Wednesday, January 24, 2007

So-Called "Equal Rights Amendment" Again Threatens


Representative Lindsley Smith of Fayetteville tried to pass a measure which would have made "discrimination" against homosexuals a civil rights issue in her first term. That effort failed, but this time she may get it in through the backdoor. She is dusting off the old "Equal Rights Amendment" from the 1970s, which was obstensibly to protect women. And it appears she has persuaded, somehow, even normally sane legislators into co-sponsoring it along with her.

The ERA amendment was ratified in the 1970s in most states before people could even realize the ramifications of what they were voting for. Once the magnificent Phyliss Schafley (who founded the Eagle Forum for this purpose) exposed the real problems that would come from amending the U.S. Constitution with this trojan horse the so-called ERA lost its momentum.

It is now 30 years later, and radical feminists, those who want to expand federal power and control over our lives, fans of judicial activism, and homosexual activists, are hoping that people have forgotten the debate and the facts. They say that since the states that ratified it never un-ratified it, if they can get a few more states to do so then it goes in the Constitition since there is no mention of time limits for ratifying an amendment.

Leave it to lawyers to find a loophole. That's why we have to stop it now. Perhaps later this week I will write an article spelling out some of why this would be a disaster if ratified. In the meantime, I want to give the names of your legislators in the House who are co-sponsoring this bill. If one of them is yours, let them know what they are really voting for. Some of them may be thinking that this is just about "rights" and they co-sponsored it because the name sounded good, not because they understood the true implications.

Co-sponsors include: Abernathy, Allen, T. Baker, Berry, Blount, T. Bradford, E. Brown. J. Brown, Burris, Cash, Cheatham, Chesterfield, Cook, Cooper, Cornwell, L. Cowling, Davenport, Davis, S. Dobbins, Dunn, Edwards, Everett, Flowers, Gaskill, George, Hall, Hardy, Harrelson, Hawkins, House, Hoyt, Hyde, D. Johnson, Kidd, W. Lewellen, Lovell, Maxwell, Moore, Overbey, Pate, Patterson, Pennartz, Pickett, Pierce, Powers, S. Prater, Rainey, Reep, Reynolds, J. Roebuck, Rogers, Sample, Saunders, Shelby, Stewart, Sullivan, Sumpter, Thyer, Wagner, Webb, Wills, Wood, Wyatt,

and Senators Madison, Argue, Brown, Bryles, Capps, Crumbly, Faris, Salmon, T. Smith, Wilkins

13 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yeah, I look forward to reading the factual court cases that you'll present as evidence to support all the ERA "facts" that Schlafly uses. They are nothing but myths.

Even the Family Research Council don't support Schafly's myths anymore. Just read their brief in the Maryland same sex marriage case. They say categorically "the ERA does not support same sex marriage." What's really funny is that when Schlafly claims the ERA supports gay marriage, she's AGREEING with the "activist judges" and the gay marriage attorneys! Its too hilarious. The FRC has realized that and wisely moved away from that ERA myth.

9:03 PM, January 24, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

9:03

you statement is just more of the same lies that has duped many conservative democrats into co-sponsoring this crappy legislation. since you probably wouldn't believe anything a conservative told you it would do, i will let you read it directly from the mouth of the ACLU - http://www.aclu-nca.org/boxSub.asp?id=104

so? who is telling the truth? you or the ACLU?

10:52 PM, January 24, 2007  
Blogger rob_star said...

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.




THIS is what you radicals consider an afront to traditional marriage. I knew you folks were insane, but this is even a stretch for you. What seems to be the problem? I know, you have several female employees that you are concerned might want equal pay or equal consideration for advancement.

7:27 AM, January 25, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

An older article, from the horse's mouth, outlining the feminist strategy:

Why are state legislatures being asked to ratify the ERA after the 1982 deadline has passed?

A “three-state strategy” for ERA ratification was developed after 1992, when the “Madison Amendment” to the Constitution was ratified 203 years after its passage by Congress.

Acceptance of this ratification period as “sufficiently contemporaneous” led ERA supporters to argue that Congress has the power to maintain the legal viability of the ERA’s existing 35 state ratifications.

The ERA’s time limit is open to change, as Congress demonstrated in extending its original deadline. Precedent holds that rescission votes are not valid. Therefore, Congress could accept state ratifications that occur after 1982 and keep the existing 35 ratifications alive. A bill in the 108th Congress (H.Res.38) stipulates that the House of Representatives shall take any necessary action to verify ratification of the ERA when an additional three states ratify.

The legal analysis for this strategy is outlined in “The Equal Rights Amendment: Why the ERA Remains Legally Viable and Properly Before the States” (William & Mary Journal of Women and the Law, Spring 1997). The Congressional Research Service has concluded that acceptance of the Madison Amendment does in fact have implications for the three-state strategy premise. Since 1995, ratification bills have been introduced in six of the unratified states: Florida, Illinois, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Virginia.

7:41 AM, January 25, 2007  
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

"What seems to be the problem?"

Rob baby,

READ some of the articles at the link I peppered throughout the story and it would be obvious what the problem is.

The FREE MARKET will take care of equal pay for equal work, or at least equal value. In fact, there are lots of jobs that an attractive young women could get that they would not hire you or me for. I guess you could sue Hooters for not hiring you as a Hooter's girl.

You gotta read that thing like an ACLU lawyer would read it, not how a normal human being would read it. You gotta imagine the interpretations an activist judge could put on it, not just a straight forward reading. The fact this gives activist judges a new tool to expand federal power over states, businesess and lives alone is enough of a reason to oppose it.

It is time to learn from painful experience and be more sophisticated than, "Oh yea rights, sure everybody should have rights. It sounds good, so I'm for it".

8:16 AM, January 25, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well if it's not Rob "the talking cliche" Star. How have you been? It's been so long since you've inserted your various liberal talking points (i.e. cliches) into an otherwise intelligent discussion. Don't stay away so long.

Let's note the excellent use of your cliches.

1. Starting a sentence with "THIS is what you radicals..." this type of language works to focus the attention away from the issue (which you cannot intelligently debate to your advantage) and toward the credibility of the so called "radical." Good work!

2. Ditto with "I knew you folks were insane..."

3. "I know, you have several female employees that you are concerned might want equal pay or equal consideration for advancement." Your use of the sexist card here is BRILLIANT (as the ommercial says).

The only negative I have for you is that you left out racism and homophobia. But overall good job using the basic liberal talking points. I give you a B+.

8:52 AM, January 25, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Re: the ACLU/Same sex marriage case
They will say anything to try to get clients. And besides Schlafly agrees with them. She's been saying for 30 years that the ERA permits same sex marriage. I guess you didn't know that obviously she supports gay marriage since she sides with the gay marriage lawyers claims.

Luckily for us ERA supporters the ACLU DON'T DECIDE COURT CASES. They just represent clients. Luckily for us, the higher courts aren't made up of "activist" judges.

Here's the final word on the ERA and same sex marriage. 20 states have ERAs in their state constitutions, some have had them in there for over 30 years, so if what the anti-ERA people say is true, why wasn't gay marriage legalized in all of those states years ago?

Here's why. Because the ERA doesn't permit same sex marriage.

Only three times in the last 30 years, have lawyers representing gay marriage couples convinced a LOWER court judge to say that a state ERA sanctions same sex marriage. In those cases, Singer v Hara, (Goodridge) and Andersen v King County 2006, the court rejected claims that the state ERA had anything to do with gay marriage. These higher courts understand the meaning and intent of the ERA and it is NOT to grant same sex marriage. It is meant to address inequalities between the genders, that's all. Sexual orientation is not a gender.

Just last summer, the supreme court of Washington state once again said that the ban on same sex marriage does not violate the state ERA because the ban applies equally to men and women in that neither are allowed to marry members of their same gender.

The higher court in Maryland is going to say the same thing.

All these anti-ERA opponents who keep saying the ERA will permit same sex marriage ought to go work for the ACLU!

9:03 AM, January 25, 2007  
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

That is not the only thing wrong with the ERA, but even here, you are missing the point.

We are in an environment where the Supreme Court of the United States literally reversed itself from only 17 years before to throw out every law against Sodomy in the nation in Lawrence v. Texas.

It is true that the actual court record on this is mixed. It is also true that the courts have a tendency to spring nasty surprises on traditionalists as soon as they think they can get away with it. Somehow, "Precedent" is only paramount when upholding decisions like Roe v. Wade. It can be tossed aside in Lawrence v. Texas.

The very fact that you use sex and gender interchangably could be used by some activists to wedge homosexual rights- not just marriage, but say forcing landlords to rent to homosexuals or churches to hire them as choir directors- into the equation. I am amazed that state legislators seem so willing to turn over even more of their sphere of authority over to the feds and the courts by supporting this amendment. It will unleash a barrage of lawsuits where issues once decided by them at the state level are now federal matters.

Regarding whether it will be used for homosexual marriage: You say one thing, the ACLU says the opposite, some judges agree with you, others with the ACLU. The bottom line is we can't trust them with the call and should leave it out of their hands by refusing to ratify the amendment.

10:29 AM, January 25, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jan. 20, 2006, a Maryland court struck down the state's same-sex marriage ban based on the Old Line State's Equal Rights Amendment. You CLAIM that the higher court in Maryland is going to say the same thing, but you don't know. Nor do any of us know if or when they might chose to use this as the lever to pry open that can of worms.

10:51 AM, January 25, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Are there any republicans co-sponsoring that bill? I don't see mine and I thought he was a liberal.

4:07 PM, January 25, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Are you missing Huckabee now? He worked to keep this issue dead. His staff worked with Family Council to keep this from becoming an issue. Beebe has done just the opposite.

5:17 PM, January 25, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Huck had his limited uses. At least Bebee isn't working overtime to consolidate schools.

5:25 PM, January 25, 2007  
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

No. I am not missing Huckabee, only sorry for the way he turned out. Maybe Hutchinson/Holt is who we should be missing.

So many articles to write, so little time.

5:47 PM, January 25, 2007  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home