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 -------------------------
tlm@wdl1.UUCP (tlm ) (09/22/84)
<Lots of extra character food for the line eater.....> An ERA is just the first step towards the social acceptance of women as equal members of society, there will be more battles fought before equal rights for women is a reality. Think how long it has taken for civil rights to be accepted by our country. Laws protecting the equal rights of women are a must, but they are not enough. Tina McCormick ARPA: tina@wdl-1 UUCP: ...!fortune!wdl1!tlm "If we can't fix it, it ain't broke"
renner@uiucdcs.UUCP (09/22/84)
> Why are some people admittedly for equal rights (for women), > but against the Equal Rights Amendment? My opposition is easily explained: I think the phrase "equal rights under the law" is an open invitation to the Supreme Court to issue all sorts of ridiculous rulings. What does "equal rights" mean in the context of the Constitution? I don't know, and you don't know either. Change the phrase to "equal protection of the law," and I will support the amendment without hesitation. The meaning of that phrase has been worked out (to a degree, anyway) through a century of Court rulings. Scott Renner ihnp4!uiucdcs!renner
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!"
daemon@decwrl.UUCP (The devil himself) (10/01/84)
Re: ERA________________________________________________________________________
I tend to think that people who oppose the ERA have been misled by its
opponents to think it's something it's not. Responses I've seen in this news-
group support my hypotheses.
Bear one thing in mind: the language of the ERA is almost identical to
the language of the 14th Amendment.
The first article, which I can't quite quote from memory, states that
rights may not be denied nor abridged on account of sex. It's just like the
14th Amendment in its wording; it's nothing radically new.
A while back, when people were making ridiculous claims about co-ed
bathrooms and the like, women's groups publicized the first article. This held
the ridiculous claims off for a while.
Then came the claims about the second article, which would allegedly
destroy state's rights, ruin America, etc.; because it specifies that congress
will pass laws to enforce the amendment. None of that is true, though; the
14th Amendment is worded *exactly* the same way!
The third article of the ERA has to do with when it goes into effect,
etc. Somehow nobody made ridiculous claims about it.
But now, in the Reagan '80's, ridiculous claims are everywhere. There
are new, wilder claims: Mandatory homosexual bathrooms is one I've heard, and
there are claims that the ERA would make abortions constitutionally legal.
A suggestion for those with doubts about the ERA: Read it. Then read
the rest of the Constitution, paying particular attention to the 14th Amend-
ment. Surprise!
<_Jym_>
:::::::::::::::: Jym Dyer
::::' :: `:::: Dracut, Massachusetts
::' :: `::
:: :: :: DYER%VAXUUM.DEC@DECWRL.ARPA
:: .::::. :: {allegra|decvax|ihnp4|ucbvax}!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-vaxuum!dyer
::..:' :: `:..::
::::. :: .:::: Statements made in this article are my own; they might not
:::::::::::::::: reflect the views of |d|i|g|i|t|a|l| Equipment Corporation.chabot@amber.DEC (Chevrolet Chabot) (10/01/84)
(lost source) == >> >> Why are some people admittedly for equal rights (for women), >> but against the Equal Rights Amendment? Scott Renner == > > My opposition is easily explained: I think the phrase "equal rights under > the law" is an open invitation to the Supreme Court to issue all sorts of > ridiculous rulings. What does "equal rights" mean in the context of the > Constitution? I don't know, and you don't know either. > > Change the phrase to "equal protection of the law," and I will support > the amendment without hesitation. The meaning of that phrase has been > worked out (to a degree, anyway) through a century of Court rulings. I'm not sure about this explanation. Is Scott's quibble with the word "rights", and he'd replace it with "protection of the law"? Does he mean that "rights" is something we don't understand in the context of the Constitution?--how odd: doesn't the Constitution contain 10 amendments fondly referred to as the "Bill of Rights"? Should we prefer to call it the "Bill of Protection of the Law"? [Unfortunately, the phrase "protection of the law" can lead to some ridiculous interpretations :-) : "equal protection of the law" could mean both sexes have to protect the law (for example, women can't break laws about treason any more than men are allowed to do so). Perhaps a better phrase would be "equal protection by the law", or "equal protection under the law" (since the Law is above mere mortals :-).] And just what sorts of ridiculous rulings can we, by Scott Renner's statement, expect from the Supreme Court? What sort of historical precedent do we have for expecting ridiculous rulings from the Supreme Court in the matter of rights? Is the "separate but equal" rulings about racism an example of such historical precedence (it's the only thing I can think of), or what other examples might there be? I was always taught to think that "rights" included "protection by the law", but that it meant more too. Kind of like the way we assume if there isn't a law prohibiting something, then it's okay (as opposed to other countries, where the assumptions are more along the line of if it's not allowed by the law, then it's not okay). I'd rather have "rights" than mere "protection by the law". L S Chabot UUCP: ...decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-amber!chabot ARPA: ...chabot%amber.DEC@decwrl.ARPA USFail: DEC, MR03-1/K20, Too I-earn Way, Marlborough, MA 01752
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?
features@ihuxf.UUCP (M.A. Zeszutko) (10/04/84)
Isn't it funny that the laws designed to give equal protection under the law turned out to be (in practice) the ones that gave black people "separate but equal" facilities from white people? And by the same reasoning some folks expect the ERA to mandate common both-sex washrooms. I just don't understand their reasoning. Mary Ann Zeszutko ihnp4!ihuxf!features
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 .
renner@uiucdcs.UUCP (10/07/84)
> > 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 (agz@pucc-k) This is only half right. If the ERA is adopted, then it will be up to the courts to decide what is discrimination. But the courts will have power to review more than supposed discrimination in federal, state, and local laws. The amendment states that "equal rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State;" it is not clear from the wording that the judicial review shall be limited only to invalidation of discriminatory laws, and I am aware of no precedent in constitutional law which defines the meaning of this phrase. It will therefore be up to the Supreme Court to define the scope of this amendment. Scott Renner {pur-ee,ihnp4}!uiucdcs!renner
renner@uiucdcs.UUCP (10/07/84)
>>>[Jerome Scriptunas (js3471@hou2g] >>> Why are some people admittedly for equal rights (for women), >>> but against the Equal Rights Amendment? >>[Scott Renner (renner@uiucdcs)] >> My opposition is easily explained: I think the phrase "equal rights under >> the law" is an open invitation to the Supreme Court to issue all sorts of >> ridiculous rulings. What does "equal rights" mean in the context of the >> Constitution? I don't know, and you don't know either. >> >> Change the phrase to "equal protection of the law," and I will support >> the amendment without hesitation. The meaning of that phrase has been >> worked out (to a degree, anyway) through a century of Court rulings. >[Lisa Chabot (chabot@decwrl) > I'm not sure about this explanation. Is Scott's quibble with the word > "rights", and he'd replace it with "protection of the law"? Does he > mean that "rights" is something we don't understand in the context of > the Constitution?--how odd: doesn't the Constitution contain 10 > amendments fondly referred to as the "Bill of Rights?"... My point is not that the word "rights" is undefined in the context of the Constitution. Rather, it is the phrase "equal rights under the law" that is undefined. When I say that it is undefined, I mean two things: that its meaning is not self-evident, and that there are no legal precedents involving the phrase. The ERA would give the Supreme Court a new area of the Constitution to explore -- a clean slate on which they could write whatever they choose. > And just what sorts of ridiculous rulings can we, by Scott Renner's > statement, expect from the Supreme Court? What sort of historical > precedent do we have for expecting ridiculous rulings from the Supreme > Court in the matter of rights? ... I don't want to go into detail, because it would take too long. Briefly, some examples: *Furman v. Georgia* (since overturned), banning capital punishment despite the fact that no two of the five majority justices could agree on an opinion, and despite the fact that capital punishment is clearly mentioned in the 5th Amendment and so could not have been considered "cruel and unusual" by the framers of the 8th. *Miranda v. Arizona* (or any of the other "incorporationist" decisions) is another example; it is widely believed to prohibit the use of coerced confessions by a State -- an admirable goal -- but if you read the dissenting opinion you will see that there was no coercion, or indeed any possible objection in the name of justice. (If you read the majority opinion you are likely to conclude that Warren was a lunatic... but I digress.) More recently we have the Grove City civil rights case, which was badly decided, and has been previously discussed in this group. What might we see from the Supreme Court given the passage of the ERA? Hmm... Does "equal rights under the law" require "equal pay for comparable work?" The Court will be asked to decide. Or perhaps Congress will pass a law to that effect, as they would have the power to "enforce the provisions" of the ERA "by appropriate legislation." Great, now we have either the courts or the legislature deciding how much money each person will be paid. How about unisex bathrooms -- no, seriously, there were people making a case for it on this very newsgroup. Perhaps *nobody* should receive maternity benefits from insurance or from their employers, since men can't take full advantage of these. It is no defense to say that these are "scare tactics;" that these effects are unlikely and in any case not intended by the framers of the ERA. The fact is that *you don't know* how the Court will interpret the phrase "equal rights under the law." I don't want to find out the hard way. > I was always taught to think that "rights" included "protection by the > law", but that it meant more too. Kind of like the way we assume if > there isn't a law prohibiting something, then it's okay (as opposed to > other countries, where the assumptions are more along the line of if > it's not allowed by the law, then it's not okay). I'd rather have > "rights" than mere "protection by the law". Agreed, but that's not the issue. I am, and always have been in favor of equal rights regardless of sex. I just think that the wording of the amendment needs to be changed to something already defined by precedent (such as "equal protection of the laws"), or to something else which will not admit of so many possible interpretations. Scott Renner {pur-ee,ihnp4}!uiucdcs!renner
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 * * ^ \_/