Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site rtech.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!umcp-cs!gymble!lll-crg!dual!unisoft!mtxinu!rtech!jeff From: jeff@rtech.UUCP (Jeff Lichtman) Newsgroups: net.women Subject: Re: Why the ERA didn't pass Message-ID: <414@rtech.UUCP> Date: Tue, 21-May-85 03:37:57 EDT Article-I.D.: rtech.414 Posted: Tue May 21 03:37:57 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 24-May-85 20:45:10 EDT References: <132@harvard.ARPA> Distribution: net Organization: Relational Technology, Alameda CA Lines: 99 > Here's a brief summary of what I found out about why the ERA didn't > pass. If there's interest, I'll post actual quotes and more specific > data, but for now I'll just give a short paraphrase. > > The two main sources of opposition to the ERA that I investigated were > the STOP-ERA movement (led by Phyllis Schlafly) and the Mormon Church. > Here are some of the claims they made: I will supply arguments against some of these positions, even though I suspect that few people who read this newsgroup couldn't generate them on their own. > 1. Women Belong in the Home This is an opinion, not a fact, an opinion that fewer and fewer people in the U.S. hold. It is not the sort of thing that should be shoved down women's throats by legislation or other actions which the ERA would prevent. > 2. There Are Differences Between Men and Women that the ERA Ignores This statement is so vague that I won't even try to argue against it. > 3. Discrimination Against Women is Better Fought by Specific Legislation Specific legislation is necessary to fight any type of discrimination. Passing the ERA without doing anything else would be worthless. However, the specific legislation is much more likely to come about if the ERA is passed; it would make it illegal for sexist statutes to stay on the books and for any govermental body in the U.S. to avoid passing laws or making regulations preventing sexual discrimination. Further, the courts would have no choice but to rule against sexist laws, because the constitution takes precedence over all other laws. > 4. The ERA Would Make It Harder to Stop Abortion The opponents of abortion argue that a fetus is a human being, and so abortion is a violation of a person's rights. Most feminists don't agree with the opinion that a fetus is a human being with rights. This is the central issue in abortion arguments. It is up to the lawmakers and the courts to decide which side is right, but if they decide against abortion, it will most likely be because they agree with the idea that a fetus has human rights. Thus, it would be an argument of the rights of one group versus the rights of another. This is not to say that I agree with the anti-abortion stand, but the lawmakers and the courts have always had the right to decide who should win when the rights of different groups conflict. > 5. The ERA Would Condone Homosexual Marriages Homosexuality is a matter of sexual orientation, not gender. To outlaw homosexual marriages would discriminate against neither men nor women; both would still have the right to heterosexual marriage. Maybe the gays need their own ERA. > 6. The ERA Might Cause Women to be Drafted into Combat Positions The people who should be in combat positions are the ones best suited for it. If a war should come about, and there are women who are better suited for combat than some of their male counterparts, then they should serve in combat. Considering, however, that men are on the average stronger and more aggressive than women, almost all of the combat positions would go to men. Somehow I feel that some of the people in the Federal government would be less likely to favor war if they knew that their daughters as well as their sons would be going. :-) > 7. The ERA Would Transfer More Power to the Federal Government The ERA would prevent discrimination by any government agency, including state and local governments. The Federal goverment (read "the Supreme Court") would only have to step in if some local government refused to follow the ERA. The state and local governments would be able to have whatever laws they liked as long as they didn't contradict the ERA. > 8. The ERA is Redundant Because of the 14th Amendment and Other Legislation It was necessary to pass the 15th amendment (which forbids discrimination on the basis of race, color, or previous condition of servitude), even though the 14th amendment prevented such discrimination in broader terms. The fact is that discrimination based on gender exists in today's laws, despite the fact that the 14th amendment and other laws should make it illegal. The ERA would give the courts and the lawmakers no choice but to interpret sexual discrimination as unconstitutional. Besides, if the ERA is redundant, then why are its foes so afraid of it? > 9. The ERA is Too Vaguely Worded The ERA is worded using the same type of language as in the 15th amendment, which language seems to give no one any problems. > Dan. (winkler@harvard) Thanks, Dan. -- Jeff Lichtman at rtech (Relational Technology, Inc.) aka Swazoo Koolak {amdahl, sun}!rtech!jeff {ucbvax, decvax}!mtxinu!rtech!jeff