Women shouldn't be subject to a draft or registration

[pnwmom]

unless and until the Equal Rights Amendment is passed.

The one that died when not enough states voted to ratify it. One of the excuses at that time was that, if the ERA passed, then gay marriage would be next. Well, that excuse is gone now.

Pass the ERA first and then, and only then, change the registration law.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Rights_Amendment

The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) was a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution designed to guarantee equal rights for women. The ERA was originally written by Alice Paul and Crystal Eastman. In 1923, it was introduced in the Congress for the first time. From the first, the ERA was highly controversial in terms of the meaning of equality for women. It was "feminist against feminist," says historian Judith Sealander; the result was the eventual defeat of the ERA.[1] Middle-class women generally were supportive. Spokesmen for the working class were strongly opposed, arguing that employed women needed special protections regarding working conditions and hours. In 1972, it passed both houses of Congress and was submitted to the state legislatures for ratification. It seemed headed for quick approval until Phyllis Schlafly mobilized conservative women in opposition, arguing that the ERA would disadvantage housewives.

Congress had set a ratification deadline of March 22, 1979. Through 1977, the amendment received 35 of the necessary 38 state ratifications. Five states later rescinded their ratifications before the 1979 deadline. In 1978, a joint resolution of Congress extended the ratification deadline to June 30, 1982, but no further states ratified the amendment and it died. Several feminist organizations continue to work for the adoption of the ERA.

Text

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

[JustAnotherGen]

1. ITA n/t

[eridani]

2. Neither should men or intersexual people n/t

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

3. I say get rid of the registration entirely.

No one should be subject to 'the draft', to fight and die for causes in which they don't believe enough to volunteer.

(Edit: But pass the ERA too anyway.)

[alarimer]

5. This is what I believe.

No draft is necessary when we have an enormous standing army and military.

[davidn3600]

6. Some like the idea of a draft because they believe it needs to force rich people into it

The argument is that the volunteer army today is mainly made up of lower and middle class Americans (mainly needing jobs or scholarships) and that the upper class stays clear of it and isn't willing to put skin in the game.

That's the argument that has been made by Charlie Rangel and why he wants to bring the draft back.

[Maeve]

7. Since the first draft, the rich have found a way out

Whether it was paying $300 in the Civil War for someone else to take your place or by writing in exemptions for college students (or finding cushy jobs in safe National Guard units), there has always been an out for those who can afford it or, as Darth Cheney put it, those with 'other priorities'.

[pnwmom]

9. That worked so well in Vietnam when 50,000 soldiers died because we had an unlimited

supply of cannon fodder, thanks to the draft.

Many of us fought against the draft that Rangel is supporting because we learned the hard way that his idea of "skin in the game" preventing needless wars doesn't work.

[NaturalHigh]

4. Nobody should be subject to a draft.

I argued this subject endlessly with some old timers when I was in the Air Force. Yes, I enlisted, and was proud of it, but no one should be forced to serve. That's not service - it's servitude.

[pnwmom]

8. I tend to agree, but there is an OP about the lawsuit that has been filed

by a young woman demanding that she be subject to the draft.

That's the context for this.

[NaturalHigh]

11. Got it. Sorry, didn't mean to de-rail.

I haven't seen the OP.

[pnwmom]

13. No problem. Thanks for posting. n/t

[restorefreedom]

10. i agree, no era, no draft n/t

[Iggo]

12. Yes ERA. No Draft. (n/t)

[lumberjack_jeff]

14. "Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged... on account of sex."

So until the amendment is passed, institutionally sexist laws are desirable, so long as women are holding the sanitary end of the stick?

I think it says a great deal about our culture that only a woman is considered to have the legal standing to challenge a law that punishes only men.

I think the ERA is a great thing too, but I fail to see why it is unwise to get a head start on fixing the laws it would render unconstitutional (draft registration, ACA, Office of Women and Girls)