js3471@hou2g.UUCP (J.SCRIPTUNAS) (09/19/84)
Why are some people admittedly for equal rights (for women), but against the Equal Rights Amendment? Jerome Scriptunas hou2g!js3471
ajaym@ihu1h.UUCP (Jay Mitchell) (09/20/84)
I, for one, fit that category. I think the ERA is vague at best and does not do the need justice. Too many "what ifs" arise from a vague document especially one which will be used in court. Being a bit more specific and to the point will do the ERA and the women it should protect the most good. -- ------------------------- Jay Mitchell ihnp4!ihu1h!ajaym -------------------------
cmm@pixadv.UUCP (cmm) (09/24/84)
>I, for one, fit that category. I think the ERA is vague at best and does >not do the need justice. Too many "what ifs" arise from a vague document >especially one which will be used in court. Being a bit more specific and >to the point will do the ERA and the women it should protect the most good. > Jay Mitchell > ihnp4!ihu1h!ajaym I disagree. The constitution and bill of rights are vague, and therein lies their strength and longevity. By leaving the law imprecise, it can be interpretted based on the values and conditions of the future. Of course, I am favoring vagueness that maximizes the legal basis for challenging discriminatory behavior. Even though the current social context may be so restrictive as to define women as being only slightly equal, over time, with the increased oppurtunities derived from even that small decrease in discrimination pressure, women will have more impact, become more visible, and eventually everyone will "of course" know that women are totally equal. Then, the most sweeping interpretation of the ERA will be possible, and it will also be least needed. E-veryone's R-ights A-crue -- ____________________________________________________________________________ cmm (carl m mikkelsen) | (617)657-8720x2310 Pixel Computer Incorporated | 260 Fordham Road | {allegra|ihnp4|cbosgd|ima|genrad|amd|harvard}\ Wilmington, Ma. 01887 | !wjh12!pixel!pixadv!cmm
agz@pucc-k (banta) (09/27/84)
Could the reason (that some people support equal rights for women while
not supporting the ERA) be that we see no reason for legisaltion saying
that women must be treated equally? I agreed whole-heartedly that women
should be equals of men (and vice-versa), but I don't see any reason
that there has to be a law supporting this! I know that women don't get
treated equally in all instances now, in such things as promotion
scales, draft registration, and oppurtunities in certain fields, and I'd
like to see this rectified. But do we *REALLY* need a Constitutional
amendment that says so? I think things are changing on their own and
eventually, and no, there won't be a need for this. People by nature
would most likely do this, but if someone wrings their arm up behind
their back, this might change for the worse. Think about it.
And I'm not sure if this has been brought up previously, but I thought
I'd make the comment. Maybe over fifty percent of the people support the
ERA. That doesn't make one bit of difference. If you check your
documents, a vote of 2/3+ in congress is needed to get the wheels
rolling for an amendment. After that, 3/4+ of the states have to ratify
it.* The Constitution was set up so it couldn't be changed easily. Could
you imagine the amount of flip-flopping in the situation of a simple
majority deciding on amendments? Let's try to keep our heads screwed on
straight on this thing (not that I'm saying anyone doesn't).
*A Constitutional Convention can be called if 3/4+ of the states propose
an amendment to congress.
Days later ...
Andy Banta
{}pur-ee!pucc-k!agz
"Ticking away the moments that make up a dull day,
You fritter and waste the hours in an off-hand way ... " ag5@pucc-i (Henry C. Mensch) (09/27/84)
>>. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I agreed whole-heartedly that women >>should be equals of men (and vice-versa), but I don't see any reason >>that there has to be a law supporting this! Unfortunately, it does seem that we have to guarantee these sorts of rights. Generally, if we believe in something so strongly, we put it into writing of some sort. In the twenties, people believed that a sober society was what they wanted; hence *that* amendment to the Constitution. If we think women's rights are so important, then we should have no problem putting this down for the record. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Henry C. Mensch | Purdue University Computing Center {decvax|ucbvax|sequent|icalqa|inuxc|uiucdcs|ihnp4}!pur-ee!pucc-i!ag5 -------------------------------------------------------------------- "Saved by Bird's Eye Cheese Sauce!"
engels@ihuxo.UUCP (SME) (10/01/84)
Question: Although my knowledge of the law and courts is limited, don't lawyers use 1) the Constitution 2) Federal, State and local laws 3) Similiar cases which were decided in their favor. to win? Having the Equal Rights Amendment would give women a tool to use in court for proving discrimination. When attempting to reverse society's inequalities, every possible tool should be given to those being discriminated against. The constitution cuts across state boundaries, therefore ERA will give strong support to all.
agz@pucc-k (Andrew Banta) (10/03/84)
> Having the Equal Rights Amendment would give women a tool to use > in court for proving discrimination. Wrong again! The ERA simply says that no laws shall be written at any legislative level discriminating against women. It has no definiton of what discrimination is, ie dress codes discussed earlier. It still remains up to the court to decide what is discrimination and what isn't. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Banta {decvax!allegra!inhp4}!pucc-k!agz Alcohol Design and Application Corp. --- Serving people over 21 years. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "The evidence before the court is quite incontrovertable. There's no need for the jury to retire. In all my years of judging I have never heard before Anything more worthy of the full penaly of the the law ... "
engels@ihuxo.UUCP (SME) (10/03/84)
>> Having the Equal Rights Amendment would give women a tool to use >> in court for proving discrimination. >Wrong again! The ERA simply says that no laws shall be written at any >legislative level discriminating against women. It has no definiton of >what discrimination is, ie dress codes discussed earlier. It still >remains up to the court to decide what is discrimination and what isn't. > > You misunderstood. I've know the text of ERA and realize it does not define discrimination. The fact that is states clearly that no laws shall be written at ANY legislative level gives support to all PEOPLE, regardless of their sex, cuts across state boundaries. If a law exists that discriminates based on sex, ERA can then be used as a tool to overturn that law. It would be interesting to start a survey of the state by state discriminatory laws. I have heard that the common property laws in Iowa are in favor of the husband, if the wife dies first. Also, many a loan application states that if you are borrowing the money in Louisiana and are a married female, your husband must co-sign. Anyone got any details or references on existing discriminatory laws?
zubbie@ihuxq.UUCP (jeanette zobjeck) (10/05/84)
In the state of Wisconsin (at least) a friend of mine applied for a loan. The lending institution insisted on knowing the income etc. My friend is a professional musician and the loan was for a vehicle (car) for her to use to carry her instruments and herself to and from work. The loan was granted but the requirement for her husbands income had to be filled first. The car was purchased and titled in her name but when it came time to get insurance she was placed in a high risk group merely because her husband was ina high risk group, her driving record for the past 10 years had not even a parking ticket on it .
dbb@opus.UUCP (David B. Bordeau) (10/16/84)
> In the state of Wisconsin (at least) a friend of mine applied for a loan. > The lending institution insisted on knowing the income etc. > My friend is a professional musician and the loan was for a vehicle (car) > for her to use to carry her instruments and herself to and from work. > The loan was granted but the requirement for her husbands income had to > be filled first. > The car was purchased and titled in her name but when it came time > to get insurance she was placed in a high risk group merely because her > husband was ina high risk group, her driving record for the past 10 > years had not even a parking ticket on it . If this is actually true she could always go to another insurance company. I have never heard of an ins. co. raising a spouses rate just because the other spouse has a bad driving record when the car is in her name. Are you sure of all your facts? If so, what is the purpose of posting the above letter, to show all ins. co. are unfair? David * * ^ \_/
ted@usceast.UUCP (Ted Nolan) (10/27/84)
In article <530@pucc-i> ag5@pucc-i (Henry C. Mensch) writes: > >>>. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I agreed whole-heartedly that women >>>should be equals of men (and vice-versa), but I don't see any reason >>>that there has to be a law supporting this! > > Unfortunately, it does seem that we have to guarantee these >sorts of rights. Generally, if we believe in something so strongly, >we put it into writing of some sort. In the twenties, people believed >that a sober society was what they wanted; hence *that* amendment >to the Constitution. > > If we think women's rights are so important, then we should >have no problem putting this down for the record. > >-------------------------------------------------------------------- >Henry C. Mensch | Purdue University Computing Center >{decvax|ucbvax|sequent|icalqa|inuxc|uiucdcs|ihnp4}!pur-ee!pucc-i!ag5 >-------------------------------------------------------------------- > "Saved by Bird's Eye Cheese Sauce!" While I certainly don't think ERA would do any harm, it seems like an unneeded cluttering of the constitution. I quote : Amendment 14 (July 28 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 priveleges 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 jusisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Doesn't that about cover it? Note the use of "person" throughout. Perhaps we just need interpretation and enforcement of what we already have. Ted Nolan ..usceast!ted -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ted Nolan ...decvax!mcnc!ncsu!ncrcae!usceast!ted 6536 Brookside Circle ...akgua!usceast!ted Columbia, SC 29206 ("Deep space is my dwelling place, the stars my destination") -------------------------------------------------------------------------------