When Is the Last Time You Thought About The ERA?

48 thoughts on “When Is the Last Time You Thought About The ERA?”

1. It didnt get out of Committee yesterday. Thank God !!!
   Its a gonner

2. Oh yay. Because I certainly don’t need Constitutionally protected equal rights, I’m just a girl. I’m sure I can trust all you big strong men to protect me and do the right thing. You guys always have.

3. What ended up becoming the 27th Amendment was adopted by Congress without a timetable for ratification. Most modern constitutional amendments, including the ERA, have been sent to the states with a provision that they will terminate and be ineffective if not ratified before a given date—which in this case was 1982. Arkansas ratifying the amendment now would have about as much legal effect on it or any other jurisdiction as it ratifying the EU treaty.

4. Name one right you don’t have that men do.

5. I have no beef with the expiration of the ERA. My objection is to the idea that equal rights for women is a bad thing in the first place. As it stands, gender is not one of the two protected classes (race and national origin) that get the benefit of “strict scrutiny” when evaluating laws that discriminate against those classes. Instead, laws discriminating against women are subject to “intermediate scrutiny” (toughened a little by Justice Ginsberg), meaning such laws are ok as long as the government has a good enough reason. So my question is, when is it ok to discriminate against women? In matters of housing? Employment? Medicine? Insurance? Schooling? And more importantly, Why? Setting aside the obvious biological differences, women as a group are just as talented, smart, capable etc. as men as a group. What is it about us that justifies not giving us the same privileges and rights (and obligations) as men?

6. Sorry about the double post, I did not see bill912’s post.
   We have the same rights now, but as recently as the early 80’s we did not. And the issue is the fact that those rights are not constitutionally protected the same way rights for men are, which means they can change from state to state, and we could lose them more easily.
   For the same reason we needed the 19th Amendment, even though some states already allowed women the right to vote and eventually all would have, we need the ERA.

7. Beadgirl,
   I’ve got no problem with a bill that would stop discrimination against women. The thing that I object to is gays trying to sneak marriage rights through the back door.

8. I think that is wishful thinking on the part of those activists, because a marriage between one man and one woman does not discriminate against either gender.
   But the gay marriage thing is a whole nother can of worms, which I won’t open here because I doubt anyone would like what I have to say about it.

9. For the same reason we needed the 19th Amendment…we need the ERA.

   I’m mesmerized by how women in general and feminists in particular are willing to overlook the misogyny that is inherent in the gay worldview just because gays supposedly happen to be their allies against the “patriarchy”.

10. I’m not sure what you mean, Matheus. What is the “gay worldview”? I know lots of gays and they don’t share any worldview. And how are gay men misogynist? There are, of course, some who are, but there are some who are not (just as there are feminists who hate men, and feminists who don’t, and Christians who hate non-Christians, and Christians who don’t, and you get the idea). And finally, what does this have to do with the 19th Amendment or the ERA?

11. “Instead, laws discriminating against women are subject to “intermediate scrutiny” (toughened a little by Justice Ginsberg), meaning such laws are ok as long as the government has a good enough reason.”
    Intermediate scrutiny or no, the current operation of the interpretation of the existing provisions is such that there’s next to nothing that isn’t protected. Given that, the practical effect of the ERA would be to take what few areas of the law that recognize there there are two sexes, and pertend there are none.
    It’s easy to say that the law shouldn’t recognize any difference, and for the most part it doesn’t. Where are women actually legally discriminated against? It’s hard to think of a single legal instance, and the few you can think of, such as serving as infantrymen in the Army, are actually subject to separate Constitutional provisions that wouldn’t be overridden by the ERA (the power to raise armies and navies, in that instance, which also allows the deprivation of various civil rights afforded to civilians).
    Given all of that, and the fact that the interpretation of the Constitution since the extension of the franchise has virtually wiped out any legal are of discrimination, the only purposes for passing the ERA are: 1) to make us all feel good about ourselves, as it won’t do a darned thing in actuality; or 2) to push the envelope past where we currently are into an absolute legal abolishment of sexes, which is a bad idea.
    Sound extreme? Consider the following.
    Would the ERA mandate women Priests? Don’t laugh, why wouldn’t it. The draft doesn’t say “except in the case of religious beliefs”. It isn’t legal to discriminate in religion based on race, why would it be, under the ERA, in the case of gender? Our neighbor to the north already is being impacted by Court decisions which are telling the Churches what they can and cannot do, and here in the US were very clearly going to have Catholic hospitals run afoul of the Federal government’s current position on abortion very soon. Bare minimum, we’ll get somebody suing the Church arguing that it has to allow women Priests.
    Would the ERA mandate that, if an employer or statute allows women maternity leave, men should get it too? That sounds nifty, unless you are a small employer in a bad economy.
    Or would the ERA allow employers to do the opposite. Heck, men don’t get a break for pregnancy, why should women?
    In the end, rights are rights. But our we’re two sexes, and no amount of legislation will abolish that. We’ve gone just about as far as we can legally to insuring that there’s fairness now, and the more extreme edges of the feminist movement isn’t happy with that, as men and women remain men and women. But ignoring that there are men, and women, doesn’t do women any favors.
    In the final analysis, almost everything that the feminist movement claims as a victory for itself was actually an inevitable social change brought about by the mechanization of the household anyhow. Women being able to leave the houses for work has next to nothing to do with any movement, but everything to do with the conditions of modern life which freed women from heavy burdens associated with a household, which were necessary due to the conditions that then existed. Beyond that, the movement has mostly sought simply to ignore that, and has hurt women, overall, by fooling them into believing, in some instances, that sex is irrelevant. The adherence to that extreme view has retreated over the years, for the good of women, and the ERA has retreated with it, as it was the standard of that thinking.

12. “Bare minimum, we’ll get somebody suing the Church arguing that it has to allow women Priests.”
    But if it were true that women have full equality now without the ERA, then why hasn’t NOW sued the Church for this? Because they can’t — the Church is not a government institution, and therefore it is not subject to the Amendments, which govern the behavior of government actors. And as we all know from the First Amendment, the government is to be separate from the church. Which means you cannot have it both ways — keeping religion out of the government, but then turning around and holding religions to a government standard. For the same reason, no one can sue the Church to allow gay sacramental marriages, or sue to get better representation of minorities among the priesthood (assuming that were a problem). Look at the Mormon church — until very recently black men were not allowed to be ministers or whatever the title is, and even though black men do have Constitutionally protected rights, they could not sue to force the LDS to change its policy. The same reasoning applies here. I can’t speak to what is happening in Canada, because I do not know that legal system or its government. As for the Catholic hospitals issue, the difference is service hospitals provide that goes beyond pure religious ministry; funding also plays a role.
    “the only purposes for passing the ERA are: 1) to make us all feel good about ourselves, as it won’t do a darned thing in actuality; or 2) to push the envelope past where we currently are into an absolute legal abolishment of sexes, which is a bad idea.”
    There is a 3rd reason, which I stated above — to ensure it is as difficult as possible to take away the hard-earned rights women have obtained.
    “Would the ERA mandate that, if an employer or statute allows women maternity leave, men should get it too? That sounds nifty, unless you are a small employer in a bad economy.”
    Well, maternity leave affects small companies in a bad economy just as much. And if the ERA did mandate paternity leave (which most states provide for anyway), I think that would be a good thing, because anything that fosters better parenting and a better work/life balance for everyone is a good thing. Would it be hard to implement, and adjust to, and work out the consequences? Of course, but that is no reason to not do it (just as the headaches and problems that would be created by outlawing abortion do not mean we should not outlaw abortion). Passing laws will not change our economy and business culture overnight, but it does help, and every little bit we can do to encourage a balanced life between work and family for both men and women should be done. But this is getting off-topic.

13. I’m not sure what you mean, Matheus. What is the “gay worldview”? I know lots of gays and they don’t share any worldview. And how are gay men misogynist?

    “Worldview” is probably not the best word Matheus could have chosen; and I don’t think he necessarily meant to imply that homosexual men are personally misogynistic. But inasmuch as masculinity and femininity are properly ordered toward one another, perhaps male homosexuality could be said to entail a kind of affective “hatred” or denial of femininity as the proper object of male affective attachment. In the same way, homosexuality could be same to entail a kind of sexual narcissism, maleness-enamored-with-maleness is maleness-enamored-with-itself (same for femaleness). Male and female must each go beyond themselves and engage the Other.

14. Thanks, SDG, that makes more sense (although I’m not sure if I agree with it).

15. It seems to me that the concept of the Supreme Court, “laws discriminating against women are subject to “intermediate scrutiny”, meaning such laws are ok as long as the government has a good enough reason.” is just about perfect.
    Reasons for governments allowing discrimination between the sexes? How about anything “separate but equal” not being acceptable for racial equality now not being acceptable for the sexes.
    Here’s a list of things that wouldn’t likely pass proper judicial scrutiny were that the case:
    1. Male and Female bathrooms
    2. Boys and Girls schools (Catholic or otherwise)
    3. Maternity vs. Paternity benefits
    4. Men or women only organizations
    5. Men or women only sports (goodbye WNBA)
    Beadgirl, what you’re missing is that there are times to separate (a.k.a. discriminate) based on sex and “intermediate scrutiny” allow for those exceptions. The key is the government better have a pretty darned good reason… like the ones I listed above. The things you mentioned fearing discrimination in (housing? Employment? Medicine? Insurance?… but not schooling, as women only schools would be just as unacceptable as male only) don’t meet the “intermediate scrutiny” threshold. Point being, “intermediate scrutiny” seems just about right.

16. What is the “gay worldview”? I know lots of gays and they don’t share any worldview.

    Dear Beadgirl
    SDG already did a great job, but by “gay worldview” I meant the attitude towards reality that’s espoused by gay activism, which is to reinterpret pretty much every aspect of human existence from the exclusive point of view of the erotic preferences of its members. Of course not every homosexual subscribes to this attitude, since not every homosexual is an activist.

    And how are gay men misogynist?

    Again, I wasn’t thinking of every “gay men”, according to the explanation above; but I thought not only about the aspect insightfully presented by SDG, but also about homosexuality’s exclusion of sexual relations from its familial and procreative context, from which everyone, including homosexuals, was born.

    what does this have to do with the 19th Amendment or the ERA?

    Why do you ask? It was you who changed the discussion from gay rights to women rights; I only quoted your comment because I thought it reflected the general trend that I described. I liked your further explanations, though.

17. And by the way, SDG, during the course of this week I’ve been getting frequent “IP blacklisted” warnings when I try to enter Decent Films. Currently, it’s opening OK.

18. 1. Male and Female bathrooms
    Many places already have gender neutral bathrooms, and it has caused no problems. And from a practical standpoint, I’m not sure who would even sue to remove male and female bathrooms, and what injury they would have to argue to have standing. Finally, a fear of predators attacking women in bathrooms might meet strict scrutiny.
    2. Boys and Girls schools (Catholic or otherwise)
    I am ok with this, actually. I’m not one of those feminists who thinks girls can only truly learn in a girls-only environment, and I think in general it is important for girls and boys to learn together and become friends (or not), because I think part of the reason why we have so many hang-ups about gender is our insistence on viewing the opposite gender as “other,” as these mysterious creatures we cannot understand.
    3. Maternity vs. Paternity benefits
    I am having a hard time coming up with situations where maternity benefits should be different from paternity ones, with the exception of those relating to breastfeeding and pumping, which cannot be done by men. Like I said, I think it would be an improvement if men were allowed and encouraged to spend time with their infants. I greatly benefited from my husband’s paternity leave, given the first time our son was in the NICU and the second time I was recovering from surgery. Again, I realize this would require a sea-change in the way we approach both work and childrearing, and a lot of work, but I think it is worth striving for.
    4. Men or women only organizations
    Again, I’d be ok with that.
    5. Men or women only sports (goodbye WNBA)
    Well, the WNBA is suffering anyway because few people care about women’s sports, but I’ll admit this could cause problems because conceivably there could be men who’d try to join a women’s team so as to be the big fish, rather than a little fish in a men’s team. But this would not be a problem for the MBA and NFL and so on, because so few women would actually be able to meet athletic requirements (and if they can, why not let them join? If a woman has a better fastball than Papelbon, wouldn’t a team be nuts not to want her?).
    I never claimed that the ERA would be a magical fix for all the sexism and misogyny we still have in this country, or that there would not be complications or negative consequences to true equality. But that alone is not a reason to dismiss those who want full equality as crackpots or anti-men. Some people will think it is worth losing gender-specific bathrooms and teams. And I am inherently suspicious of any attempt to discriminate against women, or even separate women and men, because all too often that is just a cover for limiting women (and men, too, sometimes).

19. My objection is to the idea that equal rights for women is a bad thing in the first place.
    This sort of argument is one sound reason to oppose the ERA: anyone with insufficient empathy to distinguish between the idea and the amendment lacks the empathy to figure out what uses the amendment will be put to.

20. To be fair, the tenor of a lot of arguments in this thread has been that women don’t need Constitutionally-protected equality because they already have all the equality they should have. The original post did not address why this specific ERA was bad, except for a passing reference to the hope that it might help gay marriage rights (which, as I discussed above, is probably a non-starter, especially because the Supreme Court time and again has refused to use even “intermediate scrutiny” on laws that discriminate against gays). Nor has anyone else indicated what why this particular Amendment was bad.
    And does this mean there is a formulation of an amendment guaranteeing women equality that would not be objectionable? What is it? I ask out of genuine curiosity, because I want to understand why so many think the ERA is bad (aside from it being old-fashioned and expired).

21. It’s bad because it takes away women’s right to vote in more areas.
    The courts have enough Constitution to treat our franchise as a cat-toy as it stands. To add these amendment is to give them more power to take away our votes.

22. Still waiting to read what consitutionally-protected rights men have that women don’t…

23. Mary, I don’t understand what you mean. Are you arguing that the Supreme Court could literally take away our right to vote if the ERA is passed? Because the 19th Amendment is explicit in its language. Or are you speaking metaphorically? Could you give me examples of what you mean?
    Bill912, the 14th Amendment is a biggie in terms of rights, because in addition to offering equal protection to all “people” it forces states to comport with the other amendments, like the 1st, 5th, 6th, and so on. However, when governments have passed laws that appear to violate the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment, the Supreme Court has created a 3 tier system for determining whether such laws are actually in violation of the 14th Amendment. So, for laws that discriminate on the basis of race or national origin, the Supreme Court applies the “strict scrutiny” test which is almost impossible to pass. For gender, however, the Supreme Court only uses the “intermediate scrutiny” test, where if the reason is good enough, a law that discriminates against women is nonetheless in compliance with the 14th Amendment. All other classes (including sexual orientation) get the third test, I forget its official name but it is informally called the “laugh test” — if you can justify the law in open court without laughing, the law is constitutional. It is difficult to fail this test.
    The upshot is that in effect men have a greater protection than women, because it is harder to discriminate against, say, a black man or even a white man, than any woman at all. (In theory one could have a law that discriminates in favor of women, and it would be subjected to the intermediate test, but that is very rare.) An amendment that expressly forbids discrimination by gender would result in gender being placed in the top tier along with race and national origin. The issue is not that right now men actually have more Constitutionally protected rights than women, but that given a confluence of bad government officials, bad laws, and bad courts, we could go back to the days when women did not have as many rights. As an example, the Supreme Court in the 19th century ruled that a state could deny a female attorney admittance to the bar just because she was a woman, that it was not unconstitutional because the state had good public policy reasons for doing so (like protecting the family unit). The ERA would prevent this from ever happening again.

24. I am ok with this, actually. I’m not one of those feminists who thinks girls can only truly learn in a girls-only environment, and I think in general it is important for girls and boys to learn together and become friends (or not), because I think part of the reason why we have so many hang-ups about gender is our insistence on viewing the opposite gender as “other,” as these mysterious creatures we cannot understand.

    I don’t know about “only” (does anyone short of Mary Daly really go that far?), but isn’t there some evidence to suggest that girls and boys may learn better in single-sex environments? “Hang-ups about gender” strikes me as a remarkably apropos term for our curious resistance to acknowledging that in fact there are such things as “boys” and “girls,” that they are different from one another, and that ignoring this fact and treating them as if they were exactly the same can do more harm than good.

25. Ok, not sure why typepad inserted my real name . . .
    “”Hang-ups about gender” strikes me as a remarkably apropos term for our curious resistance to acknowledging that in fact there are such things as “boys” and “girls,” that they are different from one another, and that ignoring this fact and treating them as if they were exactly the same can do more harm than good.”
    Fair enough. But I question how common it is to find a situation where boys and girls are different enough to warrant different treatment. And yes, there have been studies that found that some girls and boys learn better in single-gender environments, but I emphasize that that is not true for all; certainly not for me, I did quite well with the so-called male system of schooling. My point is not that gender specific schools are bad, just that it would not be a horrible thing if they were done away with in exchange for true Constitutional equality, especially because there are other ways to address the imbalances in learning.
    This is becoming quite interesting.

26. Beadgirl –
    Ken Crawford posted a short list of problems he had with how the ERA could be enforced, and you basically responded that you, personally, didn’t have a problem with any of those things.
    Which is kinda the point.
    Ken, myself and a whole lot of others DO see a problem with having no allowance for gender specific sports, private clubs, facilities, schools, etc…
    Your objections are also along the lines of “Well, I really doubt it would be abused in this or that way… as a reasonable person, I would never abuse it in that fashion, and so I don’t see why anyone else would, either.”
    The fact is that if it can be abused, it will be. It doesn’t have to make sense. There will be activists who will use it to twist the law into shapes into which it has never been twisted before, or die trying. It will create a choking tide of petty lawsuits that will be settled in cash just to avoid court costs. It will create a new cottage industry for lawyers who can’t wait to use it to shake down businesses large and small.
    It might also make life difficult for my new venture, The League of Bearded Catholics, which would be a shame. I plan for membership to be open to all Catholics, regardless of sex, so long as they have a beard.
    And I haven’t seen any response to the objection regarding the male-only priesthood of the Catholic Church and how the ERA can possibly avoid making that practice illegal.

27. “I did quite well with the so-called male system of schooling”
    Public schools are notoriously geared toward female leaning styles, not male. Not sure where you got the opposite impression.

28. I didn’t expect an answer to my question. I got what I did expect: an answer to a question it was wished that I had asked.

29. Bill912, I thought I did answer your question, but if you’d like me to be more explicit, then no, currently men do not have more Constitutionally protected rights.
    Tim Jones, that is a fair point about the 5 objections. I misinterpreted the point as being things I and other feminists would supposedly regret if the ERA were to pass, not that these were things the poster did object to. My bad.
    As for the argument that it would cause lots of problems and twistings to satisfy different agenda, well yes it would. But so does every other law, so did the 14th Amendment, and the Civil Rights Amendment, and so on. I personally don’t think that is enough of a reason not to pass the ERA (perhaps redraft it to minimize such abuses), just as, for example, every time a state passes a law restricting abortion a whole mess of lawsuits are started; it is still worth the goal, right? You may disagree that the ERA is worth that, but I think it is.
    Finally, as to the ordination of women, I already explained above that it could not happen (and I am a lawyer, I know whereof I speak). Could someone file a suit against the Church demanding female ordination? Sure — you can file a suit about pretty much anything. But would be dismissed right quick.

30. Oops, I forgot about Tim Jones’ school comment — I did not attend public school.

31. Okay, so we agree that the ERA would cause a lot of mischief and carries a number of practical drawbacks.
    Pardon my complete lack of legal knowledge, on what grounds would a lawsuit demanding women’s ordination be dismissed right quick?
    And why would an activist judge, who strongly supports women’s ordination, (or who simply has a hate on for the Church) care that much whether he/she was upholding some particular view of the Constitution? We’ve already seen a Right to Privacy conjured from thin air out of the Constitution. The law based on that bit of whimsy – acknowledged by most, now, as unsupportable – still stands, to disastrous effect.
    Judges distorting the law to serve their own agenda? That could NEVER happen!

32. “And why would an activist judge, who strongly supports women’s ordination, (or who simply has a hate on for the Church) care that much whether he/she was upholding some particular view of the Constitution? We’ve already seen a Right to Privacy conjured from thin air out of the Constitution. The law based on that bit of whimsy – acknowledged by most, now, as unsupportable – still stands, to disastrous effect.”
    Exactly.
    Beadgirl’s point is that the ERA would only prevent the government from discriminating, as it only prevents state action. That’s true, except that the law’s easy to twist.
    Not so? Well, marriage only involves the government to the extent a license is issued, but we’ve seen that state governments feel that’s enough to recognize a constitutional right (under some state constitutions) to contract in marriage irrespective of gender. The right to privacy that was found in the “penumbra” of the Constitution was sufficient to strike down laws prohibiting the act of abortion, on the basis that the law violated the constitution. The state action was the existence of the law. It isn’t hard to image an activist court finding that because Priests sign marriage licenses, or provide last rights in government funded hospitals, or are chaplains in prisons, and the like, that they can act.
    Likely? Perhaps not. But then who would have thought that any court would have found a constitution right to same sex marriage, when the constitutions involved were written at a time when same sex intercourse was a felony? All that has to be found is the thin read of a state role. Even the common state exemption from property taxes that churches enjoy in most states is probably plenty to find a basis to act, or at least have an issue to take up on appeal (yup, I’m a lawyer too).

33. Hi Beadgirl, it’s great to see someone around here who is (1) knowledgeable (you gave yourself away as a lawyer the instant you mentioned J. Ginsburg in connection with intermediate scrutiny, by the way) and (2) able to disagree without being disagreeable. Rare traits in the blogosphere.
    How might the ERA require same-sex marriage? “Because I’m a man, the government won’t let me marry my boyfriend. But if I were a woman, it would let me marry him. They’re denying me equal rights based on my sex.” Not a mandatory interpretation, but a possible one.
    But what are your thoughts on the argument that we should amend the federal Constitution sparingly, and there’s just no need for an amendment on this issue? We got amendments 1 through 10 in response to the ratification itself, amendments 11 and 16 (hope I’ve got the numbers right) in response to what people thought were catastrophically bad Supreme Court decisions, and numbers 13, 14, and 15 in response to the Civil War. Additionally, whichever amendment lets 18-year-olds vote was a response to Vietnam or Korea, right? Throw out the ill-advised experiment with Prohibition, and that means that just about every major constitutional amendment came in response to a serious nationwide crisis. (Notably absent from this list, of course, is women’s suffrage. I’m forced to leave that for you to make hay out of.)
    In sum, we can probably all agree that amending the federal constitution is using a sledgehammer, and we should be careful not to do so in cases where a scalpel would be more appropriate. I tend to favor the latter in regard to improving sexual equality in our society, and so I think it’s best to leave the matter to the states. At bottom, this probably just means we’re reading the situation differently: I think flexibility is better, to let local governments deal with problems according to local customs and conditions, and you (I gather) feel that a more uniform respect for rigid equality would be better. Fortunately, I don’t think this is like some issues that come up on Catholic blogs, where the two sides are basically matter and antimatter.

34. Heh, yeah, patricius, it’s hard to hide the fact that I am a lawyer.
    ” “Because I’m a man, the government won’t let me marry my boyfriend. But if I were a woman, it would let me marry him. They’re denying me equal rights based on my sex.” Not a mandatory interpretation, but a possible one.”
    I actually thought about this when I formulated my previous argument, but dismissed it because it would be highly unlikely that any judge would accept this cast of the argument, when a more straightforward one is that no one can marry a person of the same gender. An alternative defense would be that yes, a woman can’t marry her girlfriend but a man can his, but also a man can’t marry his boyfriend but a woman can hers. In that light, it would be clear that the real issue is the issue of marrying one’s same gender. In any event, I think it would be inescapable that not all women are being discriminated against, just some, specifically lesbians, and as we know they are not a protected class for Constitutional purposes.
    ‘But what are your thoughts on the argument that we should amend the federal Constitution sparingly, and there’s just no need for an amendment on this issue?”
    Well, yes, that is certainly a reasonable viewpoint. i am myself leery of unnecessary fiddling with the Constitution, and I’m certainly not lobbying Congress to get an ERA passed. But I do think it would be a good thing, because it would set in stone women’s equality. And even if it has no practical effects, I think it would be a nice symbolic gesture that the country and the government take equality seriously.
    Yeoman, I disagree that it would be easy to find even a thin veneer of state action in the roles of Churches to justify suing them to ordain women. Last rites and chaplain actions in public hospitals and jails would not be enough because they are providing a non-governmental service (and one prisoners etc. are entitled to under the 1st Amendment), and I don’t think signing marriage licenses would work (in fact, I bet if I researched this I’d find that non-governmental people who do so are still not state actors); but if it were possible, it would be an easy fix — priests could stop signing the licenses. I’ve seen that happen at weddings where for other reasons the priest/rabbi could not be the one to sign the license. A bit of a pain, yes, but certainly doable. I also think you are overlooking the 1st Amendment’s separation of church and state clause, which would prevent governmental interference with Church dogma/theology.
    Finally, I’d like to point out that the 50 states have their own constitutions, which cannot take away rights granted in the federal Constitution but can add rights, and some, like NY, have added equal rights for women. Yet the NY chapter of NOW has not sued the archdiocese of Brooklyn to force ordination of women (nor has any woman who wants to be ordained). In addition, there are federal laws that give women equal rights in areas like employment; why haven’t these been used to sue for ordination of women? Is it really because we are the very first ones to think of this argument, or because it is clear even to the most radical activist that there is no valid legal argument here? I strongly feel it is the latter. I also think it is telling that (as far as I know) no church/temple/whatever has been sued for racial discrimination, even though it certainly happened in the past, and probably still does in some areas.
    But I don’t think I can convince you at this point, so perhaps if you can you should speak to a lawyer who is an expert at constitutional or gender law to allay your fears. Or, if you have access to Westlaw and time to spare, research it and let us know! (I miss Westlaw.)

35. I do want to agree with patricius that Beadgirl has comported herself with grace.
    Well, her first comment was a bit snarky, but so are some of mine.

36. Are you arguing that the Supreme Court could literally take away our right to vote if the ERA is passed? Because the 19th Amendment is explicit in its language
    You have got to be joking.
    The Supreme Court has demonstrated its absolute commitment to taking the vote from us by any means they can devise whenever they feel like it.
    Or do you really think that essence of voting is “making a mark on a paper” not “being ruled by those people you have put in office”?

37. 2. Boys and Girls schools (Catholic or otherwise)
    I am ok with this, actually. I’m not one of those feminists who thinks girls can only truly learn in a girls-only environment, and I think in general it is important for girls and boys to learn together and become friends (or not), because I think part of the reason why we have so many hang-ups about gender is our insistence on viewing the opposite gender as “other,” as these mysterious creatures we cannot understand.
    So what?
    Who apppointed you to decide — for everyone — about the importance of girls and boys learning together and that it must be done in school? What makes single-sex education so disastrous that your decision gets to override the judgment of the parents? At all times?

38. I fear you have misunderstood me, Mary. I was simply explaining my personal opinion of single-sex schools (which, for the record, is not that they are “disastrous,” but rather they are not something I think is so important that an equal rights amendment should never be passed because it might wipe out single-sex schools). I also acknowledged later that others might feel single-sex schools and other things like male and female sports teams are important enough to lobby against an amendment. I certainly never thought (or wrote) that I get to decide on behalf of everyone else what kind of school children go to.
    “The Supreme Court has demonstrated its absolute commitment to taking the vote from us by any means they can devise whenever they feel like it.”
    I still don’t understand what you mean. Is there a particular law or court opinion you are referring to? I really feel I might understand your position better if I had an example.

39. I believe that Mary meant legislating from the bench.

40. Ah, now I see. I’m not going to really get into that, because it is a complex issue having to do with governmental checks and balances and the fact that the majority is not always right, and also not directly relevant to the ERA. And I am tired. Thanks for the debate, people.

41. “But I don’t think I can convince you at this point, so perhaps if you can you should speak to a lawyer who is an expert at constitutional or gender law to allay your fears. Or, if you have access to Westlaw and time to spare, research it and let us know! (I miss Westlaw.)”
    Actually, in my jurisidciton, that would be me on the first item, but certainly not on the second.
    I’ll do that when I have a chance, but alas, as an overburdened litigator, with a battery of important state cases to my credit, including at least one state constitutional one, I don’t have the time right now, as I have no spare time.
    Suffice it to say, however, I’ve heard the “can’t happen” plenty of times, often used against me, only to see the state court, or the 10th Circuit, say, “sure it can”.
    By the way, I have seen the connection between property tax exemption for Churches used against them, 1st Amendment or no, by the government. That’s not theoretical, but happens. Most often in connection with tax exempt status, when some politician or government agency becomes unhappy with what a Priest says from the alter.

42. “Most often in connection with tax exempt status, when some politician or government agency becomes unhappy with what a Priest says from the alter.”
    This is interesting. Can you tell us what the circumstances were, and the outcome?

43. I was simply explaining my personal opinion of single-sex schools (which, for the record, is not that they are “disastrous,” but rather they are not something I think is so important that an equal rights amendment should never be passed because it might wipe out single-sex schools).
    And you still haven’t answered the question: who appointed you to make this call?

44. I’m not going to really get into that, because it is a complex issue having to do with governmental checks and balances and the fact that the majority is not always right, and also not directly relevant to the ERA.
    So far from being “not directly relevant to the ERA”, it is the pith and essence of it. The whole point of the ERA is that it will let you, through the venue of the courts, force on everyone your opinions of what people should do about the differences between the sexes.
    If you wish to claim that this is false — please explain what it will do.

45. “And you still haven’t answered the question: who appointed you to make this call?”
    It is merely my opinion, not my “call.” Am I not allowed to have it?
    “The whole point of the ERA is that it will let you, through the venue of the courts, force on everyone your opinions of what people should do about the differences between the sexes.”
    If this were true, then doesn’t that mean that the 19th amendment, which granted women the right to vote, is imposing opinions on what people should do about differences (or lack thereof) between the sexes? That the 14th amendment (and the 13th, abolishing slavery) are imposing opinions on what people should do about the differences (or lack thereof) between races? All laws are fundanmentally opinions on what people should and should not do.
    Now, the reason why I do not think judicial activism is relevant to a discussion on the ERA is that by its very definition the ERA is part of the legislative process. For the ERA to pass, a majority of people in a majority of states will have voted for it. Which means the ERA would be enacted on the will of a majority of people — in other words, democratically. Judicial activism is the opposite of that, where an individual judge makes a decision that contravenes what a majority in his or her jurisdiction wants.
    I could go into more detail about why I think judicial activism should have a (very limited) role in our government and legal system (for example, Brown v. Board of Ed., which desegregated public schools, is a classic example of judicial activism), but I am getting the impression that you are opposed to judicial activism even if the end result is sometimes something you favor. And I understand and respect that belief, even if I don’t share it.
    Finally, Mary, I have sensed a great deal of hostility in your posts. I assume, of course, the hostility is only to my opinions on the ERA, not me as a person. But it is making it difficult to for me to have this debate with you. I am more than willing to continue it, if you are interested; I only ask that you have the same respect for my opinions I have for yours.

46. It is merely my opinion, not my “call.” Am I not allowed to have it?
    It’s not merely your opinion. It’s your call which you think entitled to enforce on the rest of us.
    This is intrinsic to the ERA. You are perfectly free to not send any children to single-sex schools and to argue that they should not go. But you also want the ERA, which you admit may prevent those who disagree with you from sending children to single-sex schools, on the grounds that you don’t think they’re worth saving.
    Now, the reason why I do not think judicial activism is relevant to a discussion on the ERA is that by its very definition the ERA is part of the legislative process.
    And then what? It sit there? Of course not. The judges use it as a cat toy to strip us of the right to vote.
    Finally, Mary, I have sensed a great deal of hostility in your posts. I assume, of course, the hostility is only to my opinions on the ERA, not me as a person. But it is making it difficult to for me to have this debate with you. I am more than willing to continue it, if you are interested; I only ask that you have the same respect for my opinions I have for yours.
    “The conqueror always loves peace. He would wish to penetrate our territory without meeting resistance.”
    Anyways, if you wish to subject my opinions to the whim of the judiciary — and you do — how much respect can you have for them?

47. “Finally, Mary, I have sensed a great deal of hostility in your posts.”
    Yeah, Mary! How dare you get even slightly exasperated when you don’t get straight answers to any of your questions?

48. “It’s not merely your opinion. It’s your call which you think entitled to enforce on the rest of us.
    This is intrinsic to the ERA. You are perfectly free to not send any children to single-sex schools and to argue that they should not go. But you also want the ERA, which you admit may prevent those who disagree with you from sending children to single-sex schools, on the grounds that you don’t think they’re worth saving.”
    But it is not my call, because I cannot impose the ERA or single-sex schools on everybody else. The ERA will only be passed if a majority of the citizens vote for it, and I will only be one vote of millions. And yes, if the majority passes the ERA , knowing that single-sex schools will be abolished, then the majority is imposing its will about this aspect of schooling on the minority who disagree (under this scenario). But this is what a democracy is — majority rules, majority deciding what can and cannot be done. The alternative is only passing laws and amendments if 100 percent of the voters agree to the laws and amendments and all consequences derived therefrom.
    Also, I’d like to point out that your reasoning (don’t send your kids to single-sex schools if you don’t want to, but don’t keep me from doing it) is identical to the argument pro-choicers use (don’t have an abortion if you think it is wrong, but don’t keep me from having one). (And no, I am not equating the substance of the two — schooling and baby-killing — just the format of the argument.)
    “And then what? It sit there? Of course not. The judges use it as a cat toy to strip us of the right to vote.”
    We’ll have to agree to disagree on this.
    “The conqueror always loves peace. He would wish to penetrate our territory without meeting resistance.”
    Given how the ERA has completely failed to be passed, I’m hardly a conqueror.
    Now, as to the repeated allegation that I am dodging questions and not being straightforward, there is no way for me to reply to that, is there? I have tried my best to answer every question and accusation, but I can’t prove that. Clearly, I have failed to adequately explain my views on the ERA and its related issues to you, and I don’t know what more I can say. So I will have to leave it at that.

Comments are closed.