What rights will people have if the ERA is passed that they won’t if it isn’t?
Regards,
Shodan
I was thinking that, too. How is the ERA substantively different than the current equal protection clause and relevant case law?
Well, since neither the equal protection clause nor the relevant case law has women flying combat missions, serving on submarines, or doing all those things that get you advancement in the military… (Of course, an executive order would take care of that, but since we can’t even manage not to fire our translators for being gay, what do you think the chances are of that?) That’s just the issue that comes first to mind, not at all the only one.
Is this a case of needing **new **legislation, though, or of just needing to actually enforce what we already have?
Wouldn’t the court interpret the ERA the same way it interprets the EPC?
Those things are subject to interpretations that are contrary to their spirit. The EPA, as part of the Constitution itself, would be a stronger guide, less easily flouted.
And it would require unisex bathrooms. 
None of those things get you advancement in the military per se. Out the many thousands of fighter pilots, for instance, exceedingly few of them ever achieve flag rank.
Women can advance in the military in any specialty. The obstacle is that they are promoted by their peers, and that will not be changed by the passage of the ERA. How do you prove that someone is “more qualified”, and that that someone is a woman, when there are many other suitable candidates with equal qualifications? That is a culture issue, not a legal one, and I’m having trouble seeing how the ERA can remedy that.
As for the “gay translators” thing, DADT is a public law passed by Congress and therefore must be repealed by Congress. Obama cannot simply say by fiat that the law is vacated, much as he would dearly want to (or so I am lead to believe).
I tend to agree with the opponents. With the new interpretation of the 14th amendment being that everyone has to be treated equally all the time ever and forever, this amendment seems an unnecessary duplication.
I come at this from the Shagnasty side of the debate but it’s an important side. I want an equal rights amendment so that maybe some of the caring divorced dads I know have one more weapon in their arsenal when fighting to get custody away from their loser ex-spouses as much as for any benefit it might offer women.
I’m still waiting for a proponent to explain to me why they think it’s essential to enact new legislation instead of enforcing what we’ve got.
And I’m not being snarky; I’m genuinely open to being convinced here. The deafening silence isn’t terribly encouraging, though.
Where the hell are you getting *that *from?