NationStates Jolt Archive

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

Basically, it's an Amendment to the United States Constitution intended to completely remove any and all discrimination by sex in all levels of United States law. This means--among other things--that women could serve in any position in the military, could be drafted, would no longer(I presume) face salary inequality, ect ect.

Personally, ever since I've learned about this Amendment I've been completely in favor of it. Society's sex roles for men and women are ridiculous and not based in reality, and it's high time we finally accepted that and treated women the way they are: entirely equal in all respects.

However, I would like to add a few things to this Amendment, specifically to prevent discrimination in law on the basis of sexual orientation or gender status(to protect transsexuals) and so on. I don't know how far it'd get going that way, but they'd be worthy additions.

Now, technically, the amendment has been reintroduced in every Congress since 1982, but it hasn't garnered any press or any sort of real awareness that would get enough people involved in the states in order to get it ratified. So, my question is really more "Should we all work to get it ratified" more than bring it back, so to speak. Of course, my answer is a definite yes.

yes

this has been another edition of 'short answers to simple questions'

while we're at it, we should make an explicit right to privacy amendment. i wanna see the republicans argue that privacy is bad.

IIRC, it's the only proposed amendment that had a time limit for ratification (ten years, inn this case). The 27th Amendment was proposed around the same time as the Bill of Rights, and didn't become ratified until 1992. The ERA should never have had that proviso. Yes, bring it back.

yes

this has been another edition of 'short answers to simple questions'

while we're at it, we should make an explicit right to privacy amendment. i wanna see the republicans argue that privacy is bad.

No, they'd probably try the same trick that Gonzo did with Habeas Corpus, and say that the implied right to privacy was never really there.

I don't think so.

yes

this has been another edition of 'short answers to simple questions'

while we're at it, we should make an explicit right to privacy amendment. i wanna see the republicans argue that privacy is bad.

Terrorism.

I don't think so.

Why? Can you clarify, please?

Why? Can you clarify, please?

Sure. Women belong in the home, making dinner and children. Gays belong in San Francisco, doing whatever gays do. Minorities should be in Minoriteeburg, doing minority stuff, like opening liquor shops, shooting other minorities, and reproducing. And the Jews...well, they're jews.

There, I think I covered everything.

Terrorism.

ah, but part of the campaign is that anyone who makes that argument immediately has all of their private information released. bank account numbers, medical records, divorce proceedings, embarrassing pictures from high school, the works.

Yes, bring it back, support it, get it passed, if we have to ram it down the Congress's fucking throats and yank it out the other goddamned end already.

And I like the OP's proposed expansion of the bill, too. :)

No, I do not think we need the ERA.

The various previous amendments to the Constitution give women equal rights before the law. This is as far as legal rights need to go; to attempt to change social mores is beyond the purpose of law, and particularly basic law, and is altogether too likely to invoke the Law of Unintended Consequences.

In addition, this would open the door to attempts to drive through other "social" amendments which could clog and damage our legal system.

Women should be treated the same as men where functionally possible, but trying to force social change by law to bring it about only invites a backlash.

I support the ERA.

The various previous amendments to the Constitution give women equal rights before the law.

No, they don't.

No, I do not think we need the ERA.

The various previous amendments to the Constitution give women equal rights before the law. This is as far as legal rights need to go; to attempt to change social mores is beyond the purpose of law, and particularly basic law, and is altogether too likely to invoke the Law of Unintended Consequences.

In addition, this would open the door to attempts to drive through other "social" amendments which could clog and damage our legal system.

Women should be treated the same as men where functionally possible, but trying to force social change by law to bring it about only invites a backlash.
People always say this about every single law or regulation that is ever passed that in any way tends to alter some people's living conditions for the better. Yet the flood of similar motions that "could clog and damage our legal system" never, ever manifests, and the backlashes, when they happen at all, are always relatively brief and endurable while society adjusts itself to the new situation.

I say pass the thing and let the chips fall where they may.

Sure. Women belong in the home, making dinner and children. Gays belong in San Francisco, doing whatever gays do. Minorities should be in Minoriteeburg, doing minority stuff, like opening liquor shops, shooting other minorities, and reproducing. And the Jews...well, they're jews.

There, I think I covered everything.Right. No serious answers from you. Got it.

Yes, bring it back, support it, get it passed, if we have to ram it down the Congress's fucking throats and yank it out the other goddamned end already.

And I like the OP's proposed expansion of the bill, too. :)
It would make it a lot more difficult to get it passed though.
No, I do not think we need the ERA.

The various previous amendments to the Constitution give women equal rights before the law. This is as far as legal rights need to go; to attempt to change social mores is beyond the purpose of law, and particularly basic law, and is altogether too likely to invoke the Law of Unintended Consequences.

In addition, this would open the door to attempts to drive through other "social" amendments which could clog and damage our legal system.

Women should be treated the same as men where functionally possible, but trying to force social change by law to bring it about only invites a backlash.
If this were true, then the ERA wouldn't have been proposed. The fact that enough various women's organizations for various reasons feel it is necessary, along with the information on lots of different things that continuously come out as well as the continuing discrimination against women in the military and in other positions all lead me to conclude that you are incorrect and it is most certainly necessary.

On the other hand, you may have a mild point about potentially unnecessary social amendments. Would you clarify what you mean by this?

Right. No serious answers from you. Got it.


Surely you wouldn't expect anything less.

It would make it a lot more difficult to get it passed though.


Oh, it would get passed all right. It might come out with some corn kernels stuck to it, but -- oh, wait, you meant the gay rights thing, didn't you? Well, yeah, that's true, but I like to aim high.

Oh, it would get passed all right. It might come out with some corn kernels stuck to it, but -- oh, wait, you meant the gay rights thing, didn't you? Well, yeah, that's true, but I like to aim high.

So do I, hence why I suggested the additions.

Also, you're disgusting. :tongue:

So do I, hence why I suggested the additions.

Also, you're disgusting. :tongue:
I get earthy when I'm angry. ;)

On the other hand, you may have a mild point about potentially unnecessary social amendments. Would you clarify what you mean by this?

Certainly. I would find it a negative (and damaging to the concept of the Constitution as a basic document) to see a bunch of amendments dealing with specific instances of intolerance or discrimination, many of which may be ephemeral or temporary in nature. The Constitution functions as the framework from which all our laws depend - we do not want to weaken that framework with sections that deal with issues that are unrelated to the majority of citizens or of a temporary nature. Leave such to the body of law, or allow social issues to be resolved in social rather than legal arenas.

No, they don't.

Ahem:

Amendment XIV

(Ratified July 9, 1868)

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.

Amendment XIX

(Ratified August 18, 1920)

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Together, these two amendments do indeed grant women equality with men before the law.

Certainly. I would find it a negative (and damaging to the concept of the Constitution as a basic document) to see a bunch of amendments dealing with specific instances of intolerance or discrimination, many of which may be ephemeral or temporary in nature. The Constitution functions as the framework from which all our laws depend - we do not want to weaken that framework with sections that deal with issues that are unrelated to the majority of citizens or of a temporary nature. Leave such to the body of law, or allow social issues to be resolved in social rather than legal arenas.

How is an amendment designed to protect approximately half the population unrelated to the majority of citizens or of a temporary nature, though?

For that matter, how would social protections for our citizens weaken its framework? The whole idea behind the Constitution is not just a legal framework for any government, but a government of the people. Therefore it stands to reason it should protect the people where valid.

Certainly. I would find it a negative (and damaging to the concept of the Constitution as a basic document) to see a bunch of amendments dealing with specific instances of intolerance or discrimination, many of which may be ephemeral or temporary in nature. The Constitution functions as the framework from which all our laws depend - we do not want to weaken that framework with sections that deal with issues that are unrelated to the majority of citizens or of a temporary nature. Leave such to the body of law, or allow social issues to be resolved in social rather than legal arenas.

An equal rights amendment would be related to the majority of citizens, though. It would be related to all citizens as long as it was correctly worded. After all, everyone has a sex, right? So everyone would be covered by the amendment. Same thing if we added sexual orientation.

And, by "correctly worded", I mean "as originally worded:

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.
bullet Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
bullet Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.

Ahem:

Together, these two amendments do indeed grant women equality with men before the law.

In truth, the 14th should have been enough. But if it really were, the 19th shouldn't have been necessary.

It's an unfortunate fact that sometimes we have to explicitly state things that should already be encompassed in the law.

How is an amendment designed to protect approximately half the population unrelated to the majority of citizens or of a temporary nature, though?

For that matter, how would social protections for our citizens weaken its framework? The whole idea behind the Constitution is not just a legal framework for any government, but a government of the people. Therefore it stands to reason it should protect the people where valid.

First, I would deny that the ERA provides any real protections not currently existing; as I posted above, women are already equal before the law. It also would not prevent discrimination in the workplace, save in the public service, which I believe already has rules in opposition to discrimination by sex.

Thus, it's actual effect would be on a small minority, and while I agree that minorities need as much (or more) protection as larger groups, in this case I cannot see the effect as being worthy of the cause.

Social protections would weaken the framework by being a de facto legal fracture point. Consider the wording of the Amendments XV and XIX - they are prohibitive, forbidding governments from treating differently people based upon race or sex. The ERA promotes discrimination instead of prohibiting it by forcing legal recognition of difference - while in the current climate the law is blind to such.

Finally, protective devices do have their place in our system - in law. To me, this amendment deals with an issue better dealt with in the legislature, rather than by the Supreme Court - which in many ways is much more of a blunt instrument, and which cannot tailor it's rulings to specific problems and areas.

As Dem said, though, if properly worded it would protect everyone, not just women, homosexuals, and transgendered. Thus, it wouldn't promote discrimination; it would eliminate it in an altogether different way.

And the Constitution is law just like anything else. It's simply placed HIGHER than other law and is where things step off from. Personally, I think something that is that fundamental--which could affect absolutely EVERYTHING--SHOULD be placed before everything else. A large number of other countries seem to agree with me too, judging by their constitutions or equivalent highest laws.

Together, these two amendments do indeed grant women equality with men before the law.

yeah, and according to the federalists there was no need to write down a specific list of rights at all, since it was obvious that those things couldn't be infringed upon without violating the constitution already.

Wouldn't an equal rights amendment threaten beneficial forms of discrimination?

yeah, and according to the federalists there was no need to write down a specific list of rights at all, since it was obvious that those things couldn't be infringed upon without violating the constitution already.

Yes, they did. Their error was in assuming an interpretation of the code that wasn't necessarily the case - they failed to see other points of view.

But the 14th and 19th don't make any such assumptions, and do make women equal to men before the law.

Wouldn't an equal rights amendment threaten beneficial forms of discrimination?

Not in the way you're thinking. It has been argued as such, but I'd say it wouldn't, because there really isn't any sort of positive discrimination that doesn't negatively impact someone else.

For example, abortion rights aren't positive discrimination. Neither is giving women who just had a new-born baby time off to recover and take care of the baby for awhile. These are things that recognize the actual biological differences between the sexes. Some do exist, and there's nothing wrong with laws that recognize the real differences, which are few but still existent.

The kind of equality and discrimination prevention the ERA represents is the sort that targets things like wage inequality, or women being unable to serve directly in combat and in certain positions in the military, and so on and so forth. In other words, negative discrimination.

Not in the way you're thinking. It has been argued as such, but I'd say it wouldn't, because there really isn't any sort of positive discrimination that doesn't negatively impact someone else.

For example, abortion rights aren't positive discrimination. Neither is giving women who just had a new-born baby time off to recover and take care of the baby for awhile. These are things that recognize the actual biological differences between the sexes. Some do exist, and there's nothing wrong with laws that recognize the real differences, which are few but still existent.

The kind of equality and discrimination prevention the ERA represents is the sort that targets things like wage inequality, or women being unable to serve directly in combat and in certain positions in the military, and so on and so forth. In other words, negative discrimination.

One problem I can see is regarding PE teachers etc (assuming that there are similar practices to the UK with only teachers of the same gender as the pupils being allowed in changing rooms.

One problem I can see is regarding PE teachers etc (assuming that there are similar practices to the UK with only teachers of the same gender as the pupils being allowed in changing rooms.
I'm of two minds on this. On one hand I'm all for eliminating this whole society separation thing for bathrooms, changing rooms, ect ect entirely, because society would get used to it within two generations at most and we'd probably all be better for it.

On the other...on the other you still have a point. But I don't think people are seriously going to hold the ERA up and use it as a way to do things like this and get away with it. That's not the point of the ERA and arguments of this nature aren't going to fly in any sort of seriousness.

I'm of two minds on this. On one hand I'm all for eliminating this whole society separation thing for bathrooms, changing rooms, ect ect entirely, because society would get used to it within two generations at most and we'd probably all be better for it.

On the other...on the other you still have a point. But I don't think people are seriously going to hold the ERA up and use it as a way to do things like this and get away with it. That's not the point of the ERA and arguments of this nature aren't going to fly in any sort of seriousness.

I'd be surprised if someone didn't take the "it lets paedos into young girls' changing rooms" angle if it became revived and debated.

And I'd bet a lot on some P.E. teacher who was rejected for a job in favour of someone from the other gender for this reason suing the school. Especially in the US where people sue over a lot less reasonable things.

Small issues compared to the enormous gain we stand to get from the ERA. Not to make light of them, because I'm not, but set against what we stand to achieve, they're not that meaningful. (And besides, that suit would probably be a good idea anyway. Being turned down for that reason is ridiculous.)

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

Basically, it's an Amendment to the United States Constitution intended to completely remove any and all discrimination by sex in all levels of United States law. This means--among other things--that women could serve in any position in the military, could be drafted, would no longer(I presume) face salary inequality, ect ect.

Personally, ever since I've learned about this Amendment I've been completely in favor of it. Society's sex roles for men and women are ridiculous and not based in reality, and it's high time we finally accepted that and treated women the way they are: entirely equal in all respects.

However, I would like to add a few things to this Amendment, specifically to prevent discrimination in law on the basis of sexual orientation or gender status(to protect transsexuals) and so on. I don't know how far it'd get going that way, but they'd be worthy additions.

Now, technically, the amendment has been reintroduced in every Congress since 1982, but it hasn't garnered any press or any sort of real awareness that would get enough people involved in the states in order to get it ratified. So, my question is really more "Should we all work to get it ratified" more than bring it back, so to speak. Of course, my answer is a definite yes.

Yes, complete with the extended protection you propose. A good move.

Small issues compared to the enormous gain we stand to get from the ERA. Not to make light of them, because I'm not, but set against what we stand to achieve, they're not that meaningful. (And besides, that suit would probably be a good idea anyway. Being turned down for that reason is ridiculous.)

I'm honestly not sure what you think it'll achieve for women, but I'd support it for mens rights. That way men will have an easier job getting custody of kids, laws like the anti-FGM thing would have to be extended to both sexes, and as pointed out women would be drafted, thus reducing my chances of getting drafted by half (I hope).

Although as pointed out already, I think none of that stuff is technically legal as it is, as the government isn't supposed to be discriminating as it is.

Together, these two amendments do indeed grant women equality with men before the law.

Oh, but wait--shouldn't the Fourteenth Amendment do as well alone? "Equal protection of the laws" and all that? Why did we even NEED a Nineteenth Amendment? Surely it was superfluous?

And if it wasn't... why is the Fourteenth alone sufficient to guarantee everything beyond the right to vote?

Assuming that women can be suitable for any job and men can be suitable for any job, then yes.

Oh, but wait--shouldn't the Fourteenth Amendment do as well alone? "Equal protection of the laws" and all that? Why did we even NEED a Nineteenth Amendment? Surely it was superfluous?

And if it wasn't... why is the Fourteenth alone sufficient to guarantee everything beyond the right to vote?

According to a strict interpretation of the 14th, the 19th is indeed superfluous. However, interpretation is subject to a number of factors, including traditional interpretations that may not be sufficiently strict. In this case, it was determined that a clear and absolutely unambiguous reinforcement of the 14th was needed regarding women and the vote.

The ERA does not either reinforce the provisions of the 14th or the 19th, but merely reiterates them in a slightly broader wording. For this reason I consider it superfluous to the needs of the constitution, and that the issues "resolved" by the ERA would be better dealt with by ordinary law.

According to a strict interpretation of the 14th, the 19th is indeed superfluous. However, interpretation is subject to a number of factors, including traditional interpretations that may not be sufficiently strict. In this case, it was determined that a clear and absolutely unambiguous reinforcement of the 14th was needed regarding women and the vote.

Right.

Now Google "suspect classification" and come back to us.

Right.

Now Google "suspect classification" and come back to us.

Having read up on this...my statement stands.

In fact, the term being one used for determination of types of scrutiny for groups regarding the Supreme Court, it has no validity when discussing actual amendments.

In fact, the term being one used for determination of types of scrutiny for groups regarding the Supreme Court, it has no validity when discussing actual amendments.

To the contrary, by putting a prohibition on government sex discrimination explicitly in the Constitution, it means the issue is removed from the Supreme Court's interpretation of the rather ambiguous Fourteenth Amendment.

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

Basically, it's an Amendment to the United States Constitution intended to completely remove any and all discrimination by sex in all levels of United States law. This means--among other things--that women could serve in any position in the military, could be drafted, would no longer(I presume) face salary inequality, ect ect.

Personally, ever since I've learned about this Amendment I've been completely in favor of it. Society's sex roles for men and women are ridiculous and not based in reality, and it's high time we finally accepted that and treated women the way they are: entirely equal in all respects.

However, I would like to add a few things to this Amendment, specifically to prevent discrimination in law on the basis of sexual orientation or gender status(to protect transsexuals) and so on. I don't know how far it'd get going that way, but they'd be worthy additions.

Now, technically, the amendment has been reintroduced in every Congress since 1982, but it hasn't garnered any press or any sort of real awareness that would get enough people involved in the states in order to get it ratified. So, my question is really more "Should we all work to get it ratified" more than bring it back, so to speak. Of course, my answer is a definite yes.


No! Do NOT give the Federal Government more power! If we're going to bring back anything, how about we bring back small government and states' rights? If something like this were added, let each individual state ratify it into their own constitutions.

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

Basically, it's an Amendment to the United States Constitution intended to completely remove any and all discrimination by sex in all levels of United States law. This means--among other things--that women could serve in any position in the military, could be drafted, would no longer(I presume) face salary inequality, ect ect.

Personally, ever since I've learned about this Amendment I've been completely in favor of it. Society's sex roles for men and women are ridiculous and not based in reality, and it's high time we finally accepted that and treated women the way they are: entirely equal in all respects.

However, I would like to add a few things to this Amendment, specifically to prevent discrimination in law on the basis of sexual orientation or gender status(to protect transsexuals) and so on. I don't know how far it'd get going that way, but they'd be worthy additions.

Now, technically, the amendment has been reintroduced in every Congress since 1982, but it hasn't garnered any press or any sort of real awareness that would get enough people involved in the states in order to get it ratified. So, my question is really more "Should we all work to get it ratified" more than bring it back, so to speak. Of course, my answer is a definite yes.
I think one of the most disgraceful blots on American history is the failure to pass the ERA. The fact that women's rights and gay rights are still considered controversial enough to oppose it is a sign of how backwards our country is about some things. :(

No! Do NOT give the Federal Government more power! If we're going to bring back anything, how about we bring back small government and states' rights? If something like this were added, let each individual state ratify it into their own constitutions.

How is removing the ability for the government to discriminate based on sex giving them more power? And on that note, fuck states' rights. People get rights. Governments do not. If the state is treating me as subhuman, it's not any better than if the feds are.

For example, abortion rights aren't positive discrimination. Neither is giving women who just had a new-born baby time off to recover and take care of the baby for awhile.

I would actually argue that men should get paternity leave as well. A woman who had a tough pregnancy and needs medical recovery time obviously has an issue that the father wouldn't. But the need to bond with and begin taking care of the baby isn't restricted to the mother.


One problem I can see is regarding PE teachers etc (assuming that there are similar practices to the UK with only teachers of the same gender as the pupils being allowed in changing rooms.

I don't really see that as a problem in and of itself. Because our culture has so ingrained in people that it's somehow ok for members of the same sex (regardless of sexual orientation) to see them in a state of undress, but not for members of the opposite sex, people think this is a necessary distinction. In the end, I don't think it is.


And I'd bet a lot on some P.E. teacher who was rejected for a job in favour of someone from the other gender for this reason suing the school. Especially in the US where people sue over a lot less reasonable things.

I don't know about anyone else, but I always had male PE teachers. If they needed someone to go into the girl's locker room, they simply either got a female student they trusted to do it or got an administrator or other teacher to do it. It was never an issue.


The ERA does not either reinforce the provisions of the 14th or the 19th, but merely reiterates them in a slightly broader wording. For this reason I consider it superfluous to the needs of the constitution, and that the issues "resolved" by the ERA would be better dealt with by ordinary law.

I'd call that reinforcing.

The problem with ordinary law, of course, is that it isn't as strictly enforced and it's easier to change. Without having something ingrained in the Constitution, the legislature would still technically have the authority to get rid of that law and discriminate.

Now, I wish the 14th Amendment were enough but, as you say, traditional interpretation of it clearly hasn't been. So I wouldn't be opposed to making the interpretation I agree with explicitly clear in the Constitution.


No! Do NOT give the Federal Government more power! If we're going to bring back anything, how about we bring back small government and states' rights? If something like this were added, let each individual state ratify it into their own constitutions.

I'll never understand how people think that a guarantee of individual rights equates to more government power.

In truth, your solution gives the government - the state governments - more power than the ERA would give any level of government. The ERA would take power away from all levels of government. Your solution would increase the power of the state governments.

I would actually argue that men should get paternity leave as well. A woman who had a tough pregnancy and needs medical recovery time obviously has an issue that the father wouldn't. But the need to bond with and begin taking care of the baby isn't restricted to the mother.
True indeed, especially for fathers who might've just adopted a baby.


I don't really see that as a problem in and of itself. Because our culture has so ingrained in people that it's somehow ok for members of the same sex (regardless of sexual orientation) to see them in a state of undress, but not for members of the opposite sex, people think this is a necessary distinction. In the end, I don't think it is.

Pretty much what I was saying too. And really, once we get over this, we'll be OVER it, and people in the future will goggle that we had such backwards notions, much like we goggle about the various backwards notions of older peoples.



I'd call that reinforcing.

The problem with ordinary law, of course, is that it isn't as strictly enforced and it's easier to change. Without having something ingrained in the Constitution, the legislature would still technically have the authority to get rid of that law and discriminate.

Now, I wish the 14th Amendment were enough but, as you say, traditional interpretation of it clearly hasn't been. So I wouldn't be opposed to making the interpretation I agree with explicitly clear in the Constitution.


Exactly. And given that the Constitution is supposed to be the foundation of a government by the people, it should protect the people from discrimination. The very foundation of our system of government depends on this very sort of equality ANYWAY.

I'll never understand how people think that a guarantee of individual rights equates to more government power.

In truth, your solution gives the government - the state governments - more power than the ERA would give any level of government. The ERA would take power away from all levels of government. Your solution would increase the power of the state governments.
Indeed. But for some reason, I've found people who think this tend not to think this through and realize that a state government is pretty much the same as a federal government, in terms of how it acts. What matters is the people in power and whether they will choose to abuse the power. You keep active and prevent the nasty sort of people from getting in by exercising your voting rights ,ect ect, and that problem is swept away for the most part.

Sounds like a good thing.

No! Do NOT give the Federal Government more power! If we're going to bring back anything, how about we bring back small government and states' rights? If something like this were added, let each individual state ratify it into their own constitutions.

States' rights? Why do you hate America?

I, for one, am tired of the Lansing fatcats pushing me around! Why don't we tear off these state government parasites and bring back the power of the city-state!

Together, these two amendments do indeed grant women equality with men before the law.They certainly seem to, don't they?

But then the question arises... "how equal?" Or rather, to put it in the right interpretive frame, "just how suspicious should we be of discrimination based on sex?"

See, the problem is this: discrimination is inherently a part of law. Laws draw distinctions among various classes of people and determine differences in treatment between these classes. Laws establish rights and privileges for some groups that do not apply to others.

Most of the time, these distinctions don't particularly bother us. State schools charge higher tuition for non-resident students, and for the most part we're fine with that. Laws establish standards for some businesses or activities that don't apply to others, and as long as this doesn't seem entirely arbitrary it's rarely a subject for serious complaints.

When it comes to certain other categories of person, however, we're more suspicious. This DOES NOT MEAN, as it happens, that it is automatically illegal to discriminate on the basis of those categories: it just means we apply a stricter standard than, "well, I guess that sort of makes sense"--which is the legal standard for most categories.

The courts have interpreted the 14th Amendment to apply the strictest scrutiny to distinctions based on race... and to little else. Though they have offered something of a formula for determining what should be a suspect classification ("immutable" characteristics combined with a history of abuse), this has only been consistently applied to race.

Now, sex would seem to fit the formula--it is (for most practical purposes) immutable, and there is a history of sexist practice in our country. And the courts have flirted with applying the strictest scrutiny to sex discrimination... but they've held back.

Most legal scholars argue that the principal effect of the Equal Rights Amendment would be to compel courts to treat sex with the same level of strict scrutiny that they apply to race.

So yes, it would make a difference in our current body of law.

I'd be surprised if someone didn't take the "it lets paedos into young girls' changing rooms" angle if it became revived and debated.Yep, people sure are irrational and refuse to check their facts. I'm sure we'd see LOTS of arguments like this.

And I'd bet a lot on some P.E. teacher who was rejected for a job in favour of someone from the other gender for this reason suing the school.Oh, I'm sure. The question is, how likely would they be to win?

Not very likely, it would seem, unless there's something else odd about the case. As I've said, most legal scholars argue that the interpretive effect of the ERA would be to compel the courts to deal with sex as a "suspect classification." This does not mean that all distinctions based on sex are banned outright.

What it does mean is that any such discrimination must be "narrowly tailored" (to use one of several phrases that mean roughly the same thing) or "necessary" to promote a "compelling" state interest.

The safety, privacy, and dignity of children in the locker room? Yeah, I think we can argue that fits the "compelling" standard. Hiring both male and female instructors to accommodate the need for supervision? Seems about the best way to deal with it, yeah... unless someone has another suggestion.

In other words: no, lousy lawsuit.

According to a strict interpretation of the 14th, the 19th is indeed superfluous.Really?

But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Many women's rights activists OPPOSED the 14th Amendment on precisely these grounds: it is the FIRST mention of the word "male" in the entire Constitution, and it makes the right to vote explicitly masculine.

No "strict" interpretation of the Amendment could ignore the fact that it explicitly deals with voting rights and does not grant them to women.

I also bold the word "citizen," because this distinguishes the protections of Section 2 from those of the Equal Protection clause, which protects the rights of "persons."

Voting has never been held to be so fundamental that it cannot be denied to "persons" such as resident aliens: it is a right of citizenship... and the Constitution at this time was at best silent about the status of women as citizens. At worst, Section 2 of the 14th Amendment suggests explicitly that they are NOT.