E.R.A. (Equal Rights Amendment, for those under 30):

[Strong Atheist]

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

Isn't it time to push harder to get it passed? In 2004, the repukes had as a strategy an issue that they thought was a winner (gay marriage) on the ballots of many states, not only to pump up their base, but to get a lot of press. If we start working now to get the E.R.A. issue on the table, it could be all over the news in 2008.

It really would be a winner. Back in the late 70's and early 80's, there was still some backlash from all the change in the 60's and early 70's, but now, 25 some odd years later, who could be (publicly) against the E.R.A.? Times have changed, and young women are more vocal and energized than ever before. I think this issue is clearly one we could win on now.

Which politicians could publicly stand the pressure against these simple words:

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

It works on all levels. We get a win in an area that IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO, or the pukes come out during an election against something that majorities are for.

NOTE: There are two issues about ratification. The deadline may or may not have passed (read the attached article), but that is a minor point. I can be ornery at times; this is one of them! We should re-introduce this (IF the deadline IS passed; see the 27th amendment) every time the deadline expires till it passes! Who is with me on this? We could write letters to our reps, and make this an issue...

[rodeodance]

1. um.. maybe. But it had trouble back in 'the good ol days"--

[Strong Atheist]

2. Agreed. But do you think it would do better now, and isn't it the

RIGHT thing to push for anyway? Shame to the opponents (which was a BIG tactic in the civil rights movement - shame the opponents)?

[Mel]

3. I'm in

check this out it was last update Jan 3. 2006, http://eracampaignweb.kis-hosting.com/index.php

So, if we only need three states which ones look the most promising?
I say maybe Virginia and North Carolina and to be honest I don't know which way to go for the third one.

The 15 currently-unratified states are:
Alabama
Arizona
Arkansas
Florida
Georgia
Illinois
Louisiana
Mississippi
Missouri
Nevada
North Carolina
Oklahoma
South Carolina
Utah
Virginia

[Strong Atheist]

4. I'm' in Virginia, I and I think it is doable (look at our last two governor

picks). The third? Illinois? Pretty blue ...

[T Town Jake]

5. I remember Senator Vinick pushed hard for this during the early 1980's...

...he even made commercials on television.

[The Flaming Red Head]

6. That would be like political suicide right now

do you also remember why it didn't pass? They (the Cons.) said we would have unisex bathrooms in public. The repukes would love it if we brought this back.

[Bridget Burke]

7. And the Right Wing said we'd have women dying in combat.

Wait--we have that. But still no IRA.

[blondeatlast]

9. Unfortunately, I can see this being used as an argument against passage. n

[blondeatlast]

8. Easily disproved. No large business that cares to succeed will offer

unisex bathrooms.

Smaller businesses in many cases already do have unisex bathrooms; my favorite sushi place nearby is an example. It's a tiny little place and can't maintain 2 bathrooms, and I've never had to wait.

As dumb as people can tend to be, I don't think they will try to offer this excuse up this time. Most people would probably find the argument a joke now anyway.

[Strong Atheist]

17. I think that in this day and age, we could make them look like

the complete idiots they are if they use arguments like that....

[Bridget Burke]

10. Concerned Women for America was formed to fight the ERA.

One founder, Beverly LaHaye--wife of Tim "Left Behind" LaHaye--is still involved. The couple met at Bob Jones University & have been leaders in the Religious Right for many years.

Here's CFAW's current statement on State ERA's:

One of the most obvious results of the ERA has occurred in Alaska and Hawaii. Gay rights advocates have used ERA language in the state constitutions to push the legalization of same-sex marriage. Hawaii will have a ballot question on November 3 to legalize same-sex marriage. It is absolutely important that constituents vote yes to allow the state ”to have the power to reserve marriage to opposite sex couples“ (emphasis added).

But feminists want more than equality. They want sameness. To say that women are the same as men is dangerous, non-Biblical, and anti-woman. To enforce such an ideology would require denial of basic natural aspects of womanhood. We know that God created men and women equal. Thankfully, He also created us to be different in role. That does not make us different in rank. The ERA proposes the elimination of our God-given roles as men and women, resulting in the redefinition -—and eventual destruction -—of family.

www.cwfa.org/articledisplay.asp?id=1019&department=CWA&categoryid=family

The website is a great source for talking points of the Religious Right. They were preaching about the "War on Christmas" back in 2003.

(Edited to change "IRA" in my title to "ERA." Although Ian Paisley did receive one of the first honorary degrees from Bob Jones University! He's made many guest appearances & two of his sons are in the faculty.)

[blondeatlast]

12. Those "right and proper" CWA women are damn good at getting out the vote

among women who would normally bow to their hubby's will and not be the least bit politically active (it's just not DONE, dears.)

Loathsome bunch of women who see no irony in their political power and their message, although it's as obvious to me as a brick wall.

[Bridget Burke]

13. Yes, CWA ladies travel the country....

Telling Good Christian Women to stay home & be good little wifies!

[Strong Atheist]

19. Fine.. They get out their ignorant bigots, we mobilize the people

who know this is THE RIGHT THING TO DO... I think we would win ...

[Strong Atheist]

18. ... and I think, in this day and age, that we can make them look like

the bigoted, ignorant loudmouths that they are if they oppose EQUAL RIGHTS...

[blondeatlast]

11. Not sure the ERA is the right tactic, but I think you are on to something.

Don't anyone get me wrong--I marched for the ERA tirelessly in my state and would love to see it resurrected!

What we do need is that wedge issue/proposition that reluctant voters will go to the polls for.

Abortion bans and gay marriage are as much a political strategy as they are to make law. They get reluctant voters out in droves. They are frequently used in purple or near-purple states. My state went pretty solidly purple in 2004, and though Bush took the EV vote, AZ is trending ever bluer.

And yes, we have a gay marriage ban proposition looming in 2006. It's no accident, folks. No accident at all.

The proof? Why isn't that particular loathsome legislation in your state or mine being dealt with by the legislatures? Three guesses, friends...

[cap]

14. I think it would be a great wedge isssue

times have changed and these people would have to come up with arguments that are even more far out.

[Strong Atheist]

20. Agreed!

:toast:

[DELUSIONAL]

15. Today's under 30 women need an education

Many are taking advantage of the battles waged by earlier generations.

They should know and see the wack-out idiots who oppose such a simple idea -- that women are full human beings and should be accorded FULL rights as equal human with males.

[Strong Atheist]

16. Agreed! That is another reason to push this amendment! nt.

[cap]

21. women under 30 need to understand

that everything looks equal until you are 40 years old and then you realize that women have been tracked out of the system.

Female concentrated jobs that have the 30 or under crowd include: graphic designer, technical writer, gui developper. Nobody hires a 50 year old woman to do these jobs when they can get a cute fresh face to do it.

Women dont understand that they need to move into management to survive ... or that they are tracked out of skills.

Women also dont see men taking time out for child care. Very few men in corporate America leave on the dot to take care of their kids. Those that do so are the ones who are laid off.

Young women should question why there aren't more 40-55 year old women in responsible jobs these days. The baby boom generation has hit this age bracket, yet women dont exist. There should be a huge bulge of older women in the workforce --- outside the secretarial and retail jobs and teaching and nursing. Their fate will be to be marched out of the workforce, too.

Young women dont understand that they are not being hired in favor of young men. In the computer field, I see lots of H1B 20 somethings but no American women. In fact, I think I only saw one 20 something young woman.

[blondeatlast]

22. An intriguing idea...

:kick: