972 ERA in lieu of something more inclusive. ---
**Author:** ![Telemark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/telemark/32/372_2.png) [@Telemark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Telemark)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2018, 10:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/equal-rights-amendment-how-do-you-think-this-is-going-to-play-out-now/815239/6 "2018-06-01T10:34:31Z")
> [@Musicat](#): > > Where does the legislature get the power to set a deadline? Where does the Constitution deny them that power? ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2018, 10:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/equal-rights-amendment-how-do-you-think-this-is-going-to-play-out-now/815239/7 "2018-06-01T10:47:55Z")
And I’ve said repeatedly that the ERA is a really stupid idea. Yes, men and women are equal in almost all ways… but there are still real differences that can’t be ignored. And outside of those few real differences, equal rights are already legally recognized. ---
**Author:** ![Xema](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/9de053/32.png) [@Xema](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Xema)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2018, 11:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/equal-rights-amendment-how-do-you-think-this-is-going-to-play-out-now/815239/8 "2018-06-01T11:24:24Z")
As an aside: if the ERA were deemed to be passed and in effect, what practical changes would be likely in, say, the first year? ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2018, 11:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/equal-rights-amendment-how-do-you-think-this-is-going-to-play-out-now/815239/9 "2018-06-01T11:28:31Z")
The ERA is very much a product of its time. It literally just says simply that the federal government can’t discriminate based on sex. That concept is so 70s. The newthink is that the government should take sex into account. ERA would ban preferential treatment for females in any sphere. No preference in college admissions, no reduced physical standards for jobs(such as the Army). So I don’t care one way or the other if it passes. Given the current nature of the federal judiciary, ERA will be interpreted very strictly to actually mean EQUALITY, as in it will be illegal to treat men and women differently, period. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2018, 11:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/equal-rights-amendment-how-do-you-think-this-is-going-to-play-out-now/815239/10 "2018-06-01T11:30:44Z")
> [@Xema](#): > > As an aside: if the ERA were deemed to be passed and in effect, what practical changes would be likely in, say, the first year? Probably none. Most states and the federal government already ban sex discrimination. But they also allow sex to be taken into account for the purpose of job promotions, college admissions, federal contracts, etc. So the first thing that would happen is probably men suing in federal courts saying they are discriminated against. ERA doesn’t say “Females” anywhere. It just bans discrimination based on sex. Men will use it to end affirmative action for females. ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2018, 2:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/equal-rights-amendment-how-do-you-think-this-is-going-to-play-out-now/815239/11 "2018-06-01T14:06:01Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > The ERA is very much a product of its time. It literally just says simply that the federal government can’t discriminate based on sex. That concept is so 70s. The newthink is that the government should take sex into account. ERA would ban preferential treatment for females in any sphere. No preference in college admissions, no reduced physical standards for jobs(such as the Army). > > So I don’t care one way or the other if it passes. Given the current nature of the federal judiciary, ERA will be interpreted very strictly to actually mean EQUALITY, as in it will be illegal to treat men and women differently, period. But this doesn’t apply to private entities right? Or is it like the civil rights act in which private businesses couldn’t discriminate on the basis of race? Also, in which areas do women get affirmative action? I am having a hard time thinking of a school which specifically boosts female applicants (as opposed to racial AA), unless maybe this means schools like Wellesley have to admit men now. ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2018, 2:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/equal-rights-amendment-how-do-you-think-this-is-going-to-play-out-now/815239/12 "2018-06-01T14:08:24Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > I’ve been saying for a few years now that next time the Dems control Congress, they ought to bring back the ERA, but include equal rights for LGBT persons in there too. At this late date, I think it would be a disservice for them to get behind the 1972 ERA in lieu of something more inclusive. If they change any wording, then they have to start the ratification process all the way from 0, don’t they? ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2018, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/equal-rights-amendment-how-do-you-think-this-is-going-to-play-out-now/815239/13 "2018-06-01T14:46:40Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > If they change any wording, then they have to start the ratification process all the way from 0, don’t they? Of course. You don’t get to ‘change the wording’ of a proposed amendment once it’s been passed by Congress and is being considered by state legislatures. It would be a new proposed amendment which would have to be passed by Congress and voted on by the states, independently of the votes on the original ERA. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2018, 2:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/equal-rights-amendment-how-do-you-think-this-is-going-to-play-out-now/815239/14 "2018-06-01T14:59:29Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > I’ve been saying for a few years now that next time the Dems control Congress, they ought to bring back the ERA, but include equal rights for LGBT persons in there too. At this late date, I think it would be a disservice for them to get behind the 1972 ERA in lieu of something more inclusive. Just LGBT? What about the other letters? I can’t imagine the fight that would ensue over where to stop on that. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2018, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/equal-rights-amendment-how-do-you-think-this-is-going-to-play-out-now/815239/15 "2018-06-01T15:03:10Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Just LGBT? What about the other letters? I can’t imagine the fight that would ensue over where to stop on that. What letters are we talking about, and what sorts of pernicious discrimination do they encounter? ---
**Author:** ![asterion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4da419/32.png) [@asterion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/asterion)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2018, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/equal-rights-amendment-how-do-you-think-this-is-going-to-play-out-now/815239/16 "2018-06-01T15:14:39Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > What letters are we talking about, and what sorts of pernicious discrimination do they encounter? Generally goes up to QIA, for questioning, intersex, and asexual. And yes, I could definitely see a fight (even between activists) over how much to include. (The continued adding of letters is generally parodied along the lines of LGBTQIAOMGWTFBBQ.) ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2018, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/equal-rights-amendment-how-do-you-think-this-is-going-to-play-out-now/815239/17 "2018-06-01T15:14:52Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > And I’ve said repeatedly that the ERA is a really stupid idea. Yes, men and women are equal in almost all ways… but there are still real differences that can’t be ignored. And outside of those few real differences, equal rights are already legally recognized. Equal rights that aren’t constitutional aren’t as permanent as those that are. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2018, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/equal-rights-amendment-how-do-you-think-this-is-going-to-play-out-now/815239/18 "2018-06-01T15:15:03Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > What letters are we talking about, and what sorts of pernicious discrimination do they encounter? From wikipedia: > [@](#): > > Other variants > > Some use the much shorter style LGBT+ to mean “LGBT and related communities”.[10] LGBTQIA, which is used, for example, by the “Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, Intersex, Asexual Resource Center” at the University of California, Davis.[63] > > Other variants may have a “U” for “unsure”; a “C” for “curious”; another “T” for “transvestite”; a “TS”, or “2” for “two-spirit” persons; or an “SA” for “straight allies”.[64][65][66][67][68] However, the inclusion of straight allies in the LGBT acronym has proven controversial as many straight allies have been accused of using LGBT advocacy to gain popularity and status in recent years,[69] and various LGBT activists have criticised the heteronormative worldview of certain straight allies.[70] Some may also add a “P” for “polyamorous”, an “H” for “HIV-affected”, or an “O” for “other”.[24][71] Furthermore, the initialism LGBTIH has seen use in India to encompass the hijra third gender identity and the related subculture.[72][73] > > The initialism LGBTTQQIAAP (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, transsexual, queer, questioning, intersex, asexual, ally, pansexual) has also resulted, although such initialisms are sometimes criticized for being confusing and leaving some people out, as well as issues of placement of the letters within the new title.[41] However, adding the term “allies” to the initialism has sparked controversy,[74] with some seeing the inclusion of “ally” in place of “asexual” as a form of asexual erasure.[75] There is also the acronym QUILTBAG (queer and questioning, intersex, lesbian, transgender and two-spirit, bisexual, asexual and ally, and gay and genderqueer).[76] ---
**Author:** ![asterion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4da419/32.png) [@asterion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/asterion)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2018, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/equal-rights-amendment-how-do-you-think-this-is-going-to-play-out-now/815239/19 "2018-06-01T15:22:42Z")
Another one I’ve found is LGBTQQIP2SAA: lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, questioning, intersex, pansexual, two-spirited, asexual and ally. The whole thing just seems to invite defeat in detail. ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2018, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/equal-rights-amendment-how-do-you-think-this-is-going-to-play-out-now/815239/20 "2018-06-01T15:38:45Z")
Would be easier to just use EBS: Everyone But Straight. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/equal-rights-amendment-how-do-you-think-this-is-going-to-play-out-now/815239.md?page=2)