# Is the ERA dead, or just pinin' for the fjords? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 21, 2000, 9:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-era-dead-or-just-pinin-for-the-fjords/34059 "2000-09-21T21:57:23Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2000, 9:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-era-dead-or-just-pinin-for-the-fjords/34059/1 "2000-09-21T21:57:23Z")
Anyone know the current status of the ERA? Seems to me it would rectify a lot of gay legal issues, too. Shouldn’t the women’s movement and the gay-rights movement come together\* on this one? What have I failed to consider? [sub]\* Leave it alone.[/sub] ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2000, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-era-dead-or-just-pinin-for-the-fjords/34059/2 "2000-09-21T22:22:19Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by lissener \* > \*_Anyone know the current status of the ERA? Seems to me it would rectify a lot of gay legal issues, too. Shouldn’t the women’s movement and the gay-rights movement come together_ on this one? > > What have I failed to consider? > > [sub]\* Leave it alone.[/sub] \*\* And what would the ERA acomplish? Marc ---
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2000, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-era-dead-or-just-pinin-for-the-fjords/34059/3 "2000-09-21T22:35:28Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by MGibson \* > **And what would the ERA acomplish?** > [@](#): > > **The Equal Rights Amendment** > \*Equality of Rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of sex. \* ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2000, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-era-dead-or-just-pinin-for-the-fjords/34059/4 "2000-09-21T22:42:42Z")
I’ll point out that your use of the Python reference is a non sequitur, in that those who are described as “pinin’ for the fjords” are in fact dead (especially, but not only, if the entity is a Norwegian Blue). Or were you being ironic? Glad I could contribute so substantively to the debate. ---
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2000, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-era-dead-or-just-pinin-for-the-fjords/34059/5 "2000-09-21T22:48:41Z")
The phrase “pinin’ for the fjords” was used by the guy who was trying to _deny_ the parrot was dead (Palin); it was not part of the list of euphemisms for death given by the guy who was insisting it was dead (Cleese). As in, “‘E’s not dead, he’s pinin’ for the fee-ords.” But thanks for playing. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2000, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-era-dead-or-just-pinin-for-the-fjords/34059/6 "2000-09-21T22:58:00Z")
> [@](#): > > What have I failed to consider? That the ERA came with its own expiration date that cancelled it if it was not ratified “in time.” I believe that the date has long since passed (opponents to the “Constitutionality” of that clause notwithstanding). (I believe that it passed Congress in 1972 with a 10-year “ratify by” date. There is not, of course, anything to prevent another try except the likelihood that it will not garner the support needed to pass.) ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2000, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-era-dead-or-just-pinin-for-the-fjords/34059/7 "2000-09-21T23:01:24Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by lissener \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by MGibson \* > > **And what would the ERA acomplish?** > > > [@](#): > > > > **The Equal Rights Amendment** > > \*Equality of Rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of sex. \* > > \*\* What would the amendment acomplish? Women already have equal rights under the law. Marc ---
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2000, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-era-dead-or-just-pinin-for-the-fjords/34059/8 "2000-09-21T23:01:51Z")
I know about the expiration date, but I assumed that someone, somewhere, would keep trying; it seems to me inevitable that eventually we will be a mature enought nation that it will pass. ---
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2000, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-era-dead-or-just-pinin-for-the-fjords/34059/9 "2000-09-21T23:05:52Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by MGibson \* > **What would the amendment acomplish? Women already have equal rights under the law.** Um, no they don’t. As I understand it each “equality” that women have gained has been one at a time: a woman is discriminated against, and takes it to the Supreme Court, so _that_ form of discrimination won’t (theoretically) happen again. Or each state and municipality passes laws or ordinances that outlaw such discrimination. But there is no simple, unequivocal, universal principle that it is always illegal, under any circumstance, to discriminate against a person based on their gender. (E.g., the army doesn’t put women in the front line.) ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2000, 11:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-era-dead-or-just-pinin-for-the-fjords/34059/10 "2000-09-21T23:20:26Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by lissener \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by MGibson \* > > **What would the amendment acomplish? Women already have equal rights under the law.** > > Um, no they don’t. As I understand it each “equality” that women have gained has been one at a time: a woman is discriminated against, and takes it to the Supreme Court, so _that_ form of discrimination won’t (theoretically) happen again. Or each state and municipality passes laws or ordinances that outlaw such discrimination. But there is no simple, unequivocal, universal principle that it is always illegal, under any circumstance, to discriminate against a person based on their gender. (E.g., the army doesn’t put women in the front line.) \*\* Explain to me exactly what you expect the ERA to do? This sounds like something better left to civil suits rather then criminalizing things. Marc ---
**Author:** ![tracer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tracer/32/20578_2.png) [@tracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tracer)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2000, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-era-dead-or-just-pinin-for-the-fjords/34059/11 "2000-09-22T00:16:46Z")
lissener wrote: > [@](#): > > Anyone know the current status of the ERA? [Electronic Realty Associates](http://www.era.com/) is alive and well, thank you very much. Or were you asking about a particular pitcher’s Earned Run Average? ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2000, 12:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-era-dead-or-just-pinin-for-the-fjords/34059/12 "2000-09-22T00:40:08Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by lissener \* > \*\*The phrase “pinin’ for the fjords” was used by the guy who was trying to _deny_ the parrot was dead (Palin); it was not part of the list of euphemisms for death given by the guy who was insisting it was dead (Cleese). As in, “‘E’s not dead, he’s pinin’ for the fee-ords.” > > But thanks for playing. \*\* His denial notwithstanding, it was still an ex-bird. ---
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2000, 2:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-era-dead-or-just-pinin-for-the-fjords/34059/13 "2000-09-22T14:17:32Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by MGibson \* > **. . . Explain to me exactly what you expect the ERA to do? This sounds like something better left to civil suits rather then criminalizing things.** Ahhhh . . . A Libertarian. Anyone else? ---
**Author:** ![pldennison](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/9fc29f/32.png) [@pldennison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pldennison)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2000, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-era-dead-or-just-pinin-for-the-fjords/34059/14 "2000-09-22T14:39:30Z")
**lissener** , please don’t commit the intellectually dishonest (and, frankly, petulant) mistake of assuming that a disdain for the ERA is a libertarian position. If you want to argue the larger issue of civil vs. criminal regulation of social treatment, do it in another thread. But I daresay that support for equal rights and equal treatment for all people under the law regardless of gender, orientation or skin color **is** the libertarian position. ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2000, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-era-dead-or-just-pinin-for-the-fjords/34059/15 "2000-09-22T15:39:53Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Bob Cos \* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by lissener \* > > The phrase “pinin’ for the fjords” was used by the guy who was trying to _deny_ the parrot was dead (Palin); it was not part of the list of euphemisms for death given by the guy who was insisting it was dead (Cleese). As in, “‘E’s not dead, he’s pinin’ for the fee-ords.” > > > > But thanks for playing. > > His denial notwithstanding, it was still an ex-bird. To further illustrate the point: It has expired… It is no more… It’s fucking dead!.. HELLOOOOO POLLY!!! Beautiful plummage. ---
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2000, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-era-dead-or-just-pinin-for-the-fjords/34059/16 "2000-09-22T15:49:52Z")
Assuming, **QuickSilver** , that the above is not a _total_ highjack, and you are referring metaphorically to the ERA and not just to the Norwegian Blue, I should point out that the ERA can die an infinite number of deaths and still be resuscitable. That’s my question in a nutshell: is anyone out there preparing it for another go? The ERA, not the damn parrot (can I plead here, people, to leave the m_therf_cking bird out of this thread, please, or take it to MPSIMS?). ---
**Author:** ![Ptahlis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a8b319/32.png) [@Ptahlis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ptahlis)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2000, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-era-dead-or-just-pinin-for-the-fjords/34059/17 "2000-09-22T16:20:23Z")
It’s been so long since I even heard ERA mentioned I cannot but think that it is not only dead, but that it doesn’t even get much in the way of memorial services. As I recall it, and I was pretty young and not so attentive to the news stories then, although many folks were absolutely behind the principle of the bill, many were quite wary of ammending the Constitution. There was argument based on the unintended consequences as well as the idea that it would further shift power from the legislature to the judiciary (which is especially ironic considering the legislature actually _passed_ the bill.) Social arguments ranged from drafting women and placing them in combat to having to equalize federal funds spent on gender specific medical issues. I can’t see that many of these arguments against it hold much water. Still, I think that the longer we wait, the fewer inequities there are between the genders, so if anything, there really should be less of a drive to pass such an ammendment now than there was then. I don’t think it’s going to make a comeback. Just curious, but how do you think ERA would bolster the gay-rights movement? ---
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2000, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-era-dead-or-just-pinin-for-the-fjords/34059/18 "2000-09-22T16:37:02Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Ptahlis \* > **. . . although many folks were absolutely behind the principle of the bill, many were quite wary of ammending the Constitution. . . .** As opposed, say, to amending the Constitution to outlaw flag burning :rolleyes: (not aimed at you, Ptahlis). > [@](#): > > _continued_ > **. . . Still, I think that the longer we wait, the fewer inequities there are between the genders, so if anything, there really should be less of a drive to pass such an ammendment now than there was then. I don’t think it’s going to make a comeback.** FWIW, it’s been around since 1921, so it’s harder to kill than with just one defeat. > [@](#): > > _continued_ > \*\*Just curious, but how do you think ERA would bolster the gay-rights movement? \*\* Most discrimination against gay men and women is because of the _gender_ of their partners. For one thing, the ERA, if passed as written, would make it beyond the law’s authority to dictate the gender of the person you or I want to marry. I would imagine it could also be helpful in other discriminatory issues based on bias against same-gender couples. It would effectively render the law blind to gender, which would, as far as I can imagine the scenario, render any discrimination against gay people unconstitutional. ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2000, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-era-dead-or-just-pinin-for-the-fjords/34059/19 "2000-09-22T16:54:56Z")
> [@](#): > > _continued_ > \*\*Just curious, but how do you think ERA would bolster the gay-rights movement? \*\* Most discrimination against gay men and women is because of the _gender_ of their partners. [/quote] \*\* I certainly hope you didn’t pull a muscle stretching the meaning of the ERA like that. If you discriminate against all homosexuals you are not discriminating by sex. > [@](#): > > \*\* > For one thing, the ERA, if passed as written, would make it beyond the law’s authority to dictate the gender of the person you or I want to marry. I would imagine it could also be helpful in other discriminatory issues based on bias against same-gender couples. It would effectively render the law blind to gender, which would, as far as I can imagine the scenario, render any discrimination against gay people unconstitutional. \*\* I wasn’t aware that homosexuality was a gender. Oh, and not to nitpick but the ERA mentions sex not gender. I don’t think the ERA is the godsend you think it is. Marc ---
**Author:** ![matt\_mcl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ab992/32.png) [@matt\_mcl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt_mcl)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2000, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-era-dead-or-just-pinin-for-the-fjords/34059/20 "2000-09-22T17:11:11Z")
Marc, if I’m not allowed to marry my boyfriend (for example), I’m being discriminated against on account of sex, in the sense that if I were female I would be allowed to marry him. (…I don’t have a boyfriend!! Let me say that. Because there are a lot of cute guys in this room…) “Sexism and homophobia are flip sides of the same sick coin.” - Kenneth Hanes [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-era-dead-or-just-pinin-for-the-fjords/34059.md?page=2)