The argument about same-sex marriage is a very good one, actually; Maryland has an equal rights amendment and the Deane v. Conaway case down here may well hold that the equal rights amendment here means that a woman has as much right to marry a woman as a man has to marry a woman.

North Dakota had already ratified ERA but this session they have introduced a resolution to "reratify" so to speak. It's HCR 3032, and info at:
http://www.legis.nd.gov/assembly/60-2007/bill-actions/ba3032.html

Has come out of committee "do pass" 11-1. Hasn't gone to floor vote yet. The 1 who voted against it was a female legislator.

I will never understand Phyllis Schafly.

Because it is a useless ammendment that changes nothing that already exists in the Constitution or clarifies anything that is unclear in the constitution. Ammendments have historically been used as clarifiers - to add specificity to areas untouched by the Constituion or to codify changes to existing laws on a national basis. The ERA ammendment does neither. Laws have already been enacted in every state to protect discrimination against a person because of gender. While the ideas behind the ERA are important, an ammendment to the Constitution is no the proper vehicle for this political statement. It doesn't make you anti-equality to believe it. You can be against it because you are a strict Constitutionalist.

Conservatives are always looking to the past and totally missing the future. Please tell me that something has changed since the 80's! Let's all just pick a decade a stick to it, I guess.

/bitter sarcasm

You can be against it because you are a strict Constitutionalist

Spoken like someone who's never taken a class in con law. I know, I KNOW I should just roll my eyes at buffy and move on, but the ignorance of this statement offends me as an attorney.

There's no such thing as a "strict Constitutionalist." You made that phrase up. You're probably thinking of "strict constructionist," which describes people like Former Chief Justice William "throw Sandy in front of the bus" Rehnquist. A strict constructionist would not have any particular opinion about adding an amendment merely by virtue of his/her constructionist stance. Indeed, such a person would FAVOR adding an amendment so that the justices will not feel compelled to interpret the Constitution in a less constructionist manner. Explicitly mandating gender equality would make decisions requiring such equality, less problematic from a constructionist perspective.

Further, this amendment WOULD make a difference. Right now, discrimination based on gender is subject only to intermediate scrutiny, which requires that a distinction by gender be substantially related to an important state interest. The ERA stands a shot at elevating gender to the level of strict scrutiny (like race gets), which would require that any gender distinctions be narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling state interest, and that the operation of the law be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest.

One thing that does honestly worry me a bit is the fact that this opens up women to the requirement to register for the selective service. Schlafly has a point in that, were the ERA to pass, we'd have to do it. This worries me not because I favor treating men and women differently with regard to the military, but because I am adamantly opposed to the draft. The instant they start requiring women to register, I'm renouncing and getting Canadian citizenship. Any government that would throw its citizens in front of it as protection from its own poor decisions, is not a government I would ever, EVER die to defend.

For those confused by buffy's bizarre statement.

1) The purpose of an amendment (one "m", dear) is to amend, i.e. change law. Amendments don't "clarify"; they amend.

2) They specifically don't "codify" changes to existing law, but create new law. In some cases, the amendment may resemble some existing laws, but your statement is false.

3) The proposed ERA is broader than the piecemeal local statutes and ordinances prohibiting specific instances of itemized discrimination; it is new law. Manyu such statutes deal specifically with private activity (e.g. rent discrimination), not governmental activity.

4) If the ERA were in fact not new law, that would bolster your (false) pet theory about ammendments being about "clarifying."

5) The idea that the government shall nowhere and never be allowed to discriminate against people on the basis of gender is exactly what belongs in a national constitution.

6) Amending the constitution does not mean you are not a "strict" Constitutionalist; the Constitution provides strict procedures for its amendment and those are being strictly followed. Once strictly enacted, the constitutional amendment will be strictly enforced.

7) The best reason to oppose the ERA is that you oppose the concept of equal rights for women and men as a federally protected right, that you think that some federal, state or local gender discrimination should occur or at least not be prohibited. THAT is the intellectually honest reason to oppone this amendment; none other exists.

Law Fairy, excellent point re: strict scrutiny. A point I failed to raise.

yah Law Fairy! I was hoping one of the attorneys would bust her.

Correct! I made the phrase up. Strict Constitutionalist means ammending the Constitution as it has been ammended before - for the same types of issues, which the ERA does not live up to. It serves no purpose and changes no existing law. You all seem to ignore that little part of my post. I'm all for ammending when it means something - as have the other ammendments. This doesn't mean anything. It's strictly politics.

It serves no purpose and changes no existing law. You all seem to ignore that little part of my post.

Ummmm... no, actually Crab and I both specifically refuted it. But I guess you ignored those parts of our posts.

You also seem to have ignored the part where Crab politely pointed out the correct spelling of "amendment."

All this talk of women being subject to a military draft makes me want to get a Dorothy Hamill haircut and stick rainbow decals all over everything while I listen to Shaun Cassidy albums.

The only thing about a mandatory draft (for both females and males) is that it would help eradicate class warfare by having everyone serve, not just working class or poor people, which I believe, in turn, would cause the government to be less likely to get us involved in wars, if their own families were subject to it.

Oh, Law Fairy, I have such a girl crush on you....

well said. you too, crab.

and i agree that the only thing about the ERA that makes me nervous is the draft. while i have absolutely no problem with women serving in the military, i have huge problems with the draft...both for men and women (should the ERA actually pass) especially with our current cowboy administration.

it also seems a little silly to me that people are bitching about amending the constitution because gender discrimiination is already illegal, when so many conservatives in November voted to amend state constitutions to exclude same-sex marriage even though it was already illegal in those states. at least this time we're securing people's rights by writing it into the constitution rather tha writing an amendment that redundantly denied people rights.

kpsisu-- good point.

Kpsisu and Colleen, I don’t think it worked that way during the Vietnam war despite the draft. Rich kids were still able to stay out of it because they were in college and that was considered a valid reason for exemption, where as poor kids couldn’t afford to go to college so they had to go to war.

sojourner--

that's also true too. rich people generally find some way to hide beind their money. these things may seem like a good idea in theory, but rarely in practice.

i'm still whole-heartedly opposed to it, i didn't mean to make it seem like i suddenly changed my mind based on kpsisu's point, i just thought it was a good one.

Maybe the draft wouldn't be the best tool to de-class-ify the military.

But really, everyone should serve or no one should have to. Not that anyone 'HAS' to right now, but it's considered a great/good option to many who can't afford college, and didn't get the grades for scholarships. Recruiters totally target poor neighborhoods.

But really, everyone should serve or no one should have to.

I disagree, kpsisu. Some of us (a lot of us) would just plain suck at military service. I have enough issues with hierarchy/authority in civilian life -- I certainly wouldn't trust me to be a good soldier/officer. I'd end up like Corporal Klinger -- I'd do pretty much anything, no matter how outrageous, just to get myself kicked out. I don't want to be in the military. I don't want to turn over control of my life to the government. I don't want to shoot at people against whom I have no personal vendetta. I don't want to risk getting blown to bits by a land mine.

I understand there's a certain selfishness to this, and I just don't care. Putting me into the military would turn me into the ugliest, screamiest, annoyingest toddler you ever saw. You can think I'm immature for this; but it's just the way it is. I like to think I could do a lot of good here as a civilian lawyer. I'd be useless as a military serviceman. And WOW do I sound like Adam Smith.

“Strict Constitutionalist means ammending the Constitution as it has been ammended before - for the same types of issues, which the ERA does not live up to.�

Buffy you should take a look at the Constitution. What “same types of issues� are you talking about? Congressional pay ? Income Tax? Presidential Disability? Banning Liquor? The Constitution is all over the place, and not restricted, when it comes to type of issues.

Perhaps you are referring to the amendments for women’s suffrage, eliminating poll tax, abolishing slavery, etc., but it seems to me that the ERA fits very snugly with the “types of issues� dealt with in amendments 13, 14, 15, 19, and 26. Go read them, and then please explain how ERA is such an aberration.

"Laws have already been enacted in every state to protect discrimination against a person because of gender."

You have unwittingly described one of the strongest reasons an amendment is necessary: if every state has enacted laws to provide the same protections as ERA (have they really?), then any state could quite easily repeal or modify such a law, and NO state should have that ability. If all states had banned slavery individually, it would have been unconscionable not to pass amendment 13, but by your logic it wouldn't have been necessary.

I would be a terrible soldier too, but I don't think that the people currently in the military (disproportionately poor, people of color, etc.) are necessarily the best qualified to die.

Law Fairy's constitutional analysis is absolutely correct.

I'm a strict constructionalist. In many ways, I support an ERA because it would elevate gender to strict scrutiny and, well, actually import gender into the Constitution (XIV was only intended for race).

I do worry about how "equal protection" will be defined. Will states not be able to provide single-sex education? (I'm not talking VMI or the Citadel here; I'm talking, say, an all-female engineering school.) It could be used to prevent funds going to pregnant women. The sword does cut both ways. Is this the sword we want?

The day that this country drafts pregnant women is the day that we're all screwed. Equal Protection could also be used to allow men to force women to have abortions or allow them to not pay child support for children they don't want. Or it could make it more difficult for women to give their kids up for adoption.

Before y'all start wailing, consider that so long as these proposals are reasonable, a Court could find it to be a reasonable interpretation of the ERA.

More importantly, is there another way to write the amendment to give us Constitutional protection without sacrificing what we work for as feminists.

FYI: Why don't you think that the army is socioeconomically diverse? ;) If you look at an actual statistic, you would see that it's a pretty good representation of America. Reinstating the draft would actually increase the burden on the lower classes.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/cda05-08.cfm

I'm not concerned about the ERA subjecting women to the draft. I can see that a draft might actually be necessary in some situations (although not just because the govt. wants to go to war) and I would be ashamed to oppose a just law because it might mean my giving up an unfair privilege. As to the objection concerning benefits for pregnant women, there's an easy solution: just make the wording "for pregnant persons." It is not beyond possibility that a way may be found for men to gestate fetuses. And in that case, they'd be pregnant, and surely entitled to any benefits that might attend on that status.

oenophile, just a word to the wise: you're not going to get very far convincing folks on this thread of anything if you're linking to the heritage foundation.

I am all for the ERA amendment. One of the areas I see the greatest benifet in is in reproductive rights and hopefully force insurers who will cover the cost of Viagra and not birth control to level the playing field.

One concern I do have is about the selective service registration. Not because I think that women shouldn't serve in the armed forces, but because currently the military has a shitty, haphazard way of dealing with deploying single women (and men, although less common) who have children and they are the only care givers. While some would say they shouldn't have joined the armed forces if they didn't have anyone to take care of their kids on deployment or worse, if they were killed, selective service registration and possible drafting would make that issue much more common place. All I can picture in my head are on base 'Deployment-ariums'(think orphanarium) were kids are sent when their only caregiver is deployed.
(yes, I know I can't spell today, please excuse the many typos)

The case that dealt with selective service registration requirements held that because women could not serve in combat, their exclusion from the draft was reasonable. An all-male combat force had previously been upheld as permissible discrimination.

98% of the jobs in the Army are not forward infantry positions with arms. It's a lot of logistics, planning, supply management, administration, intelligence, artillery. Ditto the Navy and Air Force. The Marines are a little more rifleman-focused, but even there, most jobs are in logistics and support, REMF (rear echelon, my friend....).

If an 18 year-old man can be forced to carry a rifle and pack weighing 60+ pounds, making an 18 year-old woman carry a laptop and a field map seems reasonable. Frankly, a war not worth drafting women into is not worth fighting, in my view.

TheCrab- Granted, women currently in the military are in noncombat positions, but there have still been plenty killed in the current war.

It's things like this that make me ashamed to live in Arkansas. I think the ONLY thing Phyllis Schlafly has any clout with is anti-ERA lobbying.

Most young women in Arkansas aren't even aware of the ERA, or if they are, that it never passed.

“Equal Protection could also be used to allow men to force women to have abortions...�

That’s part of the hyperbole of anti-ERA windbags. There may be reasons to argue against ERA, but forced abortion is not one of them. Who is going to find that reasonable? It’s an absurd scare tactic.

Long time lurker, first time commenter...please bear with me! I have to wonder, aren't we shooting ourselves in the foot to some extent by shying away from the ERA because of what it might require of us as constitutional equals? I mean, aren't the many possible consequences of the lack of constitutional protection worse than the possible consequences *of* constitutional protection? It may seem that we are safe from blatant disregard for our rights as individuals (smirks and remembers South Dakota), but a few more administrations like this and who knows what kinds of laws could be passed that might have been prevented by a protective amendment? When it comes to women's rights, the country isn't exactly always moving forward. And if constitutional amendments weren’t important, why would all the homophobes be clamoring for one of their very own?

As for the draft, I have to agree with kpsisu: women registering for selected service would undoubtedly limit the use of the draft. In addition, it would help break down what I think is one of the most pernicious barriers to equality, which is the perception of female physical weakness. Can of worms, I know. Still, even though I’m against the draft and haven’t seen a war worth fighting in my lifetime, so long as there is compulsory registration for selective service for men in this country, I would willingly sign my name beside theirs.

Yay, someone noted the "pregnant persons" loophole. Works for me!

Now, for my totally unneeded 2c ;)

I am totally pro non-selective service registration. I am totally anti drafts. They suck beyond belief. I just don't think fighting to keep selective service registration helps in fighting drafts in general.

I'm of the VERY strong opinion that you should employ the best person for the job. Combat or otherwise.

The discrimination against women in the military drives me nuts - they lower the standards for some branches, and continue to disallow women from others. How about this: if a PERSON wants to do a job, and can pass all physical/intellectual tests, how bout we let them do it?? I'm not saying all women can do all jobs. I'm saying don't dumb it down, just don't tell us we're all too weak/delicate

P.S. Women don't want to get treated like men in war? Really? If that means there's a higher chance I'll get shot, but a lower chance I'll get raped, I'm all for it! (A girl can dream...)

Law Fairy, this question is off topic, but it has been bothering me. I live in an apartment and the lease says that the management, pest control and maintenence can enter anytime they want- they even have keys to our locks. Is this legal? We do pay rent, and I would imagine that something like this would be illegal. If it's not, it well and truly should be.

I strongly support the ERA, and generally disagree with the notion that women should not be equally trained for military combat. Personally, I hope the draft is never reinstated in this country, for men or women. However, if that did happen, I'm guessing the cause might be an urgent national emergency, such as a large-scale invasion on U.S. soil (unlikely but who knows). If my life would be affected by such an outcome the same or more than any man (since a foreign invader might be a good deal more misogynistic than the status quo), I think I'd rather be drafted to fight than sit back and wait for the invaders to come knocking at my door. So, while some see the military thing as a major drawback to the ERA, I personally see it in many scenarios as a potentially life-saving skill to have in a dangerous world. But, yes, in other scenarios, such as fighting a foreign war you don't believe in, well, I do agree that sucks equally for both men and women. And I think, like anything, there should be exemptions based on personal circumstance, such as pregnancy or children who need a caregiver at home.

Equal Protection could also be used to allow men to force women to have abortions or allow them to not pay child support for children they don't want.

The first part of your sentence is incorrect. The second part is correct and completely untroubling to me. Why SHOULD a man pay for a child he doesn't want? Frankly, I think as equality feminists we shoot ourselves in the feet when we insist that men pay for children WE choose to have (and note this argument only holds up while we have the choice, which obviously we absolutely one hundred percent should).

ERA would never force women to undergo abortions they didn't want. Abortions always have and still would fall within the realm of bodily integrity. The difference is that, with the ERA, it would be clearly written into constitutional law that women have the same right to bodily integrity that men do. If the state can't force a man to have a baby he doesn't want, it can't force a woman to have a baby she doesn't want.

Re the draft -- to be clear, I wasn't saying that the equal draft would cause me to oppose the ERA. I'm just noting that it's an incidental negative that comes with equality. Right now, pretty much our only privilege (written into law) as women is that we don't have to register. I like this privilege, because I think NO ONE should be forced to serve against his/her will. It's inhuman; if people can't be convinced to fight a war of their own accord, I have to wonder if it's really worth fighting. I think it's wrong that these jobs traditionally fall to the poor and those who can't afford (or otherwise can't obtain) higher education, bu in my mind the answer is not, okay then, make everyone go die in Iraq. The answer is to fix the options for the overlooked classes in our society so that if they do join the military, it's a legitimate choice made of genuine free will.

Red, the answer to your question depends on: 1) your state of residence and 2) your lease agreement. My understanding is that most if not all states require that landlords give tenants 24-hour notice if they intend to enter the premises to conduct inspection/maintenance work or to show the apartment (if you're moving). If I recall correctly, they do have to have a legitimate reason to enter the premises and it's not one hundred percent discretionary. If your landlord insists on access, whenever he wants, for whatever reason he wants, without any reasonable notice to you, that likely constitutes constructive eviction, which is actionable in most (all?) states.

The idea of a draft pisses me off. The government should not force someone to sign up to die for a country just because they live in it. Nobody asked to be born here, and not everyone can leave.. If they don't want to sign up for the military, they shouldn't have to. Bastards.

I, myself, wouldn't lift a finger for this backwards country. I owe it nothing, and it sure as hell doesn't deserve to have me endanger myself in it's name.

OK, the actual text of the ERA has always made me wonder if it could not also be used by those men's rights types to get rid of aff. action programs or other things the gov't does for women specifically that it should. Anyone have thoughts on that?

"Why SHOULD a man pay for a child he doesn't want? Frankly, I think as equality feminists we shoot ourselves in the feet when we insist that men pay for children WE choose to have" - TLF.

Wow. I'm surprised to read this on this site. I've said the same thing before and been flamed for it.

Glad to see that there are women (or at least one woman - gotta start somewhere) who share my view on this matter.

"Why SHOULD a man pay for a child he doesn't want?�
I don’t know about that. What if the guy is aware that the woman morally objects to abortion or wants a child, yet he has sex with her and gets her pregnant anyways? If the woman can’t afford to raise the child that would effectively force her to get an abortion. And how do you determine whether or not he wanted the child? What if he said he wanted a child and then once the woman got pregnant changed his mind. What if he told her he wanted a child and waited until it was too late to get an abortion to change his mind? What if safe and legal abortion is not available (just imagine a teenager who needs parental notification and can’t get it due to anti-choice parents or whatever). I agree that if the woman didn’t tell the guy she wanted a baby or lied about being on the pill when she knew the guy didn’t want a child, she shouldn’t expect child support. But how do you prove that that was the case? I think it will just get terribly complicated to enforce such a thing.

Well, Law Fairy, I have to laugh at that statement, coming from a lawyer.

You should know that child support is the right of the child to support from both parents. Making that child's life discretionary, however, makes this entire structure fall apart.

I found this interesting, straight from the 4ERA site....

MYTH: The ERA will mean that women will be drafted!

FACT: Congress already has the power to draft women into the armed services. Article I, section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress the power to raise armies but does not specify gender or age limitations.

Support the ERA!

Sandy Oestrich has been trying to bring it up as an amendment for years in Florida. They had every imaginable amendment to their constitution including the rights of pig farmers but they haven't passed one for the ERA. If you have a little time, sign and send this petition snail mail to Florida.

http://www.ratifyeraflorida.net/petition.shtml

Support the ERA!

Sandy Oestrich has been trying to bring it up as an amendment for years in Florida. They had every imaginable amendment to their constitution including the rights of pig farmers but they haven't passed one for the ERA. If you have a little time, sign and send this petition snail mail to Florida.

http://www.ratifyeraflorida.net/petition.shtml

I'm a child support absolutist. Child support isn't about paying money to the child's mother; it's about paying money to support your child, so I don't like to see any kind of phrasing that involves women "expecting" or "demanding" child support.

I don't think this issue has anything to do with abortion rights, either. Abortion rights are about bodily integrity. Men have the right to bodily integrity as well as women. It's just that men's right to bodily integrity rarely comes under attack (unless they want to have sex with each other). If a man doesn't want to have a child, he can wear a condom, have a vasectomy, or engage in non-vaginal sex. Those are all his choices and fall into the realm of bodily integrity. But once he's made his decision about what to do with his body, once he's let the horse out of the barn, so to speak, that's the end of his choice. The fact that a woman has the right to bodily integrity as well has nothing to do with his resposibilities toward any future child. There is no right to wallet integrity.

It's not my ideal utopia; in my ideal utopia all children are guaranteed a decent standard of living regardless of their parents' behavior. I'll buy you all a drink when we get there.

Addendum: There were only two pig farmers in Florida affected by the amendment.

Child support is neither a punishment for a father, nor a benefit for a mother (not to mention the fact that there are instances where the father has custody and the mother pays child support). Child support is for the benefit the child. Removing child support requirements would punish children for their existance, deny them the financial support they need, and (in many cases) push more children into poverty.

Let me add that I'm not that worried about the ERA's effects on child support! Quite frankly, the situation of child support in this country is already abysmal, and I doubt the ERA could make it more so.

Right on, EG. I don't know a lot about custody (lawyer-to-be... emphasis on the to-be), but I know there are mothers who pay child support. For instance, the mother makes more than the father, or does not have full custody, etc.

Thanks EG, It makes a lot of sense now that you spelled it out.

I like that she says, "Women don't want to be treated the same!" and then adds, quiety, "in the military." Apparently, we don't want to be treated the same in the marriage, either.

So, could someone explain to me how marriage has to be between a husband and a wife? Personally, when I went to get my marriage license, I was not yet a wife...and if my spouse had already been a husband, I would have had something to say about it. Where are those words written (in the Constitution) that Ms. Schlafly was threatening would have to change?

Personally, I'm all for women in the draft. Not because I have any great desire to be in the military but because I feel it would be my duty to sign up if the draft were instituted now. I think that gender bias is just as bad. I don't like the draft, but I think it should include everyone.

I thought it was already male and female and maybe under 42. If W's daughters are involved, there will be no draft!

"Why should men have to pay child support for children they don't want?"

They can sign off on parental rights in many cases.

They can sign off on parental rights in many cases.

Um, no, they can't. If a man could just sign away his parental rights to get out of paying child support a lot more people would be doing it.