Socio-Political Journal
"The slogan in the 1970s was ERA Now. But what happens when it’s ERA later?"In this case, much later. Virginia’s purported ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment last month created a legal mess. Among the questions raised is whether the equality promised for two sexes would apply to the growing LGBTQ movement.
“ 'What is difficult in the case of the Equal Rights Amendment is that the words are essentially meaningless,” said Rob Natelson, who heads the Constitutional Studies Center at the Independence Institute. “The amendment is so poorly drafted and so general it’s fair to say it’s meaningless.”
"The amendment, which has been kicking around for nearly a century, cleared Congress in 1972 and headed to the states for ratification. It stalled out, but backers in recent years have tried to revive it, even though deadlines for ratification expired decades ago.
"Virginia says it is the critical 38th state to ratify the ERA with its General Assembly vote and insists the deadline is meaningless. The Trump administration says Virginia is wrong.
"This week, so did Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, an ERA supporter who nevertheless said the amendment is dead and supporters need to restart the process.
“ 'I would like to see a new beginning,” she said Monday.
"The ERA would declare equality of rights on “account of sex.”
"What that means exactly is contentious. If the amendment is added to the Constitution, it would create a morass of legal questions — chief among them whose vision of sex would control it.
"When Congress debated and approved the ERA in 1972, equality of the sexes was understood to mean men and women. The gay rights movement was nascent, and transgender rights was only notional. Neither figured in the debate in Congress nor in the statehouses that ratified it." . . .
"The slogan in the 1970s was ERA Now. But what happens when it’s ERA later?"In this case, much later. Virginia’s purported ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment last month created a legal mess. Among the questions raised is whether the equality promised for two sexes would apply to the growing LGBTQ movement.
“ 'What is difficult in the case of the Equal Rights Amendment is that the words are essentially meaningless,” said Rob Natelson, who heads the Constitutional Studies Center at the Independence Institute. “The amendment is so poorly drafted and so general it’s fair to say it’s meaningless.”
"The amendment, which has been kicking around for nearly a century, cleared Congress in 1972 and headed to the states for ratification. It stalled out, but backers in recent years have tried to revive it, even though deadlines for ratification expired decades ago.
"Virginia says it is the critical 38th state to ratify the ERA with its General Assembly vote and insists the deadline is meaningless. The Trump administration says Virginia is wrong.
"This week, so did Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, an ERA supporter who nevertheless said the amendment is dead and supporters need to restart the process.
“ 'I would like to see a new beginning,” she said Monday.
"The ERA would declare equality of rights on “account of sex.”
"What that means exactly is contentious. If the amendment is added to the Constitution, it would create a morass of legal questions — chief among them whose vision of sex would control it.
"When Congress debated and approved the ERA in 1972, equality of the sexes was understood to mean men and women. The gay rights movement was nascent, and transgender rights was only notional. Neither figured in the debate in Congress nor in the statehouses that ratified it." . . .
