Posts: 4,752
Threads: 666
Joined: Feb 2011
Take this, SCOTUS.
An interesting proposition in these tea party times, though.
Quote:This afternoon Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) and Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ) re-introduced the Equal Rights Amendment. The ERA currently has 160 co-sponsors in the House, including Congresswoman Gwen Moore (D-WI), Chair of the Congressional Women's Caucus.
Feminist Majority President Eleanor Smeal spoke at a press conference today announcing the bill's re-introduction, stating, "Women and men deserve and need full equal rights. Without constitutional equality, too many women, and thereby too many families, are cheated. Americans overwhelmingly support constitutional equality. It is time- in fact, it's long overdue- for us to move forward. That's why the Feminist Majority and other women's organizations are this year going to score co-sponsorship of the ERA as a yes vote for constitutional equality for women; failure to co-sponsor will be on record as a vote against women's constitutional equality. It is simple as that-do you value women as full equal citizens under the law or not?" The National Organization for Women will also score whether or not a Member of Congress supports the ERA.
In response to the US Supreme Court's ruling in favor of Wal-Mart in the sex discrimination case, Representative Carolyn Maloney underscored the importance of passing the ERA: "The Wal-Mart case reviewed by the Supreme Court this week is a classic example of how far attitudes must still come. The facts of the case support the view that over a million women were systematically denied equal pay by the nation's largest employer."
The passage of the ERA is even more important today following Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia's comment this year that the U.S. Constitution does not protect women from sex discrimination. In an interview with the California Lawyer, Scalia stated that the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which guarantees equal justice under the law for all persons, does not prohibit sex discrimination under the laws of the United States or its states.
http://www.msmagazine.com/news/uswirestory.asp?ID=13073
Posts: 431
Threads: 42
Joined: Jun 2009
(06-22-2011, 02:51 PM)Crone Wrote: Take this, SCOTUS.
An interesting proposition in these tea party times, though.
Quote:This afternoon Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) and Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ) re-introduced the Equal Rights Amendment. The ERA currently has 160 co-sponsors in the House, including Congresswoman Gwen Moore (D-WI), Chair of the Congressional Women's Caucus.
Feminist Majority President Eleanor Smeal spoke at a press conference today announcing the bill's re-introduction, stating, "Women and men deserve and need full equal rights. Without constitutional equality, too many women, and thereby too many families, are cheated. Americans overwhelmingly support constitutional equality. It is time- in fact, it's long overdue- for us to move forward. That's why the Feminist Majority and other women's organizations are this year going to score co-sponsorship of the ERA as a yes vote for constitutional equality for women; failure to co-sponsor will be on record as a vote against women's constitutional equality. It is simple as that-do you value women as full equal citizens under the law or not?" The National Organization for Women will also score whether or not a Member of Congress supports the ERA.
In response to the US Supreme Court's ruling in favor of Wal-Mart in the sex discrimination case, Representative Carolyn Maloney underscored the importance of passing the ERA: "The Wal-Mart case reviewed by the Supreme Court this week is a classic example of how far attitudes must still come. The facts of the case support the view that over a million women were systematically denied equal pay by the nation's largest employer."
The passage of the ERA is even more important today following Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia's comment this year that the U.S. Constitution does not protect women from sex discrimination. In an interview with the California Lawyer, Scalia stated that the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which guarantees equal justice under the law for all persons, does not prohibit sex discrimination under the laws of the United States or its states.
http://www.msmagazine.com/news/uswirestory.asp?ID=13073 Two questions:
1. Will it get blocked by the same bloc of states (mostly the old Confederacy) that stopped it last time?
2. How long will the process be allowed to go? Last time, supporters were told that they had taken long enough to pass the amendment and their time was up. Since then, we've passed the 27th Amendment, which took 200 years to work its way through the system. With this as a precedent, how can the courts put a time limit on passage of the ERA?
Posts: 1,618
Threads: 259
Joined: Oct 2009
(06-22-2011, 02:51 PM)Crone Wrote: Take this, SCOTUS.
An interesting proposition in these tea party times, though.
Quote:This afternoon Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) and Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ) re-introduced the Equal Rights Amendment. The ERA currently has 160 co-sponsors in the House, including Congresswoman Gwen Moore (D-WI), Chair of the Congressional Women's Caucus.
Feminist Majority President Eleanor Smeal spoke at a press conference today announcing the bill's re-introduction, stating, "Women and men deserve and need full equal rights. Without constitutional equality, too many women, and thereby too many families, are cheated. Americans overwhelmingly support constitutional equality. It is time- in fact, it's long overdue- for us to move forward. That's why the Feminist Majority and other women's organizations are this year going to score co-sponsorship of the ERA as a yes vote for constitutional equality for women; failure to co-sponsor will be on record as a vote against women's constitutional equality. It is simple as that-do you value women as full equal citizens under the law or not?" The National Organization for Women will also score whether or not a Member of Congress supports the ERA.
In response to the US Supreme Court's ruling in favor of Wal-Mart in the sex discrimination case, Representative Carolyn Maloney underscored the importance of passing the ERA: "The Wal-Mart case reviewed by the Supreme Court this week is a classic example of how far attitudes must still come. The facts of the case support the view that over a million women were systematically denied equal pay by the nation's largest employer."
The passage of the ERA is even more important today following Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia's comment this year that the U.S. Constitution does not protect women from sex discrimination. In an interview with the California Lawyer, Scalia stated that the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which guarantees equal justice under the law for all persons, does not prohibit sex discrimination under the laws of the United States or its states.
http://www.msmagazine.com/news/uswirestory.asp?ID=13073
Good luck with that.
Posts: 4,752
Threads: 666
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,907
Threads: 170
Joined: Feb 2009
Blah! Like we really need a law about this.
Quit burning your bras and put them back on.
Sorry, this is one of those things that I just don't agree with.
Posts: 12,489
Threads: 371
Joined: Mar 2010
(06-22-2011, 07:44 PM)broadzilla Wrote: Blah! Like we really need a law about this.
Quit burning your bras and put them back on.
Sorry, this is one of those things that I just don't agree with.
BZ, I always respect your opinions about "taking care of it yourself". You have done wonders.
I think, however, this goes far beyond bra burning.
I don't claim to know all the details of this. I do know that I want equal rights for the women in my life. And for you.
I notice this piece was from the Ms. Organization, and of course that viewpoint is somewhat biased. As it should be, from an advocacy group.
I look forward to the debate this will generate. From that continuing discussion will come a final result. We hope.
Posts: 5,373
Threads: 65
Joined: Jan 2011
(06-22-2011, 07:44 PM)broadzilla Wrote: Blah! Like we really need a law about this.
Quit burning your bras and put them back on.
Sorry, this is one of those things that I just don't agree with.
For heaven's sakes! Why would you say that?
Posts: 4,907
Threads: 170
Joined: Feb 2009
(06-22-2011, 08:04 PM)Wonky Wrote: (06-22-2011, 07:44 PM)broadzilla Wrote: Blah! Like we really need a law about this.
Quit burning your bras and put them back on.
Sorry, this is one of those things that I just don't agree with.
BZ, I always respect your opinions about "taking care of it yourself". You have done wonders.
I think, however, this goes far beyond bra burning.
I don't claim to know all the details of this. I do know that I want equal rights for the women in my life. And for you.
I notice this piece was from the Ms. Organization, and of course that viewpoint is somewhat biased. As it should be, from an advocacy group.
I look forward to the debate this will generate. From that continuing discussion will come a final result. We hope.
I feel like I already have equal rights.
Never been paid less than a man doing the same job as I have...in fact, I usually make more.
I can speak my mind freely.
I can vote.
I have control of my body.
I can run for political office.
I can drive.
Etc....
What is it that women don't have that men do, other than a penis? (..and I could get one of those if I wanted to). And I have boobs...so there!
Posts: 4,752
Threads: 666
Joined: Feb 2011
(06-22-2011, 07:44 PM)broadzilla Wrote: Blah! Like we really need a law about this.
Quit burning your bras and put them back on.
Sorry, this is one of those things that I just don't agree with.
"The passage of the ERA is even more important today following Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia's comment this year that the U.S. Constitution does not protect women from sex discrimination. In an interview with the California Lawyer, Scalia stated that the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which guarantees equal justice under the law for all persons, does not prohibit sex discrimination under the laws of the United States or its states."
I've never burned a bra in my life, but I'm for the ERA.
Posts: 14,339
Threads: 709
Joined: Jan 2011
(06-22-2011, 09:47 PM)broadzilla Wrote: (06-22-2011, 08:04 PM)Wonky Wrote: (06-22-2011, 07:44 PM)broadzilla Wrote: Blah! Like we really need a law about this.
Quit burning your bras and put them back on.
Sorry, this is one of those things that I just don't agree with.
BZ, I always respect your opinions about "taking care of it yourself". You have done wonders.
I think, however, this goes far beyond bra burning.
I don't claim to know all the details of this. I do know that I want equal rights for the women in my life. And for you.
I notice this piece was from the Ms. Organization, and of course that viewpoint is somewhat biased. As it should be, from an advocacy group.
I look forward to the debate this will generate. From that continuing discussion will come a final result. We hope. And I have boobs...so there!
Me too!
Posts: 4,752
Threads: 666
Joined: Feb 2011
What is the complete text of the Equal Rights Amendment? The proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution passed both houses of Congress and was sent to the states for ratification in 1972. Throughout the 1970s, feminist activists and many public figures worked to pass the ERA. Some groups fought against the ERA, leading to confusion among the public about what the amendment actually says.
This is the text of the Equal Rights Amendment, ratified by 35 states:
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.
That's it.
Posts: 5,373
Threads: 65
Joined: Jan 2011
(06-22-2011, 09:47 PM)broadzilla Wrote: (06-22-2011, 08:04 PM)Wonky Wrote: (06-22-2011, 07:44 PM)broadzilla Wrote: Blah! Like we really need a law about this.
Quit burning your bras and put them back on.
Sorry, this is one of those things that I just don't agree with.
BZ, I always respect your opinions about "taking care of it yourself". You have done wonders.
I think, however, this goes far beyond bra burning.
I don't claim to know all the details of this. I do know that I want equal rights for the women in my life. And for you.
I notice this piece was from the Ms. Organization, and of course that viewpoint is somewhat biased. As it should be, from an advocacy group.
I look forward to the debate this will generate. From that continuing discussion will come a final result. We hope.
I feel like I already have equal rights.
Never been paid less than a man doing the same job as I have...in fact, I usually make more.
I can speak my mind freely.
I can vote.
I have control of my body.
I can run for political office.
I can drive.
Etc....
What is it that women don't have that men do, other than a penis? (..and I could get one of those if I wanted to). And I have boobs...so there!
That sounds like "I feel I already have equal rights" and to hell with the rest of you who don't feel that way, you're just a bunch of whiny, little girls because you are not as accomplished, experienced and well endowed as I am. I am assuming, by your post that you are.
Posts: 22,606
Threads: 795
Joined: Jan 2011
(06-22-2011, 07:44 PM)broadzilla Wrote: Blah! Like we really need a law about this.
Quit burning your bras and put them back on.
Sorry, this is one of those things that I just don't agree with.
Yeah... I'm an old lady and I've never burned a bra. But I do feel like we need a law for equal rights in order to protect women's rights.
Posts: 2,178
Threads: 62
Joined: Apr 2010
(06-22-2011, 10:03 PM)Juniper Wrote: (06-22-2011, 09:47 PM)broadzilla Wrote: (06-22-2011, 08:04 PM)Wonky Wrote: (06-22-2011, 07:44 PM)broadzilla Wrote: Blah! Like we really need a law about this.
Quit burning your bras and put them back on.
Sorry, this is one of those things that I just don't agree with.
BZ, I always respect your opinions about "taking care of it yourself". You have done wonders.
I think, however, this goes far beyond bra burning.
I don't claim to know all the details of this. I do know that I want equal rights for the women in my life. And for you.
I notice this piece was from the Ms. Organization, and of course that viewpoint is somewhat biased. As it should be, from an advocacy group.
I look forward to the debate this will generate. From that continuing discussion will come a final result. We hope.
I feel like I already have equal rights.
Never been paid less than a man doing the same job as I have...in fact, I usually make more.
I can speak my mind freely.
I can vote.
I have control of my body.
I can run for political office.
I can drive.
Etc....
What is it that women don't have that men do, other than a penis? (..and I could get one of those if I wanted to). And I have boobs...so there!
That sounds like "I feel I already have equal rights" and to hell with the rest of you who don't feel that way, you're just a bunch of whiny, little girls because you are not as accomplished, experienced and well endowed as I am. I am assuming, by your post that you are.
I agree with BZ and to be honest I do not know any female that has been denied a management position, pay or hours due to the fact of their sex. I do know woman that have been denied because they do not want to change their availability to work. I also know woman that have not been asked to be managers , or given full time hours due to their work ethic.
Posts: 5,373
Threads: 65
Joined: Jan 2011
06-23-2011, 07:18 AM
(This post was last modified: 06-23-2011, 08:09 AM by Juniper. Edited 1 time in total.)
(06-23-2011, 05:10 AM)blondemom Wrote: (06-22-2011, 10:03 PM)Juniper Wrote: (06-22-2011, 09:47 PM)broadzilla Wrote: (06-22-2011, 08:04 PM)Wonky Wrote: (06-22-2011, 07:44 PM)broadzilla Wrote: Blah! Like we really need a law about this.
Quit burning your bras and put them back on.
Sorry, this is one of those things that I just don't agree with.
BZ, I always respect your opinions about "taking care of it yourself". You have done wonders.
I think, however, this goes far beyond bra burning.
I don't claim to know all the details of this. I do know that I want equal rights for the women in my life. And for you.
I notice this piece was from the Ms. Organization, and of course that viewpoint is somewhat biased. As it should be, from an advocacy group.
I look forward to the debate this will generate. From that continuing discussion will come a final result. We hope.
I feel like I already have equal rights.
Never been paid less than a man doing the same job as I have...in fact, I usually make more.
I can speak my mind freely.
I can vote.
I have control of my body.
I can run for political office.
I can drive.
Etc....
What is it that women don't have that men do, other than a penis? (..and I could get one of those if I wanted to). And I have boobs...so there!
That sounds like "I feel I already have equal rights" and to hell with the rest of you who don't feel that way, you're just a bunch of whiny, little girls because you are not as accomplished, experienced and well endowed as I am. I am assuming, by your post that you are.
I agree with BZ and to be honest I do not know any female that has been denied a management position, pay or hours due to the fact of their sex. I do know woman that have been denied because they do not want to change their availability to work. I also know woman that have not been asked to be managers , or given full time hours due to their work ethic.
And does your individual, subjective opinion prove anything about discrimination existing? Do you know what I mean? I mean, just because you haven't had it happen to you, does that make it non existent? It only does in your own personal experience and that can't be called objective. What would the advantages and disadvantages be of this amendment? What would an opponent, or someone who doesn't support it say about it to prove their point? Beside "It hasn't happened to me."
Posts: 18,101
Threads: 859
Joined: Feb 2009
Mr. Obvious told me that people in favor of an ERA are almost always politically liberal and those against it tend to lean politically conservative.
I wonder why any woman regardless of her politics would not want the protection of the law so that they could not be discriminated against even if they have not personally experienced discrimination.
Posts: 27,872
Threads: 1,668
Joined: Sep 2009
(06-23-2011, 07:30 AM)cletus1 Wrote: I wonder why any woman regardless of her politics would not want the protection of the law so that they could not be discriminated against even if they have not personally experienced discrimination.
I would speculate these are women who are so fearful of "rocking the boat" that they prefer to never make waves.
Posts: 4,752
Threads: 666
Joined: Feb 2011
06-23-2011, 09:26 AM
(This post was last modified: 06-23-2011, 09:28 AM by Crone. Edited 1 time in total.)
(06-22-2011, 09:58 PM)Crone Wrote: What is the complete text of the Equal Rights Amendment? The proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution passed both houses of Congress and was sent to the states for ratification in 1972. Throughout the 1970s, feminist activists and many public figures worked to pass the ERA. Some groups fought against the ERA, leading to confusion among the public about what the amendment actually says.
This is the text of the Equal Rights Amendment, ratified by 35 states:
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.
That's it.
I don't understand the problem, truly. Three sentences. But, I will reveal an inconvenient little truth. This attitude of "I've got mine, now you get yours" is the reason many, if not most, women have no desire for a female boss. It shouldn't have to be that way.
Posts: 4,907
Threads: 170
Joined: Feb 2009
(06-23-2011, 08:17 AM)PonderThis Wrote: (06-23-2011, 07:30 AM)cletus1 Wrote: I wonder why any woman regardless of her politics would not want the protection of the law so that they could not be discriminated against even if they have not personally experienced discrimination.
I would speculate these are women who are so fearful of "rocking the boat" that they prefer to never make waves.
Nope, actually I make waves all the time...about a lot of issues.
I am an intelligent, independent woman who watches out for the true underdogs (i.e. seniors, children, people with different abilities...)
I don't need the government to pass a law to tell me I can succeed in this world...I just do it!
Posts: 2,178
Threads: 62
Joined: Apr 2010
(06-23-2011, 07:18 AM)Juniper Wrote: (06-23-2011, 05:10 AM)blondemom Wrote: (06-22-2011, 10:03 PM)Juniper Wrote: (06-22-2011, 09:47 PM)broadzilla Wrote: (06-22-2011, 08:04 PM)Wonky Wrote: BZ, I always respect your opinions about "taking care of it yourself". You have done wonders.
I think, however, this goes far beyond bra burning.
I don't claim to know all the details of this. I do know that I want equal rights for the women in my life. And for you.
I notice this piece was from the Ms. Organization, and of course that viewpoint is somewhat biased. As it should be, from an advocacy group.
I look forward to the debate this will generate. From that continuing discussion will come a final result. We hope.
I feel like I already have equal rights.
Never been paid less than a man doing the same job as I have...in fact, I usually make more.
I can speak my mind freely.
I can vote.
I have control of my body.
I can run for political office.
I can drive.
Etc....
What is it that women don't have that men do, other than a penis? (..and I could get one of those if I wanted to). And I have boobs...so there!
That sounds like "I feel I already have equal rights" and to hell with the rest of you who don't feel that way, you're just a bunch of whiny, little girls because you are not as accomplished, experienced and well endowed as I am. I am assuming, by your post that you are.
I agree with BZ and to be honest I do not know any female that has been denied a management position, pay or hours due to the fact of their sex. I do know woman that have been denied because they do not want to change their availability to work. I also know woman that have not been asked to be managers , or given full time hours due to their work ethic.
And does your individual, subjective opinion prove anything about discrimination existing? Do you know what I mean? I mean, just because you haven't had it happen to you, does that make it non existent? It only does in your own personal experience and that can't be called objective. What would the advantages and disadvantages be of this amendment? What would an opponent, or someone who doesn't support it say about it to prove their point? Beside "It hasn't happened to me."
There is nothing wrong with having the amendment, but if some one is having this problem do you really think it is going to help any.
|