Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

Showing Original Post only (View all)

kpete

(71,996 posts)
Thu Jan 24, 2013, 12:40 PM Jan 2013

THE EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT -If women are going into combat, then it's time to amend the Constitution [View all]

THU JAN 24, 2013 AT 06:18 AM PST
If women are going into combat, then it's time to amend the Constitution
by 8ackgr0und N015e

Most of the women who will be directly affected by the pending decision to put women in combat are too young to remember the ERA. Many of them may not know what ERA stands for.

It stands for Unfinished Business.

The Equal Rights Amendment, proposed EVERY YEAR for 50 years, was finally passed in Congress in 1972 and sent out to the states for ratification. It failed. Why? I will get to that in a moment. But first let's consider this amendment, originally written in 1923, in detail:

• 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 amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.


That's it. Hard to imagine something proposed 90 years ago would be too radical a departure for the hysterical voices from the Right. Actually, that isn't hard to imagine at all. Nevertheless, with this hanging fire for almost a century you may wonder why I bring this up now. After Secretary Clinton's performance yesterday, can anyone doubt that women have broken through the glass ceiling and enjoy equal opportunity to achieve the highest levels of success this country has to offer? In a word: Yes.



MORE:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/01/24/1181647/-It-s-time-to-amend-the-Constitution
51 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Agreed. William769 Jan 2013 #1
It would be nice to see a couple of words added to the end of Section 1: sex, gender, petronius Jan 2013 #9
... William769 Jan 2013 #12
can't, sorry sandyo--ERA Jan 2013 #15
absolutely agreed. I could not believe, last night, that some were demanding that women niyad Jan 2013 #2
bloody friggen right! Whisp Jan 2013 #3
Again, go ask the commanders in door-to-door combat zones. sandyo--ERA Jan 2013 #19
I know what you are saying Whisp Jan 2013 #35
Women could be drafted without an ERA sandyo--ERA Jan 2013 #16
You ever hear the phrase "you're old enough to kill, but not for voting?" malthaussen Jan 2013 #40
yes, I remember that quite well. I realize the one percent doesn't give a damn, but that is not niyad Jan 2013 #43
Ah, sounds like you have the same problem as my mother... malthaussen Jan 2013 #44
well, did not grow up under either of the roosevelts, but my mind is still somewhat logical-- niyad Jan 2013 #45
No, but a change in perspective might. malthaussen Jan 2013 #46
I have never entertained the delusion that politicians work for us, regardless of what the civics niyad Jan 2013 #47
Yeah, that's the real bafflement. malthaussen Jan 2013 #48
you nearly owed me a keyboard--I was drinking coffee when I read that last line. niyad Jan 2013 #49
Glad I could help malthaussen Jan 2013 #50
k&r obamanut2012 Jan 2013 #4
I can't beleive we STILL don't have the ERA---and it is not even up for discussion in Congress. nt SunSeeker Jan 2013 #5
Ah, but I just worked w/3 other states to file a new, speedup ERA bill sandyo--ERA Jan 2013 #17
Wow. I had no idea anyone was working on the ERA! SunSeeker Jan 2013 #34
We don't need more combat soldiers, we need less combat Demo_Chris Jan 2013 #6
NO combat, no more Wars is the goal. sandyo--ERA Jan 2013 #18
Yes. yardwork Jan 2013 #7
But then girls and boys would have to use the same toilets! longship Jan 2013 #8
NOPE. Respect for decency is assured sandyo--ERA Jan 2013 #20
The 10th Amendment does not protect "respect for decency". Romulox Jan 2013 #28
she did say it already, often niyad Jan 2013 #36
One of the arguments against ERA in the 70s The Blue Flower Jan 2013 #10
NOPE again sandyo--ERA Jan 2013 #21
Combat pay is based on location... actslikeacarrot Jan 2013 #22
Correct... Coyote_Tan Jan 2013 #42
Women in combat was one of the major themes by Schafly to defeat the ERA. Now it's gone. freshwest Jan 2013 #11
Many instances of gender-discriminatory laws have been struck down under the Equal Protection Clause Jim Lane Jan 2013 #13
NOPE, for the third time sandyo--ERA Jan 2013 #23
I disagree with your legal analysis. Jim Lane Jan 2013 #41
2PassERA.org, "ERA for women", "ERA for men", etc etc sandyo--ERA Jan 2013 #25
K&R n/t Lady Freedom Returns Jan 2013 #14
K&R Starry Messenger Jan 2013 #24
Whaaaaat ? sandyo--ERA Jan 2013 #26
K&R = "Kicked & Recommended". randome Jan 2013 #30
Yaaaaaay! BE a Hero and urge ERA hearings in FL legislature sandyo--ERA Jan 2013 #32
Okay. I will. randome Jan 2013 #37
Oh, come on. Be reasonable. randome Jan 2013 #27
We've heard those negatives FOR THIRTEEN YEARS but they are useless sandyo--ERA Jan 2013 #31
please just pick up the phone for ERA--takes 2.5 minutes and it's IMPORTANT sandyo--ERA Jan 2013 #29
Help Help us 2PassERA.org sandyo--ERA Jan 2013 #33
What a fantastic idea! Orrex Jan 2013 #38
I believe if ERA was sent to the states now, it would do worse malthaussen Jan 2013 #39
I've been beating this drum for a few decades, now. MADem Jan 2013 #51
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»THE EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMEN...