Even the extremist Men's Rights groups support the Equal Rights Amendment

[LJ_Reloaded]

Sorry I made your heads explode.

http://www.welmer.org/2009/04/16/a-new-look-at-the-era-men-and-the-equal-rights-amendment/

The status quo that emerged in the 1990s has largely remained. Most ordinary men have been relegated to second-class citizens in their own homes and in the workplace, forced to walk on eggshells lest they get slammed with one or another allegation that could send them into the street overnight. Defeated men have begun to avoid marriage and commitment, and rather than take up traditional roles and responsibilities have been leading lives of carefree dissipation or quiet desperation.

Of course, it is up to men to do what they want with their lives. Given what men have been through over the last few decades, the last thing they need is more abuse, punishment or criticism. A man’s life should be his own, and, with due respect for the rights of others, he should live it as he pleases. But to be truly free, discrimination against men in the workforce in the form of affirmative action and discrimination against men in the family in the form of unfair divorce laws and VAWA should be eliminated. The ERA can do that. Every single provision of VAWA that gives superior rights to women could be gutted with these simple lines:

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.

Supporting the ERA may require a shift in perspective for some men. It may seem radical, but given the circumstances we find ourselves in, it is our best shot at righting some of the wrongs of the past several decades. If men do not demand equality under the law, we will only see a further erosion of our constitutional rights and be driven ever further toward the abyss of slavery.

 

[GradeACdnBeef]

Sorry I made your heads explode.

http://www.welmer.org/2009/04/16/a-new-look-at-the-era-men-and-the-equal-rights-amendment/

The status quo that emerged in the 1990s has largely remained. Most ordinary men have been relegated to second-class citizens in their own homes and in the workplace, forced to walk on eggshells lest they get slammed with one or another allegation that could send them into the street overnight. Defeated men have begun to avoid marriage and commitment, and rather than take up traditional roles and responsibilities have been leading lives of carefree dissipation or quiet desperation.

Of course, it is up to men to do what they want with their lives. Given what men have been through over the last few decades, the last thing they need is more abuse, punishment or criticism. A man’s life should be his own, and, with due respect for the rights of others, he should live it as he pleases. But to be truly free, discrimination against men in the workforce in the form of affirmative action and discrimination against men in the family in the form of unfair divorce laws and VAWA should be eliminated. The ERA can do that. Every single provision of VAWA that gives superior rights to women could be gutted with these simple lines:



Supporting the ERA may require a shift in perspective for some men. It may seem radical, but given the circumstances we find ourselves in, it is our best shot at righting some of the wrongs of the past several decades. If men do not demand equality under the law, we will only see a further erosion of our constitutional rights and be driven ever further toward the abyss of slavery.

I'm actually surprised it hasn't actually been passed. On the other hand RJ I remember reading a judgment from a court in Canada (hang with me, I'll get there) where a man and wife went to the courts to have the unfair way of income tax changed. You see, if you don't declare yourself as common law, you can pay taxes separately as roommates and you end up with a lower tax since 'household' income is not considered. If you're married, it's household income.

Anyway, the judge of course agree that yes the law was skewed. Did that mean the judgment changed the tax is levied? Nope. "It is my judgment that since married couples have not traditionally been discriminated against that you are therefore not being discriminated against."

Nice, huh? Do you think it's different in the US? The US has tried these 'anti-discrimination laws' from time to time. Jim Crow... oh let's not get into all that. It's been back and forth between forcing people to be together and forcing them to stay apart. The bottom line is a new law doesn't change people. If You don't wan't to do business with a certain enthnic group, then it's your loss. Someone will offer the service if you don't and if you're looking for help, you'll have to find someone else to do the job for you.

Personally, I think it's time to try freedom and let everyone associate with who they want to associate. If they don't want to associate with me for whatver reason (I wear fedora's sometimes) then who cares. I'd rather know who they are and not waste my time on them either.

The very idea of positive discrimination is just discrimination after all. Every issue dealt with on it's own merits. That's my motto. Unfortunately, that's not very likely to happen with steam rolling legislators an courts.

Politics is politics. Giving power to government is like giving car keys and a bottle of scotch to an unruly teen.