Hey Cats, still no Equal Rights for you

[Axtremus]

https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/us-equal-rights-amendment-blocked-again-century-after-introduction-2023-04-27/

The effort to preserve the Equal Rights Amendment failed in the Senate, again.

The resolution failed to get the 60 votes needed to advance in the Senate. The final vote tally fell at 51-47, with Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer changing his vote to a no — a procedural move that allows him to bring the resolution back up later.
The resolution would have removed the deadline for the ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment, which prohibits discrimination based on sex. It was first passed overwhelmingly in 1971 — then needed 38 states needed to ratify it within seven years. Only 35 states ratified the measure within the original timeline.

Well, not just Cats, same for Opti, Brenda, CathyS, maybe even pianorejerome too.

[Jolly]

PJ is a guy. Don't believe it, check his DNA.

As for the rest...Don't fool with the Constitution if you don't have to.

[xenon]

I don’t understand the full implications of this.

Would this mean that women would need to be proportional in the draft/military combat roles?

Would this mean women would not get more in divorce proceedings?

Would this mean that transgender people can’t be discriminated against (e.g. sports,etc.)?

Would this mean that you couldn’t hire women preferentially for equity concerns? (e.g., Biden saying that he wanted a black women for his VP).

Would practical effect would this actually have ? Do we want to be completely sex-blind in everything we do? (Progressives and conservatives)

[Jolly]

The ERA does not use the term "woman", it uses the term sex. In these gender-bender times, as Ax has pointed out, it applies to a lot more than just females.

By most legal scholar's writings, the ERA has long been dead. Constitutional amendments typically have 7 years to be ratified. The ERA was given one extension and many are not sure if that was legal or not, but that extension is long past.

Furthermore, multiple states have rescinded their votes.

It's a bad amendment which duplicates the 14th Amendment and could possibly end some things we already do such as widow's benefits under Social Security, child support payments and women being drafted into combat service.

[Catseye3]

I lobbied against ERA back in the day. I argued that legitimizing the need for an equal rights amendment for women was not only an insult to women, but would go far to force acceptance of women as second class citizens.

I still feel that way.

So as far as I'm concerned, the thing can stay dead forever.

[jon-nyc]

I can’t figure out what rights men have that women don’t.

What problem is this trying to solve?

[George K]

@jon-nyc said in Hey Cats, still no Equal Rights for you:

I can’t figure out what rights men have that women don’t.

Prostate cancer?

(I know, it's not a right)

[Renauda]

@George-K

Not exactly a privilege either.

[George K]

@Renauda said in Hey Cats, still no Equal Rights for you:

@George-K

Not exactly a privilege either.

For sure.

[jon-nyc]

It just seems like an open invitation for anti-democratic judge-made law.