# 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:** 2
**Author:** ![DinoR](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dinor/32/2821_2.png) [@DinoR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DinoR)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2018, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/equal-rights-amendment-how-do-you-think-this-is-going-to-play-out-now/815239/21 "2018-06-01T15:43:20Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > Also, in which areas do women get affirmative action? A long article from the National Women’s Law Center [“Affirmative Action and What It Means for Women”](Johnson v. Transportation Agency of Santa Clara County) seems to highly value Affirmative Action’s benefits for women. A couple quick standouts without a careful read: - AA programs that create grants and graduate assistantships for women in educational fields where they are underrepresented like STEM - Preference given in purchasing decisions to qualified woman-owned businesses by government agencies and contractors - Programs to give financial, management, and technical assistance to woman-owned businesses ERA might well see a relook at Johnson v. Transportation Agency of Santa Clara County which allowed gender to be used in promotion decisions among those that are fully qualified. ---
**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, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/equal-rights-amendment-how-do-you-think-this-is-going-to-play-out-now/815239/22 "2018-06-01T17:30:49Z")
> [@Musicat](#): > > Where does the legislature get the power to set a deadline? From the Constitution itself. That gives Congress the power to propose amendments and then send them to the states for ratification. If Congress chooses to include a deadline within the proposal, that’s part of writing the proposal. That’s the issue over the 1982 deadline. Nobody disputes Congress had the power to include the 1979 deadline in the original proposed amendment. That’s routine; pretty much all amendment proposals have included a deadline for ratification. The issue is that a later Congress passed a new deadline. There’s a question over whether a later Congress can retroactively change an amendment proposal that’s already been passed. But it’s a moot point because the 1982 deadline passed without ratification. But the underlying issue could reopen if Congress passed a new deadline moving it to 2020. That would make changing the deadline a live question again. ---
**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, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/equal-rights-amendment-how-do-you-think-this-is-going-to-play-out-now/815239/23 "2018-06-01T17:34:06Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > Would be easier to just use EBS: Everyone But Straight. How about just E? For Everyone. Because nobody is proposing taking rights away from straight people. What they’re proposing is that everyone should get the same rights straight people have. Look at the text of the Equal Rights Amendment: > [@](#): > > Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. It doesn’t guarantee the rights of women. It guarantees the rights of everyone. But the reality is that men already have those rights. ---
**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, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/equal-rights-amendment-how-do-you-think-this-is-going-to-play-out-now/815239/24 "2018-06-01T17:42:52Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > How about just E? For Everyone. > > Because nobody is proposing taking rights away from straight people. What they’re proposing is that everyone should get the same rights straight people have. > > Look at the text of the Equal Rights Amendment: > > It doesn’t guarantee the rights of women. It guarantees the rights of everyone. But the reality is that men already have those rights. What I meant was the LGBTQQIP2SAA acronymn. I wasn’t referring to ERA. I was saying that LGBT people would be better off just using a simple acronymn such as “EBS” to refer to themselves rather than the long, sprawling LGBTQQIP2SAAWCERWTSF which is becoming lengthy to the point of parody. ---
**Author:** ![That\_Don\_Guy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/that_don_guy/32/538_2.png) [@That\_Don\_Guy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/That_Don_Guy)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2018, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/equal-rights-amendment-how-do-you-think-this-is-going-to-play-out-now/815239/25 "2018-06-01T18:53:49Z")
Does the 37 count include the state(s) that later withdrew their ratification? Whether or not a state could withdraw its ratification before it became part of the Constitution was brought before the Supreme Court, but I think they punted on making a decision until whether or not it had enough states to be ratified, and since it never did, the court never took it up. As for what would happen if it were to pass, there’s a chance that it could backfire. Case in point: the NCAA allows women to play on “men’s” teams, but men aren’t allowed to play on “women’s” teams, even if the school does not have a men’s team in the same sport. Does that violate the men’s “equal rights”? Another example: would an insurance company have the right to charge more for a teenage boy than for a teenage girl in automobile insurance? ---
**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, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/equal-rights-amendment-how-do-you-think-this-is-going-to-play-out-now/815239/26 "2018-06-01T19:21:19Z")
> [@That\_Don\_Guy](#): > > Does the 37 count include the state(s) that later withdrew their ratification? Yes. So there are some who consider the tally to only be at 32 states right now, due to the 5 rescinding states. Once it gets to 38, there will be a debate over whether it is really 38 or only 33. ---
**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, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/equal-rights-amendment-how-do-you-think-this-is-going-to-play-out-now/815239/27 "2018-06-01T19:50:07Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Just LGBT? What about the other letters? I can’t imagine the fight that would ensue over where to stop on that. > [@RTFirefly](#): > > What letters are we talking about, and what sorts of pernicious discrimination do they encounter? > [@asterion](#): > > 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.) > [@John\_Mace](#): > > From wikipedia: > [@asterion](#): > > 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. Wouldn’t a number of these besides LGBT be covered in any amendment that gave LGBT folks equal rights? If an amendment was ratified that read, “Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity” [if that’s the correct neutral phrasing re transgender], ISTM that it would include things like intersex and asexual, and a lot of that other stuff is either way down in the white noise, or too poorly defined to be able to write into the law anyway. ---
**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, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/equal-rights-amendment-how-do-you-think-this-is-going-to-play-out-now/815239/28 "2018-06-01T19:55:29Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > Would be easier to just use EBS: Everyone But Straight. What **Little Nemo** said. The laws are written neutrally. Which always amuses me when white men complain that they’re being discriminated against, but the laws don’t protect _them_, just women and minorities. The laws do in fact protect us white men; if we feel we’re being discriminated against because we’re white or male, we can file an EEO complaint or whatever. Those who complain they’re being discriminated against because they’re white or male or straight or Christian, or a combination of all four, should see if a group like the ACLJ would take their case - I’m sure they’d love a case like that that was actually viable. ---
**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, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/equal-rights-amendment-how-do-you-think-this-is-going-to-play-out-now/815239/29 "2018-06-01T20:00:23Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > From the Constitution itself. That gives Congress the power to propose amendments and then send them to the states for ratification. If Congress chooses to include a deadline within the proposal, that’s part of writing the proposal. > > That’s the issue over the 1982 deadline. Nobody disputes Congress had the power to include the 1979 deadline in the original proposed amendment. That’s routine; pretty much all amendment proposals have included a deadline for ratification. > > The issue is that a later Congress passed a new deadline. There’s a question over whether a later Congress can retroactively change an amendment proposal that’s already been passed. But it’s a moot point because the 1982 deadline passed without ratification. > > But the underlying issue could reopen if Congress passed a new deadline moving it to 2020. That would make changing the deadline a live question again. IANAL, but I’d guess that there’s also an issue of whether the deadline is valid if not included in the text of the amendment itself, as was the case with Amendments 18, 20, 21, and 22. Have any of the ratified amendments had a time limit that was in the proposal but not in the amendment itself? ---
**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, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/equal-rights-amendment-how-do-you-think-this-is-going-to-play-out-now/815239/30 "2018-06-01T20:00:46Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > What **Little Nemo** said. The laws are written neutrally. > > Which always amuses me when white men complain that they’re being discriminated against, but the laws don’t protect _them_, just women and minorities. The laws do in fact protect us white men; if we feel we’re being discriminated against because we’re white or male, we can file an EEO complaint or whatever. > > Those who complain they’re being discriminated against because they’re white or male or straight or Christian, or a combination of all four, should see if a group like the ACLJ would take their case - I’m sure they’d love a case like that that was actually viable. Again, I wasn’t referring to the ERA, but the LQBTQQIP2SAA acronym. ---
**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, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/equal-rights-amendment-how-do-you-think-this-is-going-to-play-out-now/815239/31 "2018-06-01T23:24:48Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > What I meant was the LGBTQQIP2SAA acronymn. I wasn’t referring to ERA. I was saying that LGBT people would be better off just using a simple acronymn such as “EBS” to refer to themselves rather than the long, sprawling LGBTQQIP2SAAWCERWTSF which is becoming lengthy to the point of parody. Because fighting for the rights of Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals and Trans people sounds good and fighting for the rights of Everyone But Straights sounds bad. ---
**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, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/equal-rights-amendment-how-do-you-think-this-is-going-to-play-out-now/815239/32 "2018-06-01T23:26:57Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > Would be easier to just use EBS: Everyone But Straight. Or just, “everyone”. I’ll also note that all lives matter, ftr. ---
**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, 11:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/equal-rights-amendment-how-do-you-think-this-is-going-to-play-out-now/815239/33 "2018-06-01T23:35:08Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > IANAL, but I’d guess that there’s also an issue of whether the deadline is valid if not included in the text of the amendment itself, as was the case with Amendments 18, 20, 21, and 22. Have any of the ratified amendments had a time limit that was in the proposal but not in the amendment itself? The 23rd did. It had a seven year deadline for ratification but that wasn’t included in the amendment itself. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2018, 12:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/equal-rights-amendment-how-do-you-think-this-is-going-to-play-out-now/815239/34 "2018-06-02T00:31:02Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > The 23rd did. It had a seven year deadline for ratification but that wasn’t included in the amendment itself. However, it was ratified within the 7 year timeframe, so the proposition was not tested. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2018, 3:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/equal-rights-amendment-how-do-you-think-this-is-going-to-play-out-now/815239/35 "2018-06-02T03:03:32Z")
While voting is mentioned, this is more of a Great Debate than a discussion of Elections. Thread moved. ---
**Author:** ![Johanna](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johanna/32/8318_2.png) [@Johanna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johanna)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2018, 12:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/equal-rights-amendment-how-do-you-think-this-is-going-to-play-out-now/815239/36 "2018-06-02T12:27:24Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > Wouldn’t a number of these besides LGBT be covered in any amendment that gave LGBT folks equal rights? > > If an amendment was ratified that read, “Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity” [if that’s the correct neutral phrasing re transgender], ISTM that it would include things like intersex and asexual, and a lot of that other stuff is either way down in the white noise, or too poorly defined to be able to write into the law anyway. I agree with this. Perhaps the next push for inclusion in anti-discrimination law will be on the basis of neurotypicality. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2018, 2:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/equal-rights-amendment-how-do-you-think-this-is-going-to-play-out-now/815239/37 "2018-06-02T14:54:30Z")
The Court decisions throughout the 1970s applying the equal protection clause to women made the ERA not only a moot point, but perhaps a dangerous amendment if interpreted too literally. Can anyone think of something that is beneficial to women that they do not have now, but would if the ERA passes? ---
**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 2, 2018, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/equal-rights-amendment-how-do-you-think-this-is-going-to-play-out-now/815239/38 "2018-06-02T18:51:01Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > The Court decisions throughout the 1970s applying the equal protection clause to women made the ERA not only a moot point, but perhaps a dangerous amendment if interpreted too literally. > > Can anyone think of something that is beneficial to women that they do not have now, but would if the ERA passes? Registration with the Selective Service if they are between the ages of 18 and 25. ---
**Author:** ![xcalibre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/5daacb/32.png) [@xcalibre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xcalibre)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2018, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/equal-rights-amendment-how-do-you-think-this-is-going-to-play-out-now/815239/39 "2018-06-02T19:03:46Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > Would be easier to just use EBS: Everyone But Straight. Like all other legislation of this kind it would read Equal protection under the law regardless of sexual orientation ---
**Author:** ![xcalibre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/5daacb/32.png) [@xcalibre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xcalibre)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2018, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/equal-rights-amendment-how-do-you-think-this-is-going-to-play-out-now/815239/40 "2018-06-02T19:06:56Z")
Why would it matter if the consequence benefitted women or not? The point is to have equality not to boost the power of just one sex. > [@UltraVires](#): > > The Court decisions throughout the 1970s applying the equal protection clause to women made the ERA not only a moot point, but perhaps a dangerous amendment if interpreted too literally. > > Can anyone think of something that is beneficial to women that they do not have now, but would if the ERA passes? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/equal-rights-amendment-how-do-you-think-this-is-going-to-play-out-now/815239.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/equal-rights-amendment-how-do-you-think-this-is-going-to-play-out-now/815239.md?page=3)