the new era of e.r.a.
This is proof that everything old is new again. Or maybe it’s proof that in addition to the horrid clothing of the seventies, there’s a recent resurgence of ideas from that mostly regrettable decade.
. . . Democrats in the Senate and House plan to resume “the fight for women’s equality” on Tuesday, when they reintroduce the Women’s Equality Amendment.
Sens. Ted Kennedy (Mass.) and Barbara Boxer (Calif.) and Reps. Carolyn Maloney and Jerrold Nadler, both of New York, plan to join Eleanor Smeal, president of the Feminist Majority, in making the Tuesday afternoon announcement.
Readers about my age or older will remember that the “Equal Rights Amendment” passed through both houses of Congress in 1972 and expired, unratified by enough states, ten years later.
Among the things that the amendment’s supporters say that it would outlaw if passed are:
income disparity between men and women [opening up a statistical pandora's box], gender-based “discriminatory clubs” [would that include the Junior League, the LPGA, and five of the Seven Sisters ?] and “gender-based hate crimes” [isn't this redundant, since "hate" crimes are already crimes; or are there certain "hate crimes" which aren't currently criminal?].
In truth, this latest ERA push is probably much ado about nothing, since according to this site in support of the amendment, “It has been reintroduced into every Congress since” ERA’s first failure in 1982.
One other interesting note is that the proposed 1972 amendment had an expiration clause of seven years (later extended to ten) in the bill’s language. If I recall correctly, of the 35 ratifying states, two voted to “unratify” prior to expiration of the deadline. Had it ever passed, a constitutional can of worms would have been opened by the manner of its ratification.
This newest version of ERA is proposed without an expiration date, thus increasing the likelihood of a reoccurrence of unratifications. That, I suppose, is one of the practical reasons why proposed amendments are generally introduced with a deadline. Perhaps a constitutional lawyer could weigh in?
[Eugene Volokh weighs in here. Bridgett, another attorney, discusses in the comments here.]
UPDATE:
Here’s a game you can play!
2nd UPDATE:
Here is the link to the resolutions in question. The two Joint Resolutions are identical–even down to a typo in section three. What is really constitutionally problematic is HR155 proposed by Rep. Andrews. It implements the “three state strategy” (the relevant text is halfway down the FAQ page), which would attempt to extend the 1972 deadline from not just seven years to ten, but to infinity.
March 27th, 2007 at 11:37 am
[...] My last post brought to mind the fact that, were it not for the Big Red Machine, I can think of nothing else good that came out of the decade of the 70s. The hair, the clothes, all three Presidents of that decade, ughhh . . . [...]
March 28th, 2007 at 7:27 am
[...] Remedial Feminism Filed under: I Love the Patriarchy!, Guides To Life, Fun with Feminism — Aunt B. @ 8:27 am It’s come to my attention that even well-meaning men still believe that feminism is somehow all about them–that it’s about hating men or how we’re the victims of men or how we’re trying to be the same as men (I mean, seriously, Bob Krumm wrote a postbasically mocking women’s desire for equality and not one person gave a shit enough about what Krumm thinks of women to point and laugh, which is something, considering that it proves two of my points simultaneously–1. That women aren’t sitting around waiting with baited breath to hear what men think about feminism and 2. That there are some folks who still think that basic things like equality between the sexes is a joke*.). [...]
March 28th, 2007 at 9:39 am
Does this mean those “Curves” women-only fitness centers will be shut down?
How about “Ladies Total Fitness”?
March 28th, 2007 at 1:53 pm
I worked for passage of the ERA, and the stuff I heard from the opposed and the indifferent during that fight told me we haven’t come a very long way after all.
March 29th, 2007 at 11:37 am
Maybe equal rights can start by abolishing ALIMONY. Talk about an anachronism. If everybody is so equal, then why is it that men get to pay women so that they can maintain a lifestyle (assuming they don’t have kids) if they get divorced?
Mary Jo Kopechne is unavailable for comment after the Title IX equal rights Teddy gave her. The right for women to deep sea dive in their cars shall not be abridged.
March 29th, 2007 at 2:50 pm
I agree with you about alimony, Smantix. For the most part. Some exceptions, such as the women who worked and gave up things and postponed their own schooling to put their husbands through medical or law school.
March 29th, 2007 at 9:27 pm
So by that rationale, a man who stays home to raise the kids and whose wife went work should get alimony if they get divorced?
Courts definitely side with mothers in custody cases no matter how irresponsible she may be.
April 4th, 2007 at 10:38 am
[...] The Colbert Report on that “horrible” Equal Rights Amendment: [...]