Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site npois.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!ahuta!npois!adam
From: adam@npois.UUCP (Adam V. Reed)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Libertarians and ERA
Message-ID: <282@npois.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 12-Apr-85 09:42:14 EST
Article-I.D.: npois.282
Posted: Fri Apr 12 09:42:14 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 13-Apr-85 04:44:29 EST
References: <1340016@acf4.UUCP>
Organization: ATTIS, Neptune, NJ
Lines: 19

>>*LIBERTARIAN: Opposed to all legal and political distinctions based on
>>gender or sexual orientation (although some Libertarians oppose the ERA
>>because of fear that it may serve as an excuse for more coercive
>>legislation). Favor treatment of marriage as a private contract among
>
>As long as you're on the subject, perhaps you can answer a question
>for a fellow Libertarian.  Does the ERA contain provisions requiring
>private sector employers not to discriminate against women or other
>anti-liberty clauses?
>						Thanks in advance,
>						Mike Sykora

The explicit language of the ERA contains no such provision, but US
precedent gives "legislative intent" priority over the explicit language
of any legislation, including constitutional ammendments. Since a
majority of legislative proponents of the ERA seem to believe that the
ERA, if ratified, would authorize legislation applicable to the private
sector, US courts are likely to interpret it that way.
						Adam Reed