Daily Kos

What we haven't heard, could it be the ERA?

Thu Jun 21, 2007 at 04:01:25 PM PDT

As the 110th Congress took their seats in January 2007, they've promised the American voters many things.  Increasing the minimum wage, holding the administration accountable, work to end the war, and many other issues, that were fed to the msm.  As the nation was focused on failed referendums and bills with no teeth, something that never was announced publicly was introduced.

With the debate on reproductive rights, abortion and the erosion of women's rights raging on, not sure how we could have missed this one. I checked the archives and couldn't find it.  I looked for news articles and couldn't find it.  You ask what it is, come with me and I'll tell you.

Let me tease you a little before I blurt it out.  I'm a major proponent for IT since I could remember.  When I was young, I couldn't understand why this no-brainer idea was having such an opposition to IT.  IT was introduced, but never ratified.  

Now I sit here and hold my breath.  Could it be that we'll finally see IT?  There will be opposition to IT, especially from groups like the Concerned Women for America.  We've progressed, haven't we, we can get this passed and move forward, right?  Still I hold my breath.

IT is House Joint Resolution 40 and Senate Joint Resolution 10, introduced March 27, 2007.

JOINT RESOLUTION
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to equal rights for men and women.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States:

Currently it's sitting in the office of the Committee on Judiciary.  It will have a long way to go, it must get past committee first.  My heart is pounding, I'll hold my breath and keep my fingers crossed.  Maybe, just maybe, it's time.  

H.J. Res 40
S.J. Res 10

Updated to include the lists of names in both in the House and Senate:

Senate:

Mr. KENNEDY (for himself, Mr. KERRY, Mrs. BOXER, Mr. HARKIN, Mr. LAUTENBERG, Mr. DODD, Mr. LIEBERMAN, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Ms. MIKULSKI, Mr. BROWN, Mr. DURBIN, Mr. SCHUMER, Ms. CANTWELL, Mr. BIDEN, Mr. LEVIN, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mrs. MURRAY, Mrs. CLINTON, Mr. FEINGOLD, Ms. STABENOW, and Mr. WHITEHOUSE) introduced the following joint resolution; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

House:

Mrs. MALONEY of New York (for herself, Mr. NADLER, Mr. DINGELL, Ms. VELAZQUEZ, Ms. CLARKE, Ms. WOOLSEY, Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas, Ms. SOLIS, Mr. ABERCROMBIE, Mr. ACKERMAN, Mr. ALLEN, Mr. ANDREWS, Mr. ARCURI, Mr. BACA, Mr. BAIRD, Ms. BALDWIN, Ms. BEAN, Mr. BECERRA, Ms. BERKLEY, Mr. BERMAN, Mr. BERRY, Mrs. BIGGERT, Mr. BISHOP of Georgia, Mr. BISHOP of New York, Mr. BLUMENAUER, Ms. BORDALLO, Mr. BOSWELL, Mr. BOUCHER, Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania, Mr. BRALEY of Iowa, Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida, Mr. BUTTERFIELD, Mrs. CAPPS, Mr. CAPUANO, Mr. CARDOZA, Mr. CARNAHAN, Ms. CARSON, Mr. CASTLE, Ms. CASTOR, Mr. CHANDLER, Mrs. CHRISTENSEN, Mr. CLAY, Mr. CLEAVER, Mr. CLYBURN, Mr. CONYERS, Mr. COOPER, Mr. COSTA, Mr. COSTELLO, Mr. CROWLEY, Mr. CUELLAR, Mr. CUMMINGS, Mr. DAVIS of Alabama, Mr. DAVIS of Illinois, Mrs. DAVIS of California, Mr. DEFAZIO, Ms. DEGETTE, Mr. DELAHUNT, Ms. DELAURO, Mr. DICKS, Mr. DOGGETT, Mr. DOYLE, Mr. EDWARDS, Mr. ELLISON, Mr. EMANUEL, Mr. ENGEL, Ms. ESHOO, Mr. FARR, Mr. FATTAH, Mr. FILNER, Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts, Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN, Mrs. GILLIBRAND, Mr. GONZALEZ, Mr. AL GREEN of Texas, Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas, Mr. GRIJALVA, Mr. GUTIERREZ, Mr. HALL of New York, Mr. HALL of Texas, Mr. HARE, Ms. HARMAN, Mr. HASTINGS of Florida, Ms. HERSETH, Mr. HIGGINS, Mr. HINCHEY, Mr. HINOJOSA, Ms. HIRONO, Mr. HOLT, Mr. HONDA, Ms. HOOLEY, Mr. HOYER, Mr. INSLEE, Mr. ISRAEL, Mr. JACKSON of Illinois, Mr. JEFFERSON, Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas, Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia, Mrs. JONES of Ohio, Ms. KAPTUR, Mr. KENNEDY, Mr. KILDEE, Ms. KILPATRICK, Mr. KIND, Mr. KIRK, Mr. KLEIN of Florida, Mr. KUCINICH, Mr. LANGEVIN, Mr. LANTOS, Mr. LATHAM, Ms. LEE, Mr. LEVIN, Mr. LEWIS of Georgia, Mr. LOBIONDO, Mr. LOEBSACK, Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California, Mrs. LOWEY, Mr. LYNCH, Mr. MARKEY, Ms. MATSUI, Mrs. MCCARTHY of New York, Ms. MCCOLLUM of Minnesota, Mr. MCDERMOTT, Mr. MCGOVERN, Mr. MCINTYRE, Mr. MCNERNEY, Mr. MCNULTY, Mr. MEEHAN, Mr. MEEK of Florida, Mr. MEEKS of New York, Mr. MELANCON, Mr. MICHAUD, Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD, Mr. MILLER of North Carolina, Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California, Mr. MOORE of Kansas, Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin, Mr. MORAN of Virginia, Mrs. NAPOLITANO, Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts, Ms. NORTON, Mr. OLVER, Mr. ORTIZ, Mr. PALLONE, Mr. PASCRELL, Mr. PASTOR, Mr. PAYNE, Mr. PERLMUTTER, Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota, Mr. PRICE of North Carolina, Ms. PRYCE of Ohio, Mr. RAHALL, Mr. RAMSTAD, Mr. RANGEL, Mr. REYES, Mr. ROTHMAN, Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD, Mr. RUPPERSBERGER, Mr. RUSH, Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California, Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California, Ms. SCHAKOWSKY, Mr. SCHIFF, Ms. SCHWARTZ, Mr. SCOTT of Georgia, Mr. SERRANO, Mr. SHAYS, Ms. SHEA-PORTER, Mr. SHERMAN, Mr. SIRES, Ms. SLAUGHTER, Mr. SMITH of Washington, Mr. SNYDER, Mr. SPRATT, Mr. STARK, Ms. SUTTON, Mrs. TAUSCHER, Mr. TAYLOR, Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi, Mr. THOMPSON of California, Mr. TIERNEY, Mr. TOWNS, Mr. UDALL of Colorado, Mr. VAN HOLLEN, Mr. WALZ of Minnesota, Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Ms. WATERS, Ms. WATSON, Mr. WATT, Mr. WAXMAN, Mr. WEINER, Mr. WEXLER, Mr. WU, and Mr. WYNN) introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

Tags: Equal Rights Amendment, equality, civil rights (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 43 comments

    •  This is Great! (2+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      Mother of Zeus, mpwife

      If it gets out of Congress it will put the Reigious Right on the defensive. A lot of water has gone under the bridge since the ERA was last killed and I think there are several generations of younger folks who will be surpised to discover that anybody opposes it. It could have a suprisingly divisive effect among conservatives. So aside from its own intrinsic merits it has the virtue of moving the Overton window.

      Sick of candidate diaries? Kasama!
      "Tell no lies. Claim no easy victories" -- Amilcar Cabral

      by Christopher Day on Thu Jun 21, 2007 at 06:22:25 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  "equal rights for men and women" (4+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    TeresaInPa, scoff0165, pfiore8, mpwife

    How about the rest of us?

    •  Robyn (2+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      rserven, mpwife

      can't we have you on our team?
      Okay, I know what you mean, but by law all people will fit somewhere will they not?

    •  It would be what you identify as (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      blueyedace2

      It doesn't state biological male or female.  If it's done under Bush's watch though he may want to add an amendment to legally define what male and female are.  

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

      SJ res 10

    •  We (all of us Robyn) have equal rights (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      mpwife

      The Constitution, the laws and rights contained therein, applies to all...  and I've always thought this...

      And if we're going to pass an ERA, the we need to add a few things. Like CEOs can't drain benefits from employees by receiving hundreds of millions of dollars in pay/year. Let's add in there that ERA means worker safety. Hey, and how about truth in advertising, product safety... equal rights? And equal rights means a company can't make profits, poison my drinking water, and not pay to clean it up.

      Equal rights???? To me, when my gov't starts advocating for its citizens and their interests above power and big corporations, then we all will have equal rights.

      In addition, I would be very leery that this congress, in light of everything we know about them, suddenly wants to put this forth...

      the amendment we need is the ability to recall our senators and congressmen, and to keep three branches of gov't equal.

      and maybe, cause i can hear it coming, we need an amendment about a NET NEUTRALITY...  listen to Fox, read Blair's speech from today, LISTEN... because they will try and we better have a strategy to smack them down.

      "Well we don't rent pigs and I figure it's better to say it right out front because a man that does like to rent pigs is... he's hard to stop" Gus McCrae

      by pfiore8 on Thu Jun 21, 2007 at 04:34:57 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  This means rolling back the repeals (3+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        TeresaInPa, rocketito, pfiore8

        that the Bushites put in place, which I'm all for.  I agree with your points, but women have been fighting for Equal Rights collectively since the convention in Seneca NY in 1848.

        •  We still have a lot to fight for though (2+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          TeresaInPa, pfiore8

          this is just one that we finally need to put to rest.

          •  I understand what you mean (1+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            mpwife

            but I have always shuddered at the idea that women need an amendment to provide rights that already, in my mind, exist. and it's not just women, but  and as Robyn says, what about her status? Or gay men and women?

            If we insist that the Constitution means ME and Robyn and all American citizens, then we are okay.

            These are questions I've asked for many years... and not till these past years with Bush have I realized that what we need is better gov't. All the laws in the world and all the amendments aren't more than ink on paper. Just look at SCOTUS... they have perverted worker safety, and just came down with a ruling that investors don't have much standing. And what about predatory lending? mpwife, you and I could fill every blog on every website with the assaults on middle class america.

            We have the laws and the social ethic. We need the better values, less religious zealots, and better government.

            "Well we don't rent pigs and I figure it's better to say it right out front because a man that does like to rent pigs is... he's hard to stop" Gus McCrae

            by pfiore8 on Thu Jun 21, 2007 at 05:38:30 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  If the 14th Amendment held true (1+ / 0-)

              Recommended by:
              pfiore8

              Then we wouldn't have needed the 19th Amendment giving women the right to vote. Nor would we need special laws to prevent discrimination based off of gender, regardless of the gender.  

              If the ERA is in place, there's no loopholes for the SCOTUS and it's conservative judges to warp a law or an action, like the timely filing of suits for fair wages.  

              Nor would there have been laws like the one in Newberry County SC where it was legal to beat your wife with a stick on the courthouse steps on a Sunday.

              •  that's my point: we had the 14th (0+ / 0-)

                we have what we need...it's not needing more defination, it's needing better gov't and the other thing... and here goes

                but who's been raising the children??? women... so we have something of an inside track, here...

                you know something. it's exhausting trying to save the world. it's simple:

                respect each other. celebrate ourselves and those we love. don't overeat, but enjoy your food and feel free to eat stringbeans with your fingers.  and for god's sakes, don't smoke. enjoy making love and, every once-in-a-while, have some hot sex too... enjoy your kids and play!!!!!!!!!!!! ... live with less cause you have less anxiety and you're freer. and make sure your house accommodates the humans, pooties, and pooches living there (nothing against fish, hamsters et al)...

                and let's all take a re-read on the consitution... because what we need is mostly in there... except for that net neutrality stuff, which i did read, Bill of Portland Maine.

                hey mpwife... i don't know have any answers...  but i do know that if women in america would be happy for this, then i would be happy for them... and support them...

                warm regards... pf8

                "Well we don't rent pigs and I figure it's better to say it right out front because a man that does like to rent pigs is... he's hard to stop" Gus McCrae

                by pfiore8 on Thu Jun 21, 2007 at 05:57:36 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  And yes, we could (1+ / 0-)

              Recommended by:
              pfiore8

              We need government reform, but that's only going to come with empowerment to the people.  When our Congressmen and women quit working for special interest groups and start working for the people who actually pay them.

        •  and isn't it something? (0+ / 0-)

          that I think my own gov't has ulterior motives for pushing this now? what if it some see it as defining SEX/Gender? What if ... maybe i'm being paranoid, but i never like things that don't make sense.

          and at a time when zealots are asserting that women should support their husbands and look like June Cleaver... and trying to stop all forms of birth control, endiing choice about pregnancy... stem cells... trying to kill public education... i COULD go on for days...

          i'm saying to myself: What are these clowns up to? If this had been under Clinton, well not a second thought. Other than thinking we already had the rights, but i would have thought, well that's nice.

          Do you know what I mean? I do realize I could be more overdone than the holiday turkey (can you even overcook turkey), but something about it that just doesn't jive...

          I always enjoy your diaries... and thanks mpwife for not having a knee-jerk reaction and understanding what i'm [trying] to say... appreciated!!!

          "Well we don't rent pigs and I figure it's better to say it right out front because a man that does like to rent pigs is... he's hard to stop" Gus McCrae

          by pfiore8 on Thu Jun 21, 2007 at 05:49:28 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Do you know who is responsible (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    blueyedace2, mpwife

    for this making a comeback?

    •  Not David Obey (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      blueyedace2

      But a whole shitload of house reps and quite a few senators.  Guess I should update the story.

        •  Here's the list (3+ / 0-)

          From the Senate:

          Mr. KENNEDY (for himself, Mr. KERRY, Mrs. BOXER, Mr. HARKIN, Mr. LAUTENBERG, Mr. DODD, Mr. LIEBERMAN, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Ms. MIKULSKI, Mr. BROWN, Mr. DURBIN, Mr. SCHUMER, Ms. CANTWELL, Mr. BIDEN, Mr. LEVIN, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mrs. MURRAY, Mrs. CLINTON, Mr. FEINGOLD, Ms. STABENOW, and Mr. WHITEHOUSE) introduced the following joint resolution; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

          From the House:

          Mrs. MALONEY of New York (for herself, Mr. NADLER, Mr. DINGELL, Ms. VELAZQUEZ, Ms. CLARKE, Ms. WOOLSEY, Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas, Ms. SOLIS, Mr. ABERCROMBIE, Mr. ACKERMAN, Mr. ALLEN, Mr. ANDREWS, Mr. ARCURI, Mr. BACA, Mr. BAIRD, Ms. BALDWIN, Ms. BEAN, Mr. BECERRA, Ms. BERKLEY, Mr. BERMAN, Mr. BERRY, Mrs. BIGGERT, Mr. BISHOP of Georgia, Mr. BISHOP of New York, Mr. BLUMENAUER, Ms. BORDALLO, Mr. BOSWELL, Mr. BOUCHER, Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania, Mr. BRALEY of Iowa, Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida, Mr. BUTTERFIELD, Mrs. CAPPS, Mr. CAPUANO, Mr. CARDOZA, Mr. CARNAHAN, Ms. CARSON, Mr. CASTLE, Ms. CASTOR, Mr. CHANDLER, Mrs. CHRISTENSEN, Mr. CLAY, Mr. CLEAVER, Mr. CLYBURN, Mr. CONYERS, Mr. COOPER, Mr. COSTA, Mr. COSTELLO, Mr. CROWLEY, Mr. CUELLAR, Mr. CUMMINGS, Mr. DAVIS of Alabama, Mr. DAVIS of Illinois, Mrs. DAVIS of California, Mr. DEFAZIO, Ms. DEGETTE, Mr. DELAHUNT, Ms. DELAURO, Mr. DICKS, Mr. DOGGETT, Mr. DOYLE, Mr. EDWARDS, Mr. ELLISON, Mr. EMANUEL, Mr. ENGEL, Ms. ESHOO, Mr. FARR, Mr. FATTAH, Mr. FILNER, Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts, Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN, Mrs. GILLIBRAND, Mr. GONZALEZ, Mr. AL GREEN of Texas, Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas, Mr. GRIJALVA, Mr. GUTIERREZ, Mr. HALL of New York, Mr. HALL of Texas, Mr. HARE, Ms. HARMAN, Mr. HASTINGS of Florida, Ms. HERSETH, Mr. HIGGINS, Mr. HINCHEY, Mr. HINOJOSA, Ms. HIRONO, Mr. HOLT, Mr. HONDA, Ms. HOOLEY, Mr. HOYER, Mr. INSLEE, Mr. ISRAEL, Mr. JACKSON of Illinois, Mr. JEFFERSON, Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas, Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia, Mrs. JONES of Ohio, Ms. KAPTUR, Mr. KENNEDY, Mr. KILDEE, Ms. KILPATRICK, Mr. KIND, Mr. KIRK, Mr. KLEIN of Florida, Mr. KUCINICH, Mr. LANGEVIN, Mr. LANTOS, Mr. LATHAM, Ms. LEE, Mr. LEVIN, Mr. LEWIS of Georgia, Mr. LOBIONDO, Mr. LOEBSACK, Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California, Mrs. LOWEY, Mr. LYNCH, Mr. MARKEY, Ms. MATSUI, Mrs. MCCARTHY of New York, Ms. MCCOLLUM of Minnesota, Mr. MCDERMOTT, Mr. MCGOVERN, Mr. MCINTYRE, Mr. MCNERNEY, Mr. MCNULTY, Mr. MEEHAN, Mr. MEEK of Florida, Mr. MEEKS of New York, Mr. MELANCON, Mr. MICHAUD, Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD, Mr. MILLER of North Carolina, Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California, Mr. MOORE of Kansas, Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin, Mr. MORAN of Virginia, Mrs. NAPOLITANO, Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts, Ms. NORTON, Mr. OLVER, Mr. ORTIZ, Mr. PALLONE, Mr. PASCRELL, Mr. PASTOR, Mr. PAYNE, Mr. PERLMUTTER, Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota, Mr. PRICE of North Carolina, Ms. PRYCE of Ohio, Mr. RAHALL, Mr. RAMSTAD, Mr. RANGEL, Mr. REYES, Mr. ROTHMAN, Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD, Mr. RUPPERSBERGER, Mr. RUSH, Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California, Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California, Ms. SCHAKOWSKY, Mr. SCHIFF, Ms. SCHWARTZ, Mr. SCOTT of Georgia, Mr. SERRANO, Mr. SHAYS, Ms. SHEA-PORTER, Mr. SHERMAN, Mr. SIRES, Ms. SLAUGHTER, Mr. SMITH of Washington, Mr. SNYDER, Mr. SPRATT, Mr. STARK, Ms. SUTTON, Mrs. TAUSCHER, Mr. TAYLOR, Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi, Mr. THOMPSON of California, Mr. TIERNEY, Mr. TOWNS, Mr. UDALL of Colorado, Mr. VAN HOLLEN, Mr. WALZ of Minnesota, Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Ms. WATERS, Ms. WATSON, Mr. WATT, Mr. WAXMAN, Mr. WEINER, Mr. WEXLER, Mr. WU, and Mr. WYNN) introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

  •  The time for ratifying the original ERA (3+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    rocketito, scoff0165, mpwife

    expired in 1982 (or before), and it has been re-introduced in every Congress since 1982.

    Do not hold your breath.

    •  It may have been reintroduced but did it make it (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      TeresaInPa

      out of committee and to the states to ratify?  The 110th Congress has a record number of females in the House, it's a first that a woman ever held the Speaker of the House position and there's a strong female candidate running for President.

      It may just be time.

      •  21 Senators seems awfully short (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        mpwife

        of 67.

        •  True (3+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          TeresaInPa, count, scoff0165

          but this is where women's voices must come together collectively and get it accomplished.

          We have women who hold offices in our local, state and federal government.

          We have women serving in combat zones.

          We have women who are raising fine young men on their own.

          We have young women who will be making significant contributions to the future of this country, yet they can't have the same rights that men enjoy?

          •  I want to make clear (0+ / 0-)

            that I'm not against the ERA. I think it's very important, and I agree that the current situation in its absence isn't acceptable.

            It'll be a heck of a struggle, though.

            So - Dem and Rep candidates, what do you all think about this? (I really want to hear the publicans debate it.)

            By the way, Ben Cardin is one of my Senators now. That guy is beginning to really tick me off - even though he could still add his name as a co-sponsor, he should be on board already.

    •  It has been introduced in every Congress (2+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      Cecrops Tangaroa, count, mpwife

      since 1923.

      But hey.  They're busy.  

      Babe, you're just a wave, you're not the water. --Jimmie Dale Gilmore

      by rocketito on Thu Jun 21, 2007 at 04:55:21 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Eh, they've had a republican Congress (2+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        TeresaInPa, rocketito

        since, what, 94?  Times change.

        •  Times do change (2+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          count, mpwife

          The states would be an even bigger hurdle than before, imo.  

          Don't get me wrong.  I'm a feminist and vividly remember crying as a kid when the ERA ratification period expired.  To me there is nothing more important than fully enfranchising 52% of the people.  But it is going to be a long time before we can get an Arizona or a Mississippi to vote for ratification.  Hell, I'm concerned that if Texans find out it passed here that they'll grandstand a vote to get rid of it.  

          Babe, you're just a wave, you're not the water. --Jimmie Dale Gilmore

          by rocketito on Thu Jun 21, 2007 at 05:22:58 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yeah it needs 38 states to ratify (0+ / 0-)

            But this time we at least have a chance to get it out of the congress again.

            The arguments that the anti-era crowd is using is that we have the 14th amendment and a patchwork of laws that guarantee women rights but those laws can be removed without recourse.  If the 14th Amendment actually guaranteed all citizens the same freedom, the 19th Amendment wouldn't be needed, nor would we need "special" laws.

            •  The other thing... (2+ / 0-)

              Recommended by:
              count, mpwife

              ...is that state ratification would be caught up in the same-sex marriage debate, as state ERAs have been the mechanism in Hawaii, Vermont, and Massachusetts for requiring recognition of same-sex relationships.  Which, given how many states have responded by writing discrimination into their constitutions, suggests ratification would be a tough sell until the issue defuses a bit.  Which is another reason the lack of a time limit for ratification is a good thing.

              •  That's going to be the saving grace for this (0+ / 0-)

                Yes it will end up being beneficial to same sex marriages.  And they can no longer deny child custody to gay and lesbian parents based on their sexual preference.  It's going to be a tough sell, but indeed the lack of time for ratification will keep the ERA on the table.  

                •  I think Curufinwe said the opposite, (2+ / 0-)

                  Recommended by:
                  Curufinwe, mpwife

                  if I understand you correctly. The prospect that ERA would force recognition of same-gender marriage, acceptance of homosexual foster parents, adoptive parents, and child custody would generate tremendous opposition. This was discussed at length in 2004 during the "Family Marriage" amendment debates.

                  Of course, I think this argument is a most excellent reason to fight like hell for the ERA.

                  •  That is what I meant, yes (2+ / 0-)

                    Recommended by:
                    count, mpwife

                    And yes, I think that's one reason why an ERA is an excellent idea.  Nevertheless, it will make ratification a rather contentious process, it seems to me.  Granted also, I don't think it should matter, as (to my mind) the Equal Protection Clause already mandates recognition of same-sex marriage, but I'm not on the Court, so my opinion and $1.75 will buy you a small cup of really lousy coffee. :-)

                  •  It's the lack of a time table for ratification (1+ / 0-)

                    Recommended by:
                    count

                    Of this one that will keep the bill on the table.  Without the sunset clause in it, it won't go away like it did in the 80's.

                    Grant it, the rights to same-sex partners and homosexual parents, as well as cementing Roe v Wade and Griswold v Connecticut, will create alot of opposition from the more conservative folks.

                    And there will be ramifications should the amendment pass, would mean no preferential laws and the requirement for women to register for selective service will have even the more moderate feminists fighting against this amendment.  

                    So it won't be an easy sell, but it can get passed.

  •  Unless I missed something... (3+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    TeresaInPa, Brooke In Seattle, mpwife

    ...there's no time limit for ratification in the current version.  So if we can get it out of Congress even once, that will give a bit of breathing room.  Like a 27th Amendment thing, only hopefully without quite taking 200 years.

Permalink | 43 comments