The Equal Rights Amendment Every year since 1923. Will it pass this year?

"The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) was a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution which was intended to guarantee that equal rights under any federal, state, or local law could not be denied on account of sex. The ERA, written by Alice Paul and introduced in every Congress since 1923, failed to gain ratification before its June 30, 1982 deadline.

On July 21, 2009, Representative Carolyn B. Maloney, Democrat from New York, introduced the ERA in the House of Representatives."

Seems like it ought to. At least in this congress they might allow it to be submitted without the deadline for acceptance. That was the special hurdle last time that other amendments hadn’t faced.

That is false. It is fairly typical for a proposed amendment to have a time limit on its ratification. See the 17th, 18th, 20th, 21st, and the 22nd Amendments.

As for the Equal Rights Amendment, it’s a dead issue. What rights would be gained by women that they do not already have by law?

The '80s called. They want their issue back.

'80s? Try the '70s.

I’d prefer we just enforce the rights I already have, instead of unnecessarily re-emphasizing that I have them.

I’m always amazed at the cognitive dissonance of this argument. It’s not needed, we already have it, yet it would never pass. If it’s really irrelevant, why do some people oppose it tooth and nail?

Because they don’t actually want, you know, those rights we don’t have. Like to serve in front line combat.

You can’t just go around adding “symbolic” amendments to the Constitution. They will have a real-world impact and that impact may be very different than those that wrote it and support it think it will. Nobody knows what that impact will be because the ERA hasn’t faced Supreme Court cases. People are correct to be leery of it and what it might do.

Against their will. To serve in front line combat against their will. ERA would open up new challenges to male-only draft registration. Also the right wing will claim that it would mandate same-sex marriage being legalized nationwide.

Why should females be exempt from mandatory service and stuff like that just because they have girlybits and not danglybits? They’re citizens, they’re capable, and the boys have taken the rough stuff without recompense for too long. I support the legislation because not only do we have women that are treated unfairly, we have men that are treated unfairly. “You have a penis. It’s okay for you to be drafted to your death. You have a vagina, you’re special and we don’t want you fighting.” Not cool.

You do have a point in that the ERA shouldn’t be described as a women’s rights initiative. That description is sexist on its own. It could turn out to have more benefits for men than women for all anyone knows. Child custody, visitation rights, and alimony are some of the real-world areas where it could benefit men in general.

Still, I don’t support it because I don’t think the supporters understand that they can’t control what happens if it ever got passed. That is up to the whims of whatever cases appear before the Supreme Court and how the court decides to rule. I am fairly certain that no one is going to be that happy with the results if the ERA is interpreted literally.

Why shouldn’t half the country’s population be guaranteed equal rights under the law? Because we might want to take some of their rights away for their own good–is that the logic I’m seeing here?

Yay, Taliban.

You are absolutely right. Men should be given equal rights under the law in all matters and I fully support that but a Constitutional amendment is probably not the best way to handle any of the straggling issues we might have.

Poor oppressed men. Maybe some day they’ll get representation at the local, state, or national level.

Here’s the full text of the ERA, for anyone wondering what sneaky stuff they’ll slip in there:

Here’s a real nice site about it.

And since it’s likely to come up before I get back to this thread: I am a proud US Army veteran.

I’m fine with that - if we draft men we should draft women. If all of a sudden drafting women upsets people then they probably shouldn’t be drafting men either. It seems rather obvious to me, but I’m just a dim-witted female type and I’m probably not smart enough to understand it.

I don’t necessarily oppose it, I’d simply like an answer to the question. If I suffer from “cognitive dissonance”, then you can tell me what rights women do not already have that would be ensured by the passage of the ERA.

First, IANAL.

But I think that technically, there is a law in place that does cover this. My google-fu found this US Code: Title 42, section 21, subsection I, #1981 .

I don’t know how this should be interpreted, or if it can be by a lay person, but it seems to indicate that all people have the same rights. I do think the ERA should come into play, but that it should say “gender”, not sex. That way, even intersexed individuals are covered. This prevents ambiguous legal standing for people who are not easily defined as either male or female. The ERA would define for all time (or until repealed) that gender cannot be a factor when dealing with the law.

Amendment XIX
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

India has in its constitution a simple statement that women have equal rights to men. Period.

Why not? Unless you mean the sex vs gender distinction, which I agree is problematic.