ERA! ERA! ERA! ERA Call to Action #1

[TAPat]

Remember that?

I do.

I remember - some 30 years ago - my mom attending rallies outside the state capitol in Sacramento shouting herself hoarse. I spent many of my most memorable hours as a kid hanging out with my mom and her friends making airbrushed banners and signs, tee shirts, hats and visors too. My little girlfriend and I were then enlisted to wear this political gear at the weekend flea market to advertise their sale.



I remember feeling proud to be a girl, proud to know that one day I would be a woman. I was empowered by the example these women were setting. I was grateful for the efforts they were extending for themselves, but mostly for the girls who would come after them. I felt - I knew - that I counted. I mattered. This was my political awakening and I was crushed when the amendment was not ratified. I knew from that point forward I would have to make my equality for myself. I have been able to achieve equality in my personal life, yet the public sphere is quite another matter: I have been constructively fired from a job simply because I demanded equal pay - this is just one example.

Yesterday – some 30 years later – my mom and I were celebrating the coming of the nation’s first woman Speaker of the House. We also lamented the failure of the ERA. 30 years and nary a word is spoken of the Equal Rights Amendment. There is a whole generation of young women who know nothing of the campaign for women’s rights. Many take for granted the handful of rights they, as women, have: Roe, birth control, most certainly the right to vote; but they are perhaps ignorant of the women who fought for nearly a century – yes, a century – to afford them those rights.

30 years later, and after 6 years of darkness and a serious assault on two of those three rights women have, is it not time to take up the banners and signs again? Is it still too much to ask, now, in the 21st century, that the populist majority in this country be granted the same federal rights as their male counterparts?

I say the time is now.

The incoming majority has much to do, to be sure: raising the minimum wage, ending the immoral and illegal war, addressing global warming, pushing innovation in alternative fuels and ending corporate pollution, investigations into the BFEE (especially the Cheney arm) and so much more…


Please, if I have missed a grassroots movement already in place, make me aware of it so that I may lend my voice.

If no such current movement exists, please join me as I begin to renew the effort from the ground up. Feel free to PM me with any helpful information you may have.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

One of my favorite *jokes*:

Sailor #1 – That’s a mighty big ocean!

Sailor #2 – Yeah, but that’s just the top of it.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

What I have posted here is *just the top of it*

AND

This is the first installment of my *ERA Call to Action*. Subsequent installments will be added as my research and/or pertinent information presents itself.

Thank you.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

1. Go for it! I'm with you as I was the first it was pushed.

And, I heartily agree with your other priorities. I think the politicians are capable of doing more that one things at a time...if we lean on them.

[TAPat]

2. Thank you -

I have committed myself to this, especially for my daughter's sake.

Onward!

[MindPilot]

3. How about a Right to Privacy amendment?

[TAPat]

4. I don't see how that helps

women become fully equal citizens.

That may protect a right to make decisions about our bodies (read: uterus), but does not guarantee us equal pay with which to raise our families.

[Autonomy]

38. I think it was a reference to the other amendment issue

equal rights for women and right to privacy have been the most-talked-about amendments for our side in the last several decades. Compare to the righties' offering: a flag-burning amendment. Pfft.

[bobbieinok]

5. I was relieved when the women's movement gave up focusing on ERA

It was a losing battle then once the RW targeted it. The women's movement then was free to work on other things.

[HardRocker05]

23. i'm glad women never gave up on the right to vote, and you can believe

that there were many women at the time who took precisely the same position that you have. they felt that asking for the right to vote would make the whole movement appear ridiculous, and that their energies were better spent on more important things. susan b. anthony correctly saw that the right to vote was key to gaining all the other reforms, just as the ERA is.

[TAPat]

40. Thank you, HR -

That is exactly where I am coming from.

Onward!

[Generic Other]

6. The didn't so much GIVE us our rights, but we TOOK them anyway

I too marched for ERA.

[MountainLaurel]

9. Used to have have a keychain

Handpainted, that read: "She took back her power, without asking permission." It meant a lot to me at the time I bought it (getting out of a poisonous relationship, a job that was making me sick, and getting treatment for depression). I lost it a couple years ago in a move.

[we can do it]

7. NOW - It Would Be A Great Time, I Still Can't Believe It Hasn't Been Done Yet

But I guess I'm not surprised. I wanted an ERA bracelet when I was pretty young - 6th grade or so.....but I wasn't allowed to get it - we weren't allowed to wear them at school or something like that.

[kiahzero]

8. ... It's redundant.

The Equal Protection Clause already covers the same things the ERA would cover.

[Kat45]

10. That's funny because I was just thinking of the ERA the other day

And about how pathetic it was that this country (when it was in a more liberal period than it is now) couldn't even pass an amendment stating that women have equal rights. There were all the scare tactics (scaring both men and women) saying that the amendment would lead to unisex bathrooms and women getting drafted and being in combat. And lookie, lookie, today we have women in combat situations without even having equal rights.

[porphyrian]

11. But who're going to be our second class citizens?

Now that we're actually going to enact the 9/11 commission's recommendations, we won't have illegal immigrants to scapegoat for everything. Are you sure you women don't just want to keep your traditional second class citizen roles?

Yes, that's sarcasm.

[williesgirl]

12. K&R from an old feminist!

[TAPat]

36. Yea, Old Feminist!

I love y'all!

Will you stand up again for the Young Feminists?!

We'll do it this time... :)

[TexasThoughtCriminal]

13. I think it's a disgrace we don't have ERA

and Congress spent countless hours on flag burning and gay marriage.:wtf:

[Wiley50]

14. The "GrassRoots" Movement You Missed Was Legalizing Grass

The Prison-Industrial Complex has way too many slaves.

[cap]

15. kick

[Stephanie]

16. My mom too!

She and her two friends single-handedly got ERA through the MT legislature. I remember arguing about it with kids on the playground, at recess! No wonder I'm such a political junkie! I got hooked early.

:hi:

[TAPat]

27. Right on, Sister!

Sorry it took me so long to get back to you - busy, busy & more busy!

Thanks - and keep an eye out for the posts to follow #2 can be found here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2703174&mesg_id=2703174

[LeftHander]

17. Had ERA been inplace....we would have marriage equity...

State's constitutional amendments banning same sex marriage would of been unconstitutional under ERA....

[TAPat]

19. Unfortunately, or fortunately, depending on how

you look at it, that is not true:

How does the ERA relate to the issue of homosexual rights?

ERA opponents’ claim that the amendment would require states to allow same-sex marriage is false. The state of Washington rejected such a claim under its state ERA in the 1970s. The state of Hawaii, which considered such a claim under its state ERA, recently amended its constitution to declare marriage a contract between a man and a woman. The legislative history of the ERA shows that its intent is to equalize rights between women and men, not to address issues of discrimination based on sexual orientation.

This from: http://www.equalrightsamendment.org/faq.htm a bit down the page.

On a personal note - *Marriage* equity also seems like a 'no-brainer' to me, but this amendment has been alive since 1923 and we are SO close to getting it passed it seems the logical place to start.

Please see ERA Call to Action #2 here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2703174&mesg_id=2703174

[kiahzero]

33. Bans on SSM are issues of discrimination based on sex.

The test to determine if one can get married is not one's sexual orientation, but one's sex.

[TAPat]

35. While this may be true

I ask you to look at the actual wording of the Amendment and see the FAQ about the ERA here: http://www.equalrightsamendment.org/faq.htm

I want both issues to be resolved - but right this minute the ERA is within reach.

[librechik]

21. I'm there too. Let's go!

can't imagine anything WRONG with that amendment.

Let's do it, girls!

[MUSTANG_2004]

18. What would it change?

There are already anti-discrimination laws on the books (I used to work at one of the agencies responsible for enforcing them, so saw them in action). What would the ERA add to that?

[TAPat]

20. For an answer to your question please see

ERA Call to Action #2 here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2703174&mesg_id=2703174

[HardRocker05]

22. I was just thinking the same thing. ERA needs to be passed, for the sake

of principle, if nothing else. but on the practical side, it would give women a lot of legal support when facing discrimination. i think that it would also apply to a lot of gay rights issues, and of course that would be used by the right as a reason against it. unfortunately, we can't even count on all women to support the ERA, and that's even without the gay issues. throughout history women have been their own worst enemy, often choosing to cast their lot with the very people who believe that they are an inferior sub-species of the human race.

[TAPat]

24. Please see my post directly above

yours in the thread.

The idea that the ERA has anything to do with the *gay rights agenda* is completely false and needs to be set straight :)

Thank you for taking interest in this discussion!

[suston96]

25. Redundant...

Name aggravated rights violations against women because of their sex that aren't covered by the Fourteenth.

Concentrate on corrupted elections first or the Republicans will take over in 2008 and none of our rights will be secure. They could care less about constitutional rights.

[TAPat]

26. It seems that you don't care

about women's right to constitutional rights.


Why do we need the ERA if we have the "equal protection" clause of the 14th Amendment?

The 14th Amendment was ratified after the Civil War, in 1868, in order to deal with race discrimination. (Ironically, it added the word "male" to the Constitution for the first time in referring to the electorate.) It was first applied to prohibit sex discrimination in 1971, in the Supreme Court decision Reed v. Reed, but it still allowed legal differentiation by sex to stand in many cases. Several subsequent Supreme Court decisions (Craig v. Boren in 1976, United States v. Commonwealth of Virginia in 1996) have raised the standard of protection against sex discrimination under the 14th Amendment, but sex discrimination claims still do not get the highest level of judicial scrutiny ("strict scrutiny") that race discrimination claims get. If ERA opponents believe that women already have the full protection of the Constitution through the 14th Amendment, they should have no objection to clarifying that guarantee through the specific wording of the ERA.

This from: http://www.equalrightsamendment.org/faq.htm

If you are truly interested in this discussion, and would like to educate yourself on the status of the ERA, please see ERA Call to Action #2 here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2703174&mesg_id=2703174

[suston96]

29. Why two threads on the same subject?

"If ERA opponents believe that women already have the full protection of the Constitution through the 14th Amendment, they should have no objection to clarifying that guarantee through the specific wording of the ERA."

The Fourteenth is clear enough:

"Amendment XIV: Privileges or immunities, due process, elections and debt.

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. "

And in Section 5, the details for enforcing this Amendment are also quite clear:

"Section 5.

The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. "

Do we really need more generalized and unspecified instructions in the US Constitution that will always be subject to interpretation by partisan activists who will support whatever the prevailing political winds happen to blow their way?

The Constitution needs fixing in more serious ways. Redundancy on what it already contains makes no sense.

[TAPat]

31. Have you read both posts completely before

you jump my case.

[NorthernSpy]

28. fuck the ERA!

There's a WAR on. People are dying, and we're still trying to think of a way to get out.
(We already have equal rights.)

We're losing our industry. The good jobs are going overseas, and wages have stagnated in the face of rising inflation.
(We already have equal rights.)

Healthcare costs are soaring. And tens of millions have no health insurance at all.
(We already have equal rights.)

Al Qaeda still exists. And they still want us dead.
(We already have equal rights.)

The country is deep in debt. Families are in debt. And China holds the IOUs.
(We already have equal rights.)

Climate change threatens us all. And it will take a HUGE uphill battle just to get our own country to comply with the Kyoto plan.
(We already have equal rights.)


We just won an election because people are so concerned about the war, terror, jobs, healthcare, and debt that they were willing to throw the ruling party out of government in order to get action on the current crisis.

And you want to waste this rare moment by digging up some irrelevant, redundant old thing from the Seventies. You want us drop everything, and help you bring the ERA back from the dead. So that we can fight the battles of the past -- battles that have, for all intents and purposes, already been won -- even while a dismal future is staring us in the face.


Screw that. Fuck that. And I say that as a woman who believes in equality.





(edit: added missing word)

[TAPat]

30. I appreciate everything you have to say -

please consider looking at ERA Call to Action #2 here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2703174&mesg_id=2703174 and see that the ERA is NOT dead, that it is NOT redundant, it is NOT irrelevant and that we are within 3 states of ratification.

Thank you.

[NorthernSpy]

32. while things are so dire for so many, digging up the ERA is a pointless distraction

I just can't believe that you really want to waste all this momentum on THAT, for gawd's sake.

:argh:

[TAPat]

34. Thank you agian for your input -

but I will spend my time working on this issue as well as all the others.

If you choose not to participate, I just ask that you do not work against those of us who do.

[suston96]

37. Against what?

Sorry, but I will work against the US Constitution being cluttered with generalized amendments which will just invite more court cases in the future which and will require clarification by the court - cases which can be addressed with the Fourteenth Amendment.

I repeat - list complaints by any citizen based on violations of their rights because of sex that are not covered by the equal rights protection in the Fourteenth Amendment.

List a court decision that decided that there is nothing in the Fourteenth Amendment that provides a remedy for such complaints.

[TAPat]

39. Why are you replying

to a comment directed at another member?