Constitutional Amendments That Failed

[shereads]

My first brush with an unbearable political loss was the defeat of the Equal Rights Amendment. It had passed Congress after an ugly battle. I was just becoming politically aware at the time when the deadlne was approaching for ratification. If the required number of states didn't agree, the amendment would expire. For college-age women who thought we were cynical because we had read "The Female Eunuch" and Gloria Steinhem, there were some ugly lessons to be learned in the battle over the Equal Rights Amendment. It was hard enough to understand why equality under the law should even be worth debating; that it generated outrage was hurtful. We were planning to make our own way in the world. We were learning that the world didn't welcome the idea.

I hadn't thought of the Equal Rights Amendment in years. Today I heard a gay teenager on NPR talking about how it felt to be singled out for legal discrimination. He couldn't finish the sentence, and it was clear that he was in tears. That's when I remmbered what it felt like to watch my own shot at legal equality go down in flames. It was a long, protracted slap in the face. It made me love America a little less than I had when I thought it loved me back.

Conservatives fought the Equal Rights Amendment with these arguments:

> The rights of states to make their own laws was being infringed upon;

> The Constitution was too unique and important to be tampered with to address one group's complaint of discrimination.

Depending on who you asked, discrimination against women was either a fabrication, or an issue that should be addressed at other levels, out of respect for the Constitution. The gravity of it! You'd have thought we were tampering with the Bible to make Jesus a girl.

This is the sentence that generated all that fear and anger:

[color=dark red]"Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex."[/color]

Radical, isn't it? An invitation to anarchy.

Clearly, no responsible American could risk the sanctity of the Constitution by adding something so radical. Not that everyone shouldn't have an equal chance in the world, but it would have been unfair, we were told, to give us "special" treatment. I didn't buy it then. I haven't bought the same bull when I've heard it applied to other minorities. (Women are the majority, but we're a minority by honorary decree.)

Congess sent the Equal Rights Amendment to the states in March, 1972. The original seven year deadline was extended to ten years. It expired unratified in 1982. Not with a bang, but a whimper, on one of the worst days of my life.

Unlike what Bush has proposed, which will prohibit the inclusion of gay couples in a particular circle of respect and protection, the defeat of the ERA was something we could overcome on a case-by-case basis. I survived just fine without it. What didn't survive intact was my respect for government.

 

[shereads]

Failed amendments to the U.S. Constitution. (Complete list, edited explanations from http://www.usconstitution.net/constamfail.html )

Article 1 of the original Bill of Rights

Proposed in 1789. Addressed the number of persons represented by each member of the House, and the number of members of the House. It essentially said that once the House hit 100 members, it should not go below 100, and once it reached 200, it should not go below 200. Since there are over 400 members today, this amendment would be de facto moot today. Still outstanding, ratified by 10 states, most recent in 1791.

The Anti-Title Amendment

Submitted to the States in 1810. Would have stripped citizenship from any citizen who accepted or received any title of nobility from a foreign power, or who accepted without the consent of Congress any gift from a foreign power. This amendment is still outstanding.

(SR notes: why a deadline was applied to ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment isn't explained here. Anybody know?)

The Slavery Amendment

Sent to the states in 1861. Would have prohibited Congress from making any law interfering with slavery and other domestic institutions of any state. Ratified by two states in 1861-62.

"No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State."

The Child Labor Amendment

1926. Would have granted Congress the power to regulate the labor of children under the age of 18. Ratified by 28 of the required 38 states.

The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA)

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

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

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

The Washington DC Voting Rights Amendment

Would have granted the citizens of Washington DC the same full representation in Congress as any state, and repealed the 23rd Amendment granting the District votes in the Electoral College (since it would have been moot). Proposed in 1978, it expired unratified in 1985.

 

[Somme]

...a savage , sodding bump........

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Well, that's unfair.

 

[Virtual_Burlesque]

For those of us who became aware after the defeat of the ERA, there is a Chronology of the Equal Rights Amendment, 1923-1996 which gives a quick timeline.

 

[Weird Harold]

Failed amendments to the U.S. Constitution. (Complete list, edited explanations from http://www.usconstitution.net/constamfail.html )


(SR notes: why a deadline was applied to ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment isn't explained here. Anybody know?)

From the first paragraph of your link:
Some, because of the language of the bill that passed the Congress, have no expiration date and are still pending ratification. Others have built-in expiration dates. The text details which of the amendments are expired.

 

[shereads]

From the first paragraph of your link:
Some, because of the language of the bill that passed the Congress, have no expiration date and are still pending ratification. Others have built-in expiration dates. The text details which of the amendments are expired.

Thanks, WH. I meant to ask whether anyone knew why Congress attached a deadine for ratification.

 

[Weird Harold]

Thanks, WH. I meant to ask whether anyone knew why Congress attached a deadine for ratification.

I don't know positively, but it's likely because there is one from 1789 that could theoretically still be ratified and they felt it should not hang in limbo forever like that.

 

[amicus]

http://www.now.org/issues/economic/cea/concept.html

CONCEPTS AND DEFINITION OF TERMS USED TO CONSTRUCT
THE CONSTITUTIONAL EQUALITY AMENDMENT (CEA)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The following was prepared as a summary explanation of key concerns underpinning the working draft language of the CEA adopted by the membership of the National Organization for Women at its annual conference in July 1995. This paper originated as an aid in the debate at that conference and has been expanded to include more perspectives and issues. This is not a complete discussion and is offered only as an aid for understanding and discussion that will continue to evolve. Under each section is an explanation of particular words and/or concepts that were chosen and what potential pros and cons exist regarding each choice. The CEA
Section1
Section2
Section3
Section4
Section5
Section6
Section7
The Process
The Standard of Review


THE CEA:

"Section 1. Women and men shall have equal rights throughout the United States and every place and entity subject to its jurisdiction; through this article, the subordination of women to men is abolished;"

"Women and men" is used to describe all "persons" while putting "women" into the Constitution for the first time. The 19th Amendment for women's suffrage only states that the right to vote shall not be denied or abridged on account of sex. "Women and men" was also chosen as opposed to "men and women" to insure we began in the right frame of mind.

"shall have equal rights" adopts the 1923 affirmative language of Alice Paul's original Equal Rights Amendment and rejects the language "equal rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged" in the 1943 Paul ERA which became the language in the 1972 ERA. In addition, rejecting "under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state" removes the passive tense and the requirement the ERA apply only to state action. This means that the provision may be read to challenge a private discriminatory action, i.e. by business and corporations, without a requirement that state action was involved.

"throughout the United States and every place and entity subject to its jurisdiction" is intended to reach all government entities and also the operation of any entity including U.S. businesses and entities outside the geographic confines of the U.S.

"the subordination of women to men is abolished" was modeled on the 13th Amendment (abolishing slavery) and intended to flag the issue that sex inequality is about power differences as well as all other distinctions based on sex.

"Section 2. All persons shall have equal rights and privileges without discrimination on account of sex, race, sexual orientation, marital status, ethnicity, national origin, color or indigence;" (see also Sec. 4)

"All persons shall have equal rights and privileges" was chosen because it is affirmative ("shall have") and extends beyond rights to include privileges ("rights and privileges"). The term "immunities" was left out because it has been rendered legally meaningless. The term "liberty" was not included because it was viewed as unnecessary and had the potential to be interpreted to extend to men the right to control women's reproductive choice- making as discussed below in Section 3.

The protected categories listed are included to reflect the Resolution from the 1994 NOW Conference calling for this action on the ERA and the Majority Report for the January 1995 NOW ERA Summit, both of which expressed the desire for an expansive equality standard and explicit inclusion of a variety of protected categories of persons. The categories listed were adopted at the 1995 National Convention. The rationale for not listing other specific categories is discussed below. It is our desire that all categories listed be subject to the highest standard of judicial review as discussed under Section 6. Further discussion is necessary for several categories. Many categories already exist in ERAs in State Constitutions.

"Sex" is a biological characteristic and not a social construction. "Gender" was not chosen because gender connotes a socially imposed sex-role. One cannot discuss "gender" issues without reference to stereotypes according to biological sex identification. Stereotypes are explicitly addressed in Section 4.

"Race" denotes certain, common and distinguishing physical characteristics constituting a comprehensive class appearing to be derived from a distinct historic source. We are aware debate exists as the whether race does indeed exist, and therefore include further classes such as ethnicity, national origin and color.

"Sexual Orientation" specifically includes lesbian and gay, bisexual and heterosexual people.

"Marital Status" was included because of the current and historical discrimination against women because of their marital status. Historically, women were seen as their husband's property incapable of owning their own property or conducting their own business. Currently, single women are discriminated against in many areas such as reproduction and employment benefits. Example: in some areas only married women may be artificially inseminated; single women employees may only be able to list husbands or children as beneficiaries in company retirement plans and not parents or siblings.

"Ethnicity" denotes classification or affiliation with a group of people having common customs, characteristics, language, etc.

"National Origin" refers to immigrants, legal and illegal.

"Color" refers to skin pigmentation characteristic of race, ethnicity or national origin.

"Indigence" reflects concern that some members of all the above listed categories are additionally oppressed by impoverishment as a consequence of power inequality. One example is the exclusion of abortion from Medicaid funding. Terms such as "class" or "wealth" or "economic status" may be interpreted to forbid any differences in treatment based on economic circumstance, such as a graduated tax which imposes an obligation for those with greater means to pay a higher percentage of income to tax. Thus, such general terms may not accurately reflect the intent to remedy power inequality.

"Section 3. This article prohibits pregnancy discrimination and guarantees the absolute right of a woman to make her own reproductive decisions including the termination of pregnancy;"

The entire section was included to reverse the current U.S. Supreme Court's interpretation that sex discrimination excludes discrimination based on pregnancy and pregnancy-related conditions. It was also included to make clear, as directed by the 1994 Resolution and implemented by the 1995 NOW ERA Summit Majority Report, that equality considerations include women's reproductive freedom.

"including the termination of pregnancy" was included to avoid any ambiguity on the subject of a woman's right to choose an abortion. The woman-centered language of Section 3 was chosen to address the problem that infringement on reproductive rights is mostly aimed at women's reproduction.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`

A supposed 'new' ERA...that goes back door for abortion rights and gay rights....clever liberals, these...

and you wonder why it is an issue that rational people do not wish to be part of the Constitution?

The 14th amendment is sufficient in that "...no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the priviliges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law..."

Backers of the ERA, new and old, wish to create a 'new' privileged class of rights for women only. It has once and will again be shown to be unconstitutional.

amicus....

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

So, amicus, you're saying that in the form it was in... things like abortion, as an issue, would have been backdoored?

Didn't know that.

(truly, Constitutional Law is far, far outside my area of expertise)

 

[Weird Harold]

Backers of the ERA, new and old, wish to create a 'new' privileged class of rights for women only. It has once and will again be shown to be unconstitutional.

By what warped logic can you class an amendment to the Constitution as "unconstitutional?"

If it is ratified, it's by definition Constitutional because it then becomes a part of the Contitution.

If it doesn't pass or get ratified, it was never law or went against the Constitution.

Either way, there is no way a Constitutional Amendment can be "unconstitutional." "Unacceptable," maybe, but never "unconstitutional."

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by Weird Harold
By what warped logic can you class an amendment to the Constitution as "unconstitutional?"

If it is ratified, it's by definition Constitutional because it then becomes a part of the Contitution.

If it doesn't pass or get ratified, it was never law or went against the Constitution.

Either way, there is no way a Constitutional Amendment can be "unconstitutional." "Unacceptable," maybe, but never "unconstitutional."

I dunno... I have a friend whose big into Constitutional Law. There's two ways to think about it: (1) the Constitution is a literal document of pristine governmental truth; (2) the Constitution is an interpretive document appealing to an overarching truth.

The former, an amendment can't be unconstitutional. The latter, it can--assuming its meant as an affront to the "essence of the Constitution as a correlative entity".

 

[amicus]

Wierd Harold...you seldom quibble over words..perhaps I was unclear...

I meant to imply that when a suggested amendment contradicts either the 'letter or the spirit' of the document, or supercedes and expands beyond what is within the law of the document, then it can be shown to be outside the purview of the Constitution.

The ERA, old and new, both expand the concept of the 14th amendment and virtually rule it useless...

The real problem is, I think, the 'right to life...liberty...' is at odds with abortion...and the concept of marriage between a man and a woman...is at odds with the ERA insistence upon disregarding the gender issue.

amicus...

 

[Weird Harold]

I dunno... I have a friend whose big into Constitutional Law. There's two ways to think about it: (1) the Constitution is a literal document of pristine governmental truth; (2) the Constitution is an interpretive document appealing to an overarching truth.

The former, an amendment can't be unconstitutional. The latter, it can--assuming its meant as an affront to the "essence of the Constitution as a correlative entity".

I tend to think of a Constitutional Amendment as the ultimate in Constitutionality -- under either view of the Constitution you propose.

Under the second viewpoint, a ratified amendment changes the "overarching truth" to include the amendment and failed amendment simply confirms the "overarching truth."

Either way I can't see any way that a using a the method prescribed within the Constitution to modify the Constitution can be construed or represented as "unconstitutional" no matter how you twist the definition of what a "Constitution" is.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by Weird Harold
I tend to think of a Constitutional Amendment as the ultimate in Constitutionality -- under either view of the Constitution you propose.

Under the second viewpoint, a ratified amendment changes the "overarching truth" to include the amendment and failed amendment simply confirms the "overarching truth.

Well, actually, no amount of ratification would be able to change the "overarching truth" as it isn't a tangible thing that can be changed... in that view, there is only proximity to participation in the spirit of the Constitution.

Either way I can't see any way that a using a the method prescribed within the Constitution to modify the Constitution can be construed or represented as "unconstitutional" no matter how you twist the definition of what a "Constitution" is.

It's not really a matter of twisting the definition, so much as interpreting what the Document means. To appeal to "its a twisting of the definition" is to appeal to "the definition is solid and beyond reproach"... which, near as I've ever been told, it isn't yet.

 

[Weird Harold]

It's not really a matter of twisting the definition, so much as interpreting what the Document means. To appeal to "its a twisting of the definition" is to appeal to "the definition is solid and beyond reproach"... which, near as I've ever been told, it isn't yet.

Play with words in your ivory tower all you want, but what a document means is dependent on what it says. Changing what it says changes what it means.

Virtually every amendment to the Constitution has been opposed because it "would change the original intent" Whichis exactly why the Constitution has a provisions and procedures to change it written into it.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by Weird Harold
Play with words in your ivory tower all you want, but what a document means is dependent on what it says. Changing what it says changes what it means.

It's not my ivory tower, that's sort of just dismissive, isn't it? I'm just relating what those I know in the law community say, so I suppose its their "ivory tower". But as its their field and they are, without a doubt, more informed than I am... I'm not sure I can dismiss it as their simply being linguistically elitist.

Virtually every amendment to the Constitution has been opposed because it "would change the original intent" Whichis exactly why the Constitution has a provisions and procedures to change it written into it.

Sure, but the grounds on which "original intent" are the question, aren't they? Is it a literal document (group 1) or an interpretive document (group 2)? That's a tough one.

 

[Pure]

Ami, Backers of the ERA, new and old, wish to create a 'new' privileged class of rights for women only. It has once and will again be shown to be unconstitutional.

An AMENDMENT *is* unconstitutional!!! Why else is it proposed, if its principle is somehow 'there' to begin with???

The phrase 'bag of hammers' comes to mind.

WeirdH nailed this pretty damn well, obfuscation** of Joe notwithstanding.

-----
**
(2) the Constitution is an interpretive document appealing to an overarching truth.

This makes about as much sense as
"The Constitution is an entity of translogical abstraction, at times adventitiously divorced, by virtue of its essential being, from documentary actuality."

 

[Pure]

Sher,

That was a moving account of your losing your anal virginity to the acolytes of the religious right. I think many of us, in the 60s, thought the beast** was subdued, confined, even on the run. The ERA defeat showed where the majority actually were.

To illustrate the difference between Canada and the US, mentioned in another current thread. The women of Canada saw a draft of the Charter of Rights, and found it said too little, in terms of the phrase 'under the law'. (I.e., there were court decisions saying "well, though the law is biased in its conception; all women are treated 'equally' under it." Or "equality of consideration in enforcing a law is not a right to equal benefit."

Hence they lobbied for TWO passages, reading as follows.

"Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability."

FURTHER, to nail down the point, very late in the Charter, and applying to the whole thing is the sentence:

28 "Notwithstanding anything in this Charter, the rights and freedoms referred to in it are guaranteed equally to male and female persons."

IOW, the sex equality right is not 'trumped' by, say an alleged male 'property right' to 'his' offspring.

Probably a number of western countries have just as strong assurances in the 'organic' law.

If you look at the long arc, it begins somewhere around the time of your disillusion. It has hardly peaked, imo. Unless you're getting more into Southern Baptist-ry, be afraid.

One might add, that the religious right is very strong to begin with; agitated/stirred by and linked with, by the neocons, you have an UNHOLY alliance of formidable potential.

-----
**The same beast stirred by the Taliban, for that matter.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

http://www.now.org/issues/economic/cea/concept.html

CONCEPTS AND DEFINITION OF TERMS USED TO CONSTRUCT
THE CONSTITUTIONAL EQUALITY AMENDMENT (CEA)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The following was prepared as a summary explanation of key concerns underpinning the working draft language of the CEA adopted by the membership of the National Organization for Women at its annual conference in July 1995. This paper originated as an aid in the debate at that conference and has been expanded to include more perspectives and issues. This is not a complete discussion and is offered only as an aid for understanding and discussion that will continue to evolve. Under each section is an explanation of particular words and/or concepts that were chosen and what potential pros and cons exist regarding each choice. The CEA
Section1
Section2
Section3
Section4
Section5
Section6
Section7
The Process
The Standard of Review


THE CEA:

"Section 1. Women and men shall have equal rights throughout the United States and every place and entity subject to its jurisdiction; through this article, the subordination of women to men is abolished;"

"Women and men" is used to describe all "persons" while putting "women" into the Constitution for the first time. The 19th Amendment for women's suffrage only states that the right to vote shall not be denied or abridged on account of sex. "Women and men" was also chosen as opposed to "men and women" to insure we began in the right frame of mind.

"shall have equal rights" adopts the 1923 affirmative language of Alice Paul's original Equal Rights Amendment and rejects the language "equal rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged" in the 1943 Paul ERA which became the language in the 1972 ERA. In addition, rejecting "under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state" removes the passive tense and the requirement the ERA apply only to state action. This means that the provision may be read to challenge a private discriminatory action, i.e. by business and corporations, without a requirement that state action was involved.

"throughout the United States and every place and entity subject to its jurisdiction" is intended to reach all government entities and also the operation of any entity including U.S. businesses and entities outside the geographic confines of the U.S.

"the subordination of women to men is abolished" was modeled on the 13th Amendment (abolishing slavery) and intended to flag the issue that sex inequality is about power differences as well as all other distinctions based on sex.

"Section 2. All persons shall have equal rights and privileges without discrimination on account of sex, race, sexual orientation, marital status, ethnicity, national origin, color or indigence;" (see also Sec. 4)

"All persons shall have equal rights and privileges" was chosen because it is affirmative ("shall have") and extends beyond rights to include privileges ("rights and privileges"). The term "immunities" was left out because it has been rendered legally meaningless. The term "liberty" was not included because it was viewed as unnecessary and had the potential to be interpreted to extend to men the right to control women's reproductive choice- making as discussed below in Section 3.

The protected categories listed are included to reflect the Resolution from the 1994 NOW Conference calling for this action on the ERA and the Majority Report for the January 1995 NOW ERA Summit, both of which expressed the desire for an expansive equality standard and explicit inclusion of a variety of protected categories of persons. The categories listed were adopted at the 1995 National Convention. The rationale for not listing other specific categories is discussed below. It is our desire that all categories listed be subject to the highest standard of judicial review as discussed under Section 6. Further discussion is necessary for several categories. Many categories already exist in ERAs in State Constitutions.

"Sex" is a biological characteristic and not a social construction. "Gender" was not chosen because gender connotes a socially imposed sex-role. One cannot discuss "gender" issues without reference to stereotypes according to biological sex identification. Stereotypes are explicitly addressed in Section 4.

"Race" denotes certain, common and distinguishing physical characteristics constituting a comprehensive class appearing to be derived from a distinct historic source. We are aware debate exists as the whether race does indeed exist, and therefore include further classes such as ethnicity, national origin and color.

"Sexual Orientation" specifically includes lesbian and gay, bisexual and heterosexual people.

"Marital Status" was included because of the current and historical discrimination against women because of their marital status. Historically, women were seen as their husband's property incapable of owning their own property or conducting their own business. Currently, single women are discriminated against in many areas such as reproduction and employment benefits. Example: in some areas only married women may be artificially inseminated; single women employees may only be able to list husbands or children as beneficiaries in company retirement plans and not parents or siblings.

"Ethnicity" denotes classification or affiliation with a group of people having common customs, characteristics, language, etc.

"National Origin" refers to immigrants, legal and illegal.

"Color" refers to skin pigmentation characteristic of race, ethnicity or national origin.

"Indigence" reflects concern that some members of all the above listed categories are additionally oppressed by impoverishment as a consequence of power inequality. One example is the exclusion of abortion from Medicaid funding. Terms such as "class" or "wealth" or "economic status" may be interpreted to forbid any differences in treatment based on economic circumstance, such as a graduated tax which imposes an obligation for those with greater means to pay a higher percentage of income to tax. Thus, such general terms may not accurately reflect the intent to remedy power inequality.

"Section 3. This article prohibits pregnancy discrimination and guarantees the absolute right of a woman to make her own reproductive decisions including the termination of pregnancy;"

The entire section was included to reverse the current U.S. Supreme Court's interpretation that sex discrimination excludes discrimination based on pregnancy and pregnancy-related conditions. It was also included to make clear, as directed by the 1994 Resolution and implemented by the 1995 NOW ERA Summit Majority Report, that equality considerations include women's reproductive freedom.

"including the termination of pregnancy" was included to avoid any ambiguity on the subject of a woman's right to choose an abortion. The woman-centered language of Section 3 was chosen to address the problem that infringement on reproductive rights is mostly aimed at women's reproduction.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`

A supposed 'new' ERA...that goes back door for abortion rights and gay rights....clever liberals, these...

and you wonder why it is an issue that rational people do not wish to be part of the Constitution?

The 14th amendment is sufficient in that "...no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the priviliges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law..."

Backers of the ERA, new and old, wish to create a 'new' privileged class of rights for women only. It has once and will again be shown to be unconstitutional.

amicus....

Just a note, had it passed, it could never be shown to be unconstitutional as it would be part of the onstitution. Similarly, a federal amendment banning gay marriage removes any hope of judicial review. Unlike a law, an amendment becomes part of the constitution, thus making itself the standard by whoich things are judged, rather than being judged itself.

 

[OldnotDead]

Some observations

It's been a long time, but if I remember correctly, the only way they could get the votes needed to pass the ERA was to include a time limit for adoption. Congress was heavily Democratic at the time, but within each party there was more variation. You still had a decent contingent of 'Dixiecrats'.

This was not a clear cut Conservative vs Liberal issue, either. There was a fairly large moderate crowd that thought, as most now agree, that the Constitution already provided for equality under the law and judicial rulings were certainly echoing that.

I would politely disagree with Sher's observation that ERA died a death that was dramatic and meaningful. My own recollection was that no one could get the remaining legislatures necessary excited enough to even consider it. Too much had already been done. Yes, there were some loud cries about the expiration, but for a lot of the populace it was a non event.

Finally, I would also suggest that the implicit comparison to gay marriage ammendment is somewhat disengenous. ERA should have been passed because it really was benign. It truly was unnecessary and passing it, by the time it expired, would not have changed much. Well, actually it might have let ME sue for discrimination as I could argue for 'protected class' status that is currently only afforded Women and Minorities in Federal Courts. Further, I have seen one argument, that is strictly hypothetical, that says if ERA had passed all the Federal advantages that are currently afforded Women owned small businesses, would be illegal.

The point is that ERA EXTENDED protection, it did not limit it, nor restrict action.

The Gay Marriage Amendment (US) is about imposing a National restriction on an institution that, until now, has been strictly State regulated. Part of the discussion reverts back to the same States Rights issues that predate the Civil War. While the country is over 70% opposed to Gay Marriage being legalized, there is less than a national majority that supports a Constitutional Amendment.

The individual state initiatives that passed are of various strengths and some are at the Constitutional Level, others not. I personally believe the Gay person who is upset at being singled out has far more reason to be concerned than any woman did at the time ERA lapsed.

At the same time, being an optimist, I note the lack of national support for such a US amendment. I also note that it seems the trigger is MARRIAGE and its tie through religion as a Sacrament to most people. While the huge 70% number that shows up against Gay Marriage, a majority in fact, SUPPORT civil unions. When the pollsters dare to delve a little deeper, there are actually a fairly small minority that do not want to allow the LEGAL benefits of marriage to acrue to same sex couples.

It's my belief that the majority of religious US citizens have not liked the removal of religion from daily lives in the name of separation of chuch and state. While we're talking constitutionally, it is important to remember that the constitutional restriction is only against the establishment of a specific state supported religion as the Church of England is and as we had in 8 of the original 13 Colonies. (Basically the Anglicans in the Southern Colonies and the Quakers in PA were not about to let the US become Puritan). At the same time, contrary to popular belief among the non attending, the majority of religious US citizens do not want to force anyone to become religous or do religous things. Most people recognize our freedom as freedom of CHOICE.

At the same time, there is a significant majority of religious that do not like the constant picking at every little thing to eliminate any recognition of the importance of faith and spirituality. It is only an observation that on this issue, I think we have come upon the proverbial 'line in the sand' where Marriage as a Sacrament is going to be defended. I may be wrong about this, but when you look at the difference between 'marriage', 'civil unions' and 'legal rights' within the exact same question, there is very strong evidence that there are some very strong feelings.

IF I were offering strategic advice I would suggest the following to both sides: Religious folks are probably going to be able to defend 'marriage' if that's what they want. They will not be able to keep the legal benefits and recognition out of same sex partnerships.

 

[Guest]

A supposed 'new' ERA...that goes back door for abortion rights and gay rights....clever liberals, these...

and you wonder why it is an issue that rational people do not wish to be part of the Constitution?

The 14th amendment is sufficient in that "...no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the priviliges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law..."

Backers of the ERA, new and old, wish to create a 'new' privileged class of rights for women only. It has once and will again be shown to be unconstitutional.

amicus....

How nice to see ami out of his mothballs this morning. (Brush off the cobwebs- ya missed a spot.)

 

[Pure]

out of the mothballs, yes, but highly confused.

here, amicus is praising the 14th amendment which arguably *increased* the power of the federal gov more than any other! indeed it's one of the foundations of Roe v Wade which he also opposes.