Wednesday, March 30, 2005

ERA Amendment Deceptive

By Debbie Pelley (click "comments" for the article)


Blogger Debbie Pelley said...

Please take action. Legislator e-mails are listed below. Send something even if you have to copy and paste this e-mail or parts of it jsut so they will get messages opposing it. I hope some people will copy the entire thing and send so they will get this message a few times. You can just say you received it as e-mail and you agree with it or wanted to make sure it was sent to them.

Beware! HCR1023 the ERA Amendment and the Resolution by Rep. Smith and in the Senate by Senator Madison is purposely written in very simple language so as to deceive. If the ERA Amendment becomes part of our US Constitution, it would trump every law any state has passed on homosexual marriage, homosexual adoption, and other laws the conservatives have worked so hard to get passed. Judges would rule that our Marriage Amendment passed by 75% of Arkansas voters was unconstitutional. State constitutional amendments can be and have been overruled by federal judges. Marriage could not be denied based on sex or sexual orientation. That is why a number of states ratified the ERA amendment back in the 70's and then went back and rescinded that ratification. As legislators, you know how hard it is to rescind a law.

The sponsor of this ERA Amendment is Representative Smith, the legislator that sponsored the law to make sexual orientation a civil right. She is praised highly by Arkansans on a homosexual website as championing their cause.

Note this clause of the bill: WHEREAS, the Equal Rights Amendment was written in 1923 to eliminate or modify many state and federal laws that discriminate against women". The ERA Amendment would eliminate any of our laws based on sex. What laws do we have now that actually discriminate against women? We don't. There may be discrimination in some cases despite the laws, but another law would not make a difference if it were just women we were talking about. This amendment would guarantee that we could not rightfully discriminate (differentiate) in needful situations -like women on the front line of battle.

"Supporters pushing a "three state strategy" have targeted Arkansas and other states in their ongoing battle for ratification," reported the Arkansas Democrat Gazette. There is probably a lot of outside influence from other states going on in the push for this Resolution. This is one of those bills designed to be rammed through before Arkansans have a chance to weigh in on it. The other side was all prepared to do battle and the other side was caught off guard. Many Arkansans have not even been alerted yet, but when they are they will definitely want to know how their legislator voted. Note the two paragraphs below from the Arkansas Democrat Gazette article that shows other Southern states with Arkansas values also refused to ratify the ERA Amendment

"As it turned out, Arkansas was one of the 15 states that had not ratified the amendment when a congressional deadline passed in 1982, leaving amendment supporters three states shy of the 38 necessary for ratification. In recent years, supporters pushing a "three state strategy" have targeted Arkansas and other states in their ongoing battle for ratification."

"Along with Arkansas, the states that did not ratify the amendment are Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Utah and Virginia." Taken from "26 years later, Senate to vote on ERA issue" by Laura Kellams, March 27, 05

Debbie Pelley
check out this website:

7:26 PM, March 30, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Debbie, you are really "on target" with your insights into this legislation. I have written to all the Reps and urged them to vote against HRC1023 (now SJR17). Evil can enter by the back door just as it can by the front. Stay the course, girl!

8:11 PM, March 30, 2005  
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

We simply can't trust the judges with this much power and leeway. It does not help women either. What does this give women that they don't already have under existing law?

8:44 PM, March 30, 2005  
Blogger Mr. Toast said...

This is merely showboating for Sen. Sue Madison and Rep. Lindsley Smith (both of the same homosexual-infested area of the state). Legislation to extend ERA ratification has not been passed at the federal level since 1982. The feminists and their cohorts (i.e., Ted Kennedy) keep bringing up legislation to enable its ratification, but I think it has been around long enough for most people in D.C. to have decided to stay away from it.

Madison and Smith are just trying to show the radicals back in their districts that they're good troopers in the liberal cause.

No harm in being prepared, though...

10:37 PM, March 31, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What a great site Bottle frosted perfume wholesale Free sex video archive Multi vitamins for triathletes

3:17 AM, March 02, 2007  

Post a Comment

<< Home