winkler@harvard.ARPA (Dan Winkler) (05/16/85)
Here's a brief summary of what I found out about why the ERA didn't pass. If there's interest, I'll post actual quotes and more specific data, but for now I'll just give a short paraphrase. The two main sources of opposition to the ERA that I investigated were the STOP-ERA movement (led by Phyllis Schlafly) and the Mormon Church. Here are some of the claims they made: 1. Women Belong in the Home Schlafly expressed this sentiment bluntly, saying that being a homemaker is the ultimate fulfillment for a woman. 2. There Are Differences Between Men and Women that the ERA Ignores The Mormon position was that there are emotional, biological, and other differences between men and women. That's not a very specific statement, and I suppose it could be interpreted to mean some of the same thing as point 1 above. 3. Discrimination Against Women is Better Fought by Specific Legislation The Mormon position is that specific legislation will allow you to discriminate between men and women based on natural differences. This too is quite vague, but I suppose it means that you could have separate bathrooms, can provide special considerations for pregnant women, and so on. They point out that even with the ERA, specific legislation is still needed to enforce it and that the ERA only deals with discrimation by the government. 4. The ERA Would Make It Harder to Stop Abortion The Mormon Church is opposed to abortion and felt that the ERA could imply that women should have all conceivable freedoms, including that of abortion. 5. The ERA Would Condone Homosexual Marriages The Mormon concern was that Homosexual couples could adopt children. 6. The ERA Might Cause Women to be Drafted into Combat Positions The Mormon stand is that immunity from the draft is a traditional privilege for women that should not be removed. I was amused that they also questioned the morality of housing male and female troops together, but did not question the morality of war itself. 7. The ERA Would Transfer More Power to the Federal Government The Mormon position paper pointed out that the ERA would involve the federal government in certain domestic issues (like divorce) which have formerly been handled by the state. 8. The ERA is Redundant Because of the 14th Amendment and Other Legislation The 14th amendment already protects all people, women included. Also, many specific laws exist to protect women. 9. The ERA is Too Vaguely Worded The Mormon paper admits that it's impossible to tell if its fears would actually come true under ERA, but charge that only time will tell how the courts will interpret it. They also suggest that the courts will look to the Congressional Record to find out what the lawmakers were thinking and find that specific restrictions to the ERA (such as one concerning military service) were kept out. Those are some of the main points. To discuss this intelligently, we should also have a copy of the ERA and the 14th amendment, but I'm too pressed for time to type them in right now. The Mormon position paper I used is called "The Church and the Proposed Equal Rights Amendment: A Moral Issue". I think I've paraphrased the views expressed in it accurately, but if there's any question I will supply actual quotes. Dan. (winkler@harvard)
ecl@mtgzz.UUCP (e.c.leeper) (05/21/85)
(Courtesy of Scott Renner:)
Here is the text of the joint resolution of Congress known as the
Equal Rights Amendment, submitted to the States on March 22, 1972:
---------------------
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of
America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring
therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the
Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and
purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of
the several States within seven years from the date of its submission by
the Congress:
ARTICLE (?)
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 amendemnt shall take effect two years after the date
of ratification.
Evelyn C. Leeper
...ihnp4!mtgzz!ecljeff@rtech.UUCP (Jeff Lichtman) (05/21/85)
> Here's a brief summary of what I found out about why the ERA didn't > pass. If there's interest, I'll post actual quotes and more specific > data, but for now I'll just give a short paraphrase. > > The two main sources of opposition to the ERA that I investigated were > the STOP-ERA movement (led by Phyllis Schlafly) and the Mormon Church. > Here are some of the claims they made: I will supply arguments against some of these positions, even though I suspect that few people who read this newsgroup couldn't generate them on their own. > 1. Women Belong in the Home This is an opinion, not a fact, an opinion that fewer and fewer people in the U.S. hold. It is not the sort of thing that should be shoved down women's throats by legislation or other actions which the ERA would prevent. > 2. There Are Differences Between Men and Women that the ERA Ignores This statement is so vague that I won't even try to argue against it. > 3. Discrimination Against Women is Better Fought by Specific Legislation Specific legislation is necessary to fight any type of discrimination. Passing the ERA without doing anything else would be worthless. However, the specific legislation is much more likely to come about if the ERA is passed; it would make it illegal for sexist statutes to stay on the books and for any govermental body in the U.S. to avoid passing laws or making regulations preventing sexual discrimination. Further, the courts would have no choice but to rule against sexist laws, because the constitution takes precedence over all other laws. > 4. The ERA Would Make It Harder to Stop Abortion The opponents of abortion argue that a fetus is a human being, and so abortion is a violation of a person's rights. Most feminists don't agree with the opinion that a fetus is a human being with rights. This is the central issue in abortion arguments. It is up to the lawmakers and the courts to decide which side is right, but if they decide against abortion, it will most likely be because they agree with the idea that a fetus has human rights. Thus, it would be an argument of the rights of one group versus the rights of another. This is not to say that I agree with the anti-abortion stand, but the lawmakers and the courts have always had the right to decide who should win when the rights of different groups conflict. > 5. The ERA Would Condone Homosexual Marriages Homosexuality is a matter of sexual orientation, not gender. To outlaw homosexual marriages would discriminate against neither men nor women; both would still have the right to heterosexual marriage. Maybe the gays need their own ERA. > 6. The ERA Might Cause Women to be Drafted into Combat Positions The people who should be in combat positions are the ones best suited for it. If a war should come about, and there are women who are better suited for combat than some of their male counterparts, then they should serve in combat. Considering, however, that men are on the average stronger and more aggressive than women, almost all of the combat positions would go to men. Somehow I feel that some of the people in the Federal government would be less likely to favor war if they knew that their daughters as well as their sons would be going. :-) > 7. The ERA Would Transfer More Power to the Federal Government The ERA would prevent discrimination by any government agency, including state and local governments. The Federal goverment (read "the Supreme Court") would only have to step in if some local government refused to follow the ERA. The state and local governments would be able to have whatever laws they liked as long as they didn't contradict the ERA. > 8. The ERA is Redundant Because of the 14th Amendment and Other Legislation It was necessary to pass the 15th amendment (which forbids discrimination on the basis of race, color, or previous condition of servitude), even though the 14th amendment prevented such discrimination in broader terms. The fact is that discrimination based on gender exists in today's laws, despite the fact that the 14th amendment and other laws should make it illegal. The ERA would give the courts and the lawmakers no choice but to interpret sexual discrimination as unconstitutional. Besides, if the ERA is redundant, then why are its foes so afraid of it? > 9. The ERA is Too Vaguely Worded The ERA is worded using the same type of language as in the 15th amendment, which language seems to give no one any problems. > Dan. (winkler@harvard) Thanks, Dan. -- Jeff Lichtman at rtech (Relational Technology, Inc.) aka Swazoo Koolak {amdahl, sun}!rtech!jeff {ucbvax, decvax}!mtxinu!rtech!jeff