I understand now why ERA failed, unratified in 1982....

[LeftHander]

I was clear that because of this sweeping statement in the Equal Rights Amendment:

"Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex."

With the "sexual revolution" in full "swing" by the 70's it was known by conservatives that under this amendment a same sex marriage would become reality as well as numerous other rights for homosexuals and women. Thus it was allowed to flounder as written. The hardcore conservatives heard the then "crazy" Christian fundementalists...

So with that we now see the Democratic Party invaded by Republican moderates disallusioned by the unethical behavior of the hard core neocons. We are still left with the overt cultural influence of the Christian Right...it has not dimished simply becasue the houses flipped form Republican to the Democrats

The result is that Democratic power will come to rest in the "new" middle. And that middle going to deliver a Marriage Protection Amendment and it will come from a Democratic controlled house and senate. It will easily be ratified by 3/4 of the states unless major shifts to the left occur in the states legislative makeup.

As long as the right gets that everyone in the Democratic party will keep thier jobs come 2008 and beyond.

So you see...you win, we lose, big.

I was right about gay marriage four years ago. that it would be and continue to be a major factor in our elections.

My friend said a coworker Christian Fundie cares little about the war, ethics or Bush...he was gleeful that the Amendment in Wisconsin passed...they simply don't care about war, economics, equality....they simply and profoundly FEAR and HATE homosexuality and will NOT STOP until we are rounded up and slaughtered like cattle.

So I am not going to stop.

[xchrom]

1. paul weyrich and phylis schlafly.

paul weyrich and william f buckly are the roots of the heritage foundation -- which in turn became the template for all the conservative ''think tanks'' you see today.

together with phyllis -- they bridged and created what today have become known as ''values voters''.

[LeftHander]

4. Thanks for the names....Shafly made the call...

It has been a long term war on homosexuality...waged by Christian conservatives and I fear that this shift and rejection of Bush by socially conservative moderates was predicted by the likes of The Heritage Foundation...

It is incredible how these brilliant minds are put to such despicable work.


If only I got paid to "connect the dots"...along with others it would be possible to outthing the conservative think tanks...unfortunatly they care not about the people they use, only themselves.

[Warren Stupidity]

2. I will walk away from a party that writes bigotry in the constitution.

It is a fundamental issue with me and many others here. The repugnants can have their fundaloon base and can pander to them all day long. They can become the permanent majority party of some of the south and rural midwest. The Democratic Party can close the deal it made tuesday by ignoring social conservative issues, by pushing a progressive economic and environmental agenda, and by reigning in the neocon war criminals. They do not have to sell out women, blacks, hispanics, or gays in doing so.

[madinmaryland]

3. Will the new democratic party even introduce this?

I don't think they want to deal with any part of this issue. No MPA or expansion of rights either.

[no_hypocrisy]

5. You mean it wasn't because of the threat of unisex toilets like

Phyllis Schafley claimed?

[sinkingfeeling]

6. I do not think there will ever be a MPA. Within the next decade, all those

states that have modified their constitutions will be repealing those anti-gay marriage amendments just like they had to do in the Southern states in the 1960's regarding inter-racial marriages. People have become more tolerant of homosexuality during my lifetime and will continue to do so. The hell with Christian Fundies.

[gaspee]

9. I agree 100%

And we all have to remember how progress brings about backlash. Always has, always will, because at heart people, especially conservatives are all about the fear.

Fear of change, fear of anything new, fear of their own goddamned shaddows. And you wanna talk about backlash? Feminism is a dirty word to young women. They bought the lies hook line and sinker. It makes me sick.

[TheWraith]

7. The MPA is never going to happen now.

It was never going to happen before, either, since the Republicans wanted it as a wedge issue--just like abortion, guns, etcetera, the leadership doesn't want to actually DO anything, they just want to talk about it to fire up the fundies. But the MPA certainly isn't going to even make it to the floor in the new Congress. Even if you think the Blue Dogs would help it pass, think of who the committee chairs are.

[enlightenment]

8. I absolutely support you, but the ERA has been around since

1943 - as written. A lot longer than most folks think, if you count the original incarnation. Lucretia Mott introduced the original "Men and women shall have equal rights throughout the United States and every place subject to its jurisdiction" in 1923 -- Alice Paul revised it to the current version 20 years later.

[gaspee]

11. And the only way it will pass

Is if women rise up in violent revolution. I'm ready, how about the rest of the women out there. Are you ready for a little self-defensive offense? Oh, I forgot, complacent, "god says I should submit to man," type of women will never stick up for themselves or their sisters. They'll continue to be little more than domestic servants, grateful for every little scrap from their man.

Men will continue to abuse and murder women at the rates they do, women will still be expected to do all the work at home and outside the home, will will continue to be treated as less-than, especially by those who think they are righteous and "know what god wants."

Men will continue to use women as little more than sperm recepticles and incubators.

And before the men here get too incensed, let's make sure we use the intellectual honesty we can muster and know I'm not talking about all men. Duh. To even say in response to this, "well all men are not like that, or I'm not like that," really tries to invalidate me, my feelings, and the facts. Think about it, is that what you really want to do? Of course it is, if that's your first reaction.

[SoCalDem]

14. One word... Lysistrata

http://www.theatredatabase.com/ancient/aristophanes_005.html

[Lexingtonian]

10. technically

all the things written into the ERA are covered by a fair reading of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment.

I don't buy into the desire to have more amendments to the Constitution which either contradict other parts (i.e. a gay marriage ban) or are redundant (i.e. the ERA).

In the end the game, in whatever frame you start from, is about a national consensus. No one who has seriously looked into them thinks that gay marriage bans will long endure, or capital punishment for common crimes, or the various disenfranchisement laws, or bans on abortion or contraceptives. In 20 years these things will easily have solid majorities against them.

Btw, with Deval Patrick elected and enough quiet support in the state legislature, it seems that the Massachusetts '1913 law' is going to be repealed in the next few months. Well, unless national pressure develops to wait. The repeal of that law opens the door to direct challenges of DoMA and the various mini-DoMAs. It may be wise to wait a few years to do that, to keep the fight at the state level and work incrementally until only real conservative stronghold states remain, and then go for the equivalent of a Loving v Virginia verdict. Loving v Virginia came almost 20 years after the initial verdict legalizing racial intermarriage, the 1948 Perez(?) verdict in California. I doubt that it will take 20 years from the Goodridge verdict for gay marriage to attain federal level legalization, but 12-15 years could be reasonable place to peg such a thing. That would be roughly when solid support for gay marriage crosses 50% nationally at present trends.

[gaspee]

12. Sure, you betcha

Too bad it doesn't work that way in the real world. Maybe changing the constitution from "All men are created equall," to "All people are created equal," might do the trick, because honestly, I'm not feeling the equality.

[Lexingtonian]

13. The Constitution does say

Amendment XIV

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

If you want this to be realized, rather than denied, we have to put in people who will enforce it. And for enough political support, you have to find and explain to all groups abused by this denial of rights that we need judges and majorities who will enforce this part of the Constitution properly- labor, women, blacks, hispanics, non-Christians, criminals who have served their sentences. But no such interest group has been free enough of bigotry toward the others to begin this effort toward a political unity around a Constitutional provision.

Denying these right and disenforcement is the core of the Republicanism created by Nixon. The raving against 'big government' and for 'strict constructionism' is essentially code for continuing the entrenched inequality. The opposite of creating equality is the upholding a colonial era class and caste system based in race, religion, gender, ethnicity, and wealth.