It's back!
When I say that I'm not a strong fan of The ERA, I mean it in a unique way. Specifically, I would be willing to forgo passage of a newly revived Equal Rights Amendment but only on the condition that we're able to do something far, far more powerful.
As a white, male, heterosexual, of an age, I'm not capable of reading our current Constitution with the fresh eyes of another. Still, how could it be anything but disquieting (at a minimum) to be what I am not and to study as an eager schoolchild a document for the first time that our society touts as being, while not quite sacred, but also not far from it, and to see nothing of yourself really reflected there?
So, if we can do no better, we obviously ought to hammer the shingle of The Equal Rights Amendment on to the ancient structure which purportedly serves to shelter all of us. To our credit as a people we came very close to accomplishing just that when I was a very much younger man. But is there any way that that near miss could serve as any kind of solace for anyone not a white, male, heterosexual? And, not to make too fine a point of it, someone who, on top of all of that is also of a "conservative" political persuasion.
Would children coming up today enjoy the experience of having their first exposure to the framework of our social structure be something within which they were able to effortlessly see themselves included? Sure, having some of them added to the text (but nowhere near enough of them, in my opinion), even as only an obvious afterthought cannot possibly be called anything but a dramatic improvement. But is that enough? Is that the best that we can do?
If we make a new Constitution, it can say what we choose. While not entirely everything and anything we might desire, at least broadly so. Why bring groups on board, when we can design a structure that initially, openly, and explicitly values everyone? Why do we want to use Amendments to patch up holes, when we can have for the main body of our next Constitution broad principles within which every young child learning about where they are living can see themselves openly, freely, and happily included?
We're not required to govern ourselves by afterthough. We're not required to constantly try to play catch up. We are, in fact, entitled to be proactive. We really do have the right to make a conscious effort to plan out the future direction and composition of our social structure. And we clearly can and must embark on a much higher path than anyone now living has ever experienced. We have the ability to be the people who unequivocably tell all children coming after us that there is not a one of them who matters any less than any one of us who embarked on lifes journey in front of them.
THE SECOND AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION
P.S. For the naysayers I would ask only for them to keep their old, sad pessimism to themselves. Because it clearly is not, and need not be, universal.