Women are still not treated as equal citizens under our Constitution

[DaveSZ]

People ask if there are still any more civil rights battles to be won.

The answer is yes.


http://www.equalrightsamendment.org/era.htm


The History Behind the Equal Rights Amendment

by Roberta W. Francis, Chair, ERA Task Force,
National Council of Women's Organizations


THE EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT

Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.

Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.

As supporters of the Equal Rights Amendment between 1972 and 1982 lobbied, marched, rallied, petitioned, picketed, went on hunger strikes, and committed acts of civil disobedience, it is probable that many of them were not aware of their place in the long historical continuum of women’s struggle for constitutional equality in the United States. From the very beginning, the inequality of men and women under the Constitution has been an issue for advocacy.

In 1776, Abigail Adams wrote to her husband John, "In the new code of laws, remember the ladies and do not put such unlimited power into the hands of the husbands."1 John Adams replied, "I cannot but laugh. Depend upon it, we know better than to repeal our masculine systems."2

The new Constitution’s promised rights were fully enjoyed only by certain white males. Women were treated according to social tradition and English common law and were denied most legal rights. In general they could not vote, own property, keep their own wages, or even have custody of their children.

-more

[troublemaker]

1. Are there currently any female inequalites in the Constitution?

(Or male preferences, looking at it from the other direction)

[DaveSZ]

2. WHY WE NEED THE EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT

by Roberta W. Francis
Chair, ERA Task Force
National Council of Women's Organizations



http://www.equalrightsamendment.org/why.htm

[DaveSZ]

4. Yes

"(Or male preferences, looking at it from the other direction)"


Ironically, it's partially because of the 14th Amendment.


http://www.equalrightsamendment.org/faq.htm

Why do we need the ERA if we have the "equal protection" clause of the 14th Amendment?

The 14th Amendment was ratified after the Civil War, in 1868, in order to deal with race discrimination. (Ironically, it added the word "male" to the Constitution for the first time in referring to the electorate.) It was first applied to prohibit sex discrimination in 1971, in the Supreme Court decision Reed v. Reed, but it still allowed legal differentiation by sex to stand in many cases. Several subsequent Supreme Court decisions (Craig v. Boren in 1976, United States v. Commonwealth of Virginia in 1996) have raised the standard of protection against sex discrimination under the 14th Amendment, but sex discrimination claims still do not get the highest level of judicial scrutiny ("strict scrutiny") that race discrimination claims get. If ERA opponents believe that women already have the full protection of the Constitution through the 14th Amendment, they should have no objection to clarifying that guarantee through the specific wording of the ERA.

[Tosca]

3. It's your turn.

You know, we fought to get that ratified.

Your generation is up.

[catzies]

5. YES!

:bounce: This proud feminist who remembers it from her childhood is old enough to be working now to make it happen in her lifetime.

It's the 21st freakin' century fer cryin out loud! I'd like to see it updated to include genders and gender preferences so it includes EVERYONE.

Equal rights are not special rights and we evidently need it codified against those who think many of us are second-class citizens! :mad:

[Kat45]

6. I've found it absurd that the ERA had such trouble getting passed

I still remember a couple of the major scare tactics used to get people opposed to it: The main one was that women would also be drafted and that would be a terrible thing. Well, guess what? Women are in the military in combat areas right now, without there even being an equal rights amendment. And from any talk going on about the possibility of reinstating the draft, it sounds like women will be subject to the draft as well. And there are still no codified equal rights!!!

Another frequent argument against the ERA was that coed toilets would be required--and that scared the shit out of a lot of people, no pun intended.

I find it abominable that equal rights for women is even an issue--it should be a given, and therefore should be codified, no argument.