What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

The Equal Rights Amendment (1 Viewer)

Henry Ford

Henry Ford

Footballguy
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.

In light of what's going on - the constant barrage of accounts explaining to us what it is exactly to live as a woman in our country, in our culture, in our workplaces and government - can't we just pass this ####ing thing?  Put something on the books that says "yes, we acknowledge that the time has passed when we were allowed to treat women as a completely separate category of citizen"?  Is anyone still opposed to this?

 
:thumbup:   All for it.

As long as it goes for everything.  Military drafts, divorce courts, all that fun stuff.

 
Will we want to be more specific about the term "sex"?  That aside, and I know what is intended to be meant here but I worry others will obfuscate, I agree with you.

Also, is this not now the law of the land?  That is not an argument against a forceful statement, it is just a question.  Maybe we need that forceful statement for present or future clarity, just in case, and as that may be so I fully support this. 

 
Cowboysfan8 said:
:lol:

Are the Republicans to blame for everything EVERYTHING that's wrong with our country in your view?
Click to expand...
Serious answer:

When it comes to restricting civil rights and liberties? Almost.  Perhaps overreaching on gun restrictions but I'm reconsidering that with the situation we are in on gun violence today. 

I also feel their polarizing yet successful effort to disenfranchise so many voters has created a dynamic where state level representation no longer accurately reflects the will of the electorate, causing huge issues across the board.

 
I think in principle I agree with the amendment, although I worry that there would be unintended consequences for some groups of women if passed, who might benefit from "special" treatment under the law based on sex.

Are there any well known downsides to this passing?

Are there any key upsides?  Would this help with ensuring women and men pay the same for health insurance or would that be outside this purview. 

 
adonis said:
I think in principle I agree with the amendment, although I worry that there would be unintended consequences for some groups of women if passed, who might benefit from "special" treatment under the law based on sex.

Are there any well known downsides to this passing?

Are there any key upsides?  Would this help with ensuring women and men pay the same for health insurance or would that be outside this purview. 
Click to expand...
The big argument that sunk it was a bathroom argument. 

 
I strongly agree that men and women should enjoy equal protection under the law.  The reason why I oppose the ERA is because I can't think of any problems that it would solve, and I think it's a bad idea to add a constitutional amendment just to make a statement.  I'm persuadable, but skeptical.

 
adonis said:
Are there any key upsides?  Would this help with ensuring women and men pay the same for health insurance or would that be outside this purview. 
Click to expand...
This is the kind of thing I worry about.  Insurance companies should be allowed to engage in statistical discrimination.  Is the ERA going to be interpreted in such a way that it outlaws this practice?  How can anybody credibly promise me that it won't be if the composition of the Supreme Court were to change?

 
parasaurolophus said:
Henry what is something that would change for sure in your opinion? I guess specifically to the positive for women. 
Click to expand...
It would require a suspect classification in discrimination cases.  That is, laws and actions taken on the basis of sex would require strict scrutiny and a necessary relationship to a compelling interest in order to be Constitutional. 

 
IvanKaramazov said:
This is the kind of thing I worry about.  Insurance companies should be allowed to engage in statistical discrimination.  Is the ERA going to be interpreted in such a way that it outlaws this practice?  How can anybody credibly promise me that it won't be if the composition of the Supreme Court were to change?
Click to expand...
No one can assure you that women would still have to pay more for insurance under the law. Most people have been trying to help close that gap. 

 
IvanKaramazov said:
I strongly agree that men and women should enjoy equal protection under the law.  The reason why I oppose the ERA is because I can't think of any problems that it would solve, and I think it's a bad idea to add a constitutional amendment just to make a statement.  I'm persuadable, but skeptical.
Click to expand...
The 14th Amendment wasn’t applied to sex until the 1970s, and Scalia went to his grave saying the Constitution doesn’t prohibit sex discrimination.

There is no excuse for leaving women’s rights at the whim of lawmakers who just need to pass a law repealing them, especially with all the nutbar politicians who would be happy to based on their “Christian values.”

 
Henry Ford said:
The 14th Amendment wasn’t applied to sex until the 1970s, and Scalia went to his grave saying the Constitution doesn’t prohibit sex discrimination.

There is no excuse for leaving women’s rights at the whim of lawmakers who just need to pass a law repealing them, especially with all the nutbar politicians who would be happy to based on their “Christian values.”
Click to expand...
What is an example of a law that could be overturned?

I admit I don't know much about the history and merits of this law. You seem like you do, so I admit to being lazy and just asking you. The reason I didnt really pay much attention to this is it seems on the surface to just be symbolic. 

This is why I am asking for a real life example from you. Most of what I think of going away involve making the situation actually worse for women, but maybe legally those could stay?

So for example would the military no longer be able to have different physical requirements and tests for women compared to men?

The insurance one is a good one, and I actually support equalizing those rates, but i also support full on government run healthcare, and I think that gets us a step closer to that. 

 
A law that could be overturned with the ERA or a law that could be overturned by lawmakers in the absence of the ERA?

 
Henry Ford said:
A law that could be overturned with the ERA or a law that could be overturned by lawmakers in the absence of the ERA?
Click to expand...
I'll take one of both please! 

If you know of some good summation already too, i would be happy to read it if you have a link. When I take to google i see more of the conservative family groups no more alimony, women being drafted blah blah, or I see the sky is falling talking points of organizations like NOW. I would imagine if there are sides to eliminate from research those are probably where to start. 

In your opinion would such an amendment lead to more discrimination lawsuits or less? Would it also move more of these matters outside of agencies like the equal rights division and into federal courts? 

 
parasaurolophus said:
I'll take one of both please! 

If you know of some good summation already too, i would be happy to read it if you have a link. When I take to google i see more of the conservative family groups no more alimony, women being drafted blah blah, or I see the sky is falling talking points of organizations like NOW. I would imagine if there are sides to eliminate from research those are probably where to start. 

In your opinion would such an amendment lead to more discrimination lawsuits or less? Would it also move more of these matters outside of agencies like the equal rights division and into federal courts? 
Click to expand...
Initially more suits, eventually very few I would imagine.  Partially because most of the big suits are against governments trying to pass laws that only impact women. 

And yes, a lot of cases would move to the federal system. 

Off the top of my head: lawmakers could change the law to remove women’s right to own property in their own name, get credit...

basically, anything other than the right to vote could be changed based on a simple legislative vote if the Supreme Court has the right configuration on it (people who agree with Scalia.) We couldn’t do that to men’s rights. We shouldn’t be able to for women’s rights. 

As for existing laws, off the top of my head naturalization requirements for children born outside of the U.S. to a Citizen father and non-citizen mother have a completely different set of requirements for citizenship than a Citizen mother and non-citizen father.  That would probably go away.  

 
Henry Ford said:
Initially more suits, eventually very few I would imagine.  Partially because most of the big suits are against governments trying to pass laws that only impact women. 

And yes, a lot of cases would move to the federal system. 

Off the top of my head: lawmakers could change the law to remove women’s right to own property in their own name, get credit...

basically, anything other than the right to vote could be changed based on a simple legislative vote if the Supreme Court has the right configuration on it (people who agree with Scalia.) We couldn’t do that to men’s rights. We shouldn’t be able to for women’s rights. 

As for existing laws, off the top of my head naturalization requirements for children born outside of the U.S. to a Citizen father and non-citizen mother have a completely different set of requirements for citizenship than a Citizen mother and non-citizen father.  That would probably go away.  
Click to expand...
Thanks henry. :thumbup:

 
Probably 3/4 of current federal activity is unconstitutional.  An ERA wouldn't be as bulletproof as you think.  A future SC could just "interpret" it to mean the opposite of what it says.

 
Soonerman said:
Probably 3/4 of current federal activity is unconstitutional.  An ERA wouldn't be as bulletproof as you think.  A future SC could just "interpret" it to mean the opposite of what it says.
Click to expand...
You are the guy that is against Brown v Board of Ed, right?  Civil Rights Acts?

 
Dedfin said:
You are the guy that is against Brown v Board of Ed, right?  Civil Rights Acts?
Click to expand...
Uh, no.  As a libertarian, I support the government dismantling racism in the government school monopoly.  I would however go further and not have government schools at all.

Same with most of the Civil Rights Act.  Correcting the racism of government actors is great.  I disagree with most of the public accommodations aspect of the ruling however.

 
adonis said:
Are there any key upsides?  Would this help with ensuring women and men pay the same for health insurance or would that be outside this purview. 
Click to expand...
Women consume healthcare at a significantly higher rate than men.   Men being forced to subsidize women isn't treating the sexes equal, now is it?

 
Sand said:
Women consume healthcare at a significantly higher rate than men.   Men being forced to subsidize women isn't treating the sexes equal, now is it?
Click to expand...
They consume more health care because God is punishing them for their deception in the Garden of Eden. What God doesn’t realize, however, is that the whole Garden of Eden story is made up. So the punishment isn’t just.

Subsidies that result in males and females bearing equal health care burdens — well, not equal overall burdens, but at least equal costs — does kind of seem like a step towards equality.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Maurile Tremblay said:
They consume more health care because God is punishing them for their deception in the Garden of Eden. What God doesn’t realize, however, is that the whole Garden of Eden story is made up. So the punishment isn’t just.

Subsidies that result in males and females bearing equal health care burdens — well, not equal overall burdens, but at least equal costs — does kind of seem like a step towards equality.
Click to expand...
This is an odd post.  I personally know a ton of people who think that is just, fair, and efficient that women pay more for health insurance than men.  Not a single one of those people base their argument on the book of Genesis.  (For the record, I think 100% of these folks also think it is correct to charge young men more for auto insurance than young women -- the argument is the same).  

By all means, go ahead and advance an argument for why insurance companies should not be allowed to price discriminate on the basis of sex.  But please don't just make up arguments that nobody actually holds to justify that view.  I know you know better than this.

 
IvanKaramazov said:
This is an odd post.
Click to expand...
The Genesis lead-in was a throw-away joke. Sorry if that wasn’t obvious. Interpret it as: “The reasons for the disparity in health care costs are innate, not the result of irresponsible lifestyle choices or the like.”

What it was leading into was my serious point. Should females bear the monetary costs of childbirth (through higher premiums) as well as the biological costs, or should the monetary costs be split since propagating the species is really a joint effort?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
IvanKaramazov said:
For the record, I think 100% of these folks also think it is correct to charge young men more for auto insurance than young women -- the argument is the same.
Click to expand...
But they’re not exactly the same. Men pay more for car insurance and women pay more for dry cleaning because men are more reckless and women are more fashionable. That seems fair enough because recklessness and fashionableness are tastes.

Being the childbearing sex, however, isn’t a matter of taste. It’s preassigned without regard to anyone’s preferences. (Having children as opposed to going childless is often a matter of preference; but any given child has both a biological mother and a biological father.)

 
Dooook said:
I'm naive about this, obviously, but what rights do males currently have that women do not?
Click to expand...
There are a few answers to this, though I've discussed the main concepts in the thread already.  I guess the traditional question you probably mean is best exemplified by "go topless in public."  If you've been running, or doing hard labor, you're sweaty and gross and you want to take your shirt off, you can do it.  A woman can't, or she'll be arrested, generally.

But bigger than that is the right to have rights.  Beyond the current laws, enshrined in the Constitution, requiring an overwhelming burden to remove the rights the current laws grant to women.

The fact is, women's rights generally hang by a thread in this country.  Now, that thread is a lot stronger than it was a hundred, or even thirty, years ago, but it's still a thread.  There is no enshrined right in the Constitution for women to own property.  Or sue in their own name.  Or make any major decision on their own behalfs.  We can say "well, every state allows all of that now" and we can even say that the Fourteenth Amendment covers that now, but that's all based on the current state of the legislatures and the Supreme Court and some other things we really can't guarantee forever.  Especially given what's been going on in politics lately.

The legislature cannot get together and say that men are not allowed to open their own bank accounts, or property, or anything else.  But they had to vote to create those rights for women.  Which means, technically, they can vote them away.  Which is stupid.  It's a completely different class of person, created because we haven't been willing to amend the Constitution to make it clear that that's not okay.

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
Being the childbearing sex, however, isn’t a matter of taste. It’s preassigned without regard to anyone’s preferences. 
Click to expand...
Oh, liberals in this country have been arguing that one's sex is a mental choice, not a physical certainty.  I fully expect they would be against this type of definition.

 
Sand said:
Oh, liberals in this country have been arguing that one's sex is a mental choice, not a physical certainty.  I fully expect they would be against this type of definition.
Click to expand...
If you want to make blanket generalizations, at least be accurate about them.

First, sex <> Gender.

MORE importantly, especially Liberals, DON'T believe it's a mental "choice" and to suggest so is to accuse them of exactly the opposite of their actual stated belief.

Liberals, and many non Liberals like myself, do believe that one's sexual orientation and identity is not tied 100% to their physical biology... you can be male and be attracted to men or women, you can have male genitalia and identify as a male, or female in terms of your own personal sexuality. It's NOT a choice though, that's the whole point.

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
The Genesis lead-in was a throw-away joke. Sorry if that wasn’t obvious. Interpret it as: “The reasons for the disparity in health care costs are innate, not the result of irresponsible lifestyle choices or the like.”

What it was leading into was my serious point. Should females bear the monetary costs of childbirth (through higher premiums) as well as the biological costs, or should the monetary costs be split since propagating the species is really a joint effort?
Click to expand...
Would this cloud other areas? Making childbirth a joint effort from a legal perspective could cause some issues couldnt it? 

 
To those on the right:

You can see that this would absolutely make it impossible to institute Sharia Law, right?  I mean, an Amendment making women equal to men in the eyes of the law just seems like the right thing to do to combat ISIS.

 
Henry Ford said:
To those on the right:

You can see that this would absolutely make it impossible to institute Sharia Law, right?  I mean, an Amendment making women equal to men in the eyes of the law just seems like the right thing to do to combat ISIS.
Click to expand...
Why doesn't the 14th amendment do this now?  As I'm sure you know, I'm not a huge fan of super-expansive interpretations of these sorts of things, but my reading of the equal protections clause would rule out Sharia law anyway.  

(I get that this is tongue-in-cheek, but it gets to the issue of what the ERA adds that isn't already there).

 
IvanKaramazov said:
Why doesn't the 14th amendment do this now? 
Click to expand...
I'm not sure but it might have been Hamilton who made just that point about the Bill of rights - all rights are accorded to all the People so why specify, thus making it seem like some rights are excluded if they are not so specified?

Hence the 9th & 10th Amendments. I wish the courts would rely on those more.

One other possibility is that really the ERA implies social rights, which is something the Constitution plainly does not *do*.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
IvanKaramazov said:
Why doesn't the 14th amendment do this now?  As I'm sure you know, I'm not a huge fan of super-expansive interpretations of these sorts of things, but my reading of the equal protections clause would rule out Sharia law anyway.  

(I get that this is tongue-in-cheek, but it gets to the issue of what the ERA adds that isn't already there).
Click to expand...
Ask Conservatives’ martyr, the late Great Scalia.  He (and many conservatives) disagreed that the 14th applies to sex.  And if the Court wings ultra conservative, in very well may not. 

Did women get equal rights in 1868? Property rights? (Hint: no)

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

[icon]
DISINFORMATION TASK FORCE > Biden/Harris vs 1st Amendment as well as 2nd Amendment?
Replies
1
Views
173
pinkham13
pinkham13
GordonGekko
Will The GOP Push For A Nation Wide Federal Abortion Ban When It Attains Needed Majorities? (7/2/22 12:11 PST)
Replies
0
Views
235
GordonGekko
GordonGekko
GordonGekko
Did Barack Obama Destroy Abortion Rights By Lying About Codifying Roe v. Wade? (6/26/22 7:24 PST)
Replies
4
Views
536
squistion
squistion

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top