NationStates Jolt Archive

I've been thinking for quite some time now about how we should legislate gay rights in the United States, about how to give them the rights they deserve. Not just gays, either, but a lot of others who are often passed under the rader, such as transgendered folks. And then, it hit me:

The ERA.

We--or most of us, at least--are familiar with the Equal Rights Amendment. Written in 1923, almost ratified in the 1980's, it was meant to establish once and for all that there was to be no discrimination based on gender. Period.

And yet...and yet...it doesn't do enough. So, what I propose is that we rewrite the ERA to present, in plainspeak, an admendment that gives equal rights to everyone regardless of anything! Disabled? So what? You're just as much a person as anyone else. Practice some kind of odd spirituality? You're a person. Flaming gay ready to make the world absolutely fabulous?(Sorry, couldn't resist that one) You're still a person.

The main problem, I think, is in the phrasing. I mentioned plainspeak before, and I specify it simply because essentially all other constitutional amendments have been debated as to what exactly they mean. The new ERA should be specific to the very detail, so that noone is still discriminated against due to a loophole.

Would this succeed, though? Could we get the backing of enough politicians to see it go through Congress? Could we get the backing of the populace? Could we manage it, period? Discuss.

Not a bad idea, but I doubt it would fly. Anyway, the Constitution already guarantees me the same rights as the majority. Sadly, not everyone realizes that including most of the current Supreme Court justices.

I would also like to see an amendment guaranteeing a right to privacy so we can put that whole stupid debate to bed. It also would have a greater chance of passing I think.

I hardly know anything about law in general, let alone the US constitution, but I've tried looking up some information. Is it true that the Equal Rights Amendment isn't part of the US constitution? If so, I'm wondering why it isn't.

I found this quote in the 14th amendment of the Bill of Rights:
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.
Why doesn't this cover legal equality of individuals?

Also, what would be the legal status of "you're still a person"? I can understand the importance of 'plainspeak' when trying to explain laws to laymen like me, but this would be even more ambiguous than a legalese statement, and just as prone to misinterpretation.

It would not get the backing of the populace.
It would not get the backing of the Congress.
It would be the longest amendment in the history of the United States if it were to include every possible detail, etc.

Sadly, this wouldn't work. And trying to get anything codified into law in 'plainspeak' won't work either. The lawyers would have strokes without the 'hereunders' and 'undersigned' and all that fun legal stuff.

Baisically, Americans are too homophobic, as a whole, to pass an ERA(A? Equal Rights Amendment Amendment?) that would protect gay people, give them rights to marry, etc. Since we have standing sodomy and homosexuality laws in a bunch of states these days, I don't think that we're anywhere close to protecting gay rights.

I hardly know anything about law in general, let alone the US constitution, but I've tried looking up some information. Is it true that the Equal Rights Amendment isn't part of the US constitution? If so, I'm wondering why it isn't.

I found this quote in the 14th amendment of the Bill of Rights:

Why doesn't this cover legal equality of individuals?

Also, what would be the legal status of "you're still a person"? I can understand the importance of 'plainspeak' when trying to explain laws to laymen like me, but this would be even more ambiguous than a legalese statement, and just as prone to misinterpretation.
It's precisely because the 14th amendment can be so easily debated that such a rewrite of the ERA is necessary.

As for what I was stating, it was more of a way to express the idea than anything else. Obviously we need to decide upon the best way to phrase it, as I have yet to come up with a solid way.

Texoma Land: That would be quite useful as well, methinks.

It sounds like a lovely idea. I'd heartily support it.

But I think, unfortunately, that the devil would be in the details. When defining all people as people, we must clearly define "people." When declaring all people to receive equal rights, we almost have to first determine exactly what rights everyone has. Otherwise, we're doomed to decades of people claiming, as they do now, that all people have the right to marry members of the opposite sex, or, on the other end of the spectrum, suing because we deny six-month-old people the right to vote.

It would not get the backing of the populace.
It would not get the backing of the Congress.
It would be the longest amendment in the history of the United States if it were to include every possible detail, etc.

Sadly, this wouldn't work. And trying to get anything codified into law in 'plainspeak' won't work either. The lawyers would have strokes without the 'hereunders' and 'undersigned' and all that fun legal stuff.

Baisically, Americans are too homophobic, as a whole, to pass an ERA(A? Equal Rights Amendment Amendment?) that would protect gay people, give them rights to marry, etc. Since we have standing sodomy and homosexuality laws in a bunch of states these days, I don't think that we're anywhere close to protecting gay rights.
When I say plainspeak, I suppose I should probably clarify that the point is to make it obvious. Legalease, yeah, but obvious legalease.

I wouldn't expect this to be ratified anytime soon. I'm talking more about the future than anything else.

In that case, I'm not sure at all. Plain legalese, certainly. Every law strives for it (except the ones that actively try to confuse, but most of them don't get passed). But the thing with laws, especially 200 years after the fact, is that the words don't always carry the intent through intervening generations. Take the 2nd Amendment, which no doubt at the time seemed to be clear and concise. Now, it's a major cause of debate, because anyone who could have settled the matter once and for all is long dead.

As for the future, I don't know. The US population was far and away more liberal in the 60s and 70s, and thirty years later we're seriously talking about discriminatory legislation against gay people. (Bone of contention, much?) So, either we become more conservative more quickly, or the backlash pushes us to be more liberal. I don't know, I don't think any of us could really do anything more than make a wild guess.