Thank you Virginia!


"Equality of rights under the law shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex" - ERA

https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/15/politics/virginia-general-assembly-equal-rights-amendment/index.html


https://exhibits.lib.utah.edu/s/aileen-h-clyde-20th-century-women-s-legacy-archive/media/138820



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/15/2020 03:21PM by wings.

"ERA advocates say the amendment is necessary to ban discrimination on the basis of sex and guarantee equality for women under the Constitution, but opponents argue it will pave the way for greater abortion access and say equal-rights protections for women have already been enshrined at the federal and state levels."

I have to wonder what discrimination women are experiencing based on sex? What civil rights are lacking? In my view the constitution and d. of i. is very clear on the subject that all men are created equal. The founding fathers didn't say Women were equal. And there is a reason for that. They knew that women aren't men, and generally vote and think differently than men. They vote for security rather than freedom. They don't usually build walls or fight in wrestling matches.

This is foolish even by your standards.


-----------------
> I have to wonder what discrimination women are
> experiencing based on sex? What civil rights are
> lacking?

People have answered this question so often that your apparent inability to learn becomes the issue.


------------------
> In my view the constitution and d. of i.
> is very clear on the subject that all men are
> created equal.

The Declaration of Independence was a propaganda tool that had, and has, no legal significance.

The constitution does NOT say all men are created equal. To the contrary, it says that some men are 60% of "equal."


----------------
> The founding fathers didn't say
> Women were equal.

True. The Founders left at least three tiers of status: 100% human for white men, 60% human for black men, and nothing for women. Do you prefer that outcome, macaRomney? Do you think African Americans should still be chattel?

Put differently, do you need the power of the state to protect your identity as a man? Are you worried that you couldn't do that for yourself without government help?


-----------------------
> And there is a reason for that.
> They knew that women aren't men, and generally
> vote and think differently than men.

Do you believe that you and Dave the Atheist, or you and BoJ, think the same way? Because I'd bet my bottom unit of paper currency that their thought processes are a lot closer to those of intelligent women than to yours.


-----------------------
> They don't
> usually build walls or fight in wrestling matches.

Building walls is not a measure of intellect, nor of manliness properly understood.

As for women not fighting, you had better hope they are pacifically inclined, for Golda Meir, Benazir Bhutto, Maggie Thatcher, Angela Merkl, or Nancy Pelosi would rip your throat out before you had time to raise your o-so-manly fists.


------------------
People confident in their masculinity don't require legal safeguards to bolster their identity. To paraphrase an intellectually challenged but ultimately wise character, men are as men do.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/15/2020 05:02PM by Lot's Wife.

macaRomney Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "ERA advocates say the amendment is necessary to
> ban discrimination on the basis of sex and
> guarantee equality for women under the
> Constitution, but opponents argue it will pave the
> way for greater abortion access and say
> equal-rights protections for women have already
> been enshrined at the federal and state levels."
>
> I have to wonder what discrimination women are
> experiencing based on sex? What civil rights are
> lacking? In my view the constitution and d. of i.
> is very clear on the subject that all men are
> created equal. The founding fathers didn't say
> Women were equal. And there is a reason for that.
> They knew that women aren't men, and generally
> vote and think differently than men. They vote
> for security rather than freedom. They don't
> usually build walls or fight in wrestling matches.


More High Schools and Colleges are starting women's wrestling programs now. I'll feel we are closer to parity when women have to sign up for Selective Service in the US. Other than that there is not a job to be done by a man that a Woman cannot do - other than the old joke of "sperm donor".

I'm all for women being subject to the draft. Equality is equality.

macaRomney Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The founding fathers didn't say
> Women were equal.

I wonder why God didn't say thou shalt honor thy father and thy brothers because you know women are different.

Those are ponderable and interesting points from LW. I'd say that the founding fathers were "confident in their masculinity" and understood that men worked the land, fought the indians, made the purchases, built the bridges, did the farming, killed the animals, fired the guns, and owned the property, according to our English tradition they brought in the 1600s From King Charles.

And in address to this question: "Put differently, do you need the power of the state to protect your identity as a man? Are you worried that you couldn't do that for yourself without government help? "

Yes I think I need the government to protect my right to own land. But as my identity as a male I would say no that we are born with our gender from our creator and that can't be changed by any tyrant.

And about the 60% clause that puts a wrench in the "all men created equal" American idea. That's a hard issue to come to a conclusion about. Whether the founding fathers thought all men were equal, or if it was just White men. I'm not sure, but guessing that they didn't really want to free the slaves or think of them as being equal. But regardless All blacks in America owe their freedom to the racist white man we call Jefferson.

But these are great questions that I'm glad you brought up LW :^)

mR, I don't think any African-American owes his/her freedom to Jefferson. He was a slave owner and, along with many other founders, enshrined slavery in the constitution.

Black Americans owe their freedom and current civil rights to abolitionists who thought moral consistency more important than political compromises enshrined in the constitution, Lincoln's Republican Party, and above all to themselves. Women likewise owe their franchise and other progress to a variety of actors motivated by the same moral integrity and to themselves.

Perhaps the most inspired provision in the US constitution was the amendment process, for it implicitly recognized that the original document was flawed and that subsequent generations must straighten it out. The ERA is part of that process whether it is adopted constitutionally or not.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/15/2020 05:24PM by Lot's Wife.

I should also clarify that it was more Lincoln that had the greater influence in making reality the sentiment that Jefferson wrote that "All men are created equal." He extensively used and referred back the founding fathers and combed over every piece of historical record of law he could find concerning the Founding of the nation and political ideas. And argued successfully against Steven A Douglas (an extremely gifted orator and debater, the best in the country) and many other politicians that the founders had the intention of all men (including blacks) were equal. He used his powers as commander in chief to take away the property of the South unconstitutionally if there was no war. But because of war it was a necessity and could be done.

But the founders had nothing to say about women, so ERA has been stalled for 240 years.

I would like to see where Lincoln said he thought the Founders wanted African Americans to enjoy equality. The Founders assuredly did NOT want that--Jefferson did not, for example, nor Washington--and the constitutional treatment represents the final agreement of the Founders.

Moreover, I have read a lot of Lincoln's speeches and think you overstate his reverence for the constitution and its authors. He valued those things, to be sure, but in his efforts to overturn slavery he violated the constitution by suspending habeas corpus, imposing Union preferences on the South despite the states' rights implications of 10th Amendment, and rejecting the 60% rule.

It is important to note that Mormons are virtually unique in thinking the constitution a divine document. Lincoln respected the constitution, but he envisioned something much more expansive than what he viewed as the flawed work of his predecessors.

From Dorris Goodwin's "Leadership in Turbulant times." She explains that Lincoln hated slavery after seeing an Auction, and wasn't in favor of slavery. But that like in all politics compromises had to be made for the greater good. He was more than willing to let slavery continue if it would save the Union. But to save the Union he had to steal the human property of the South and as you said do away with Habeas Corpus (temporarily).

So maybe it's just Goodwin's theory (that she states in her book) that Lincoln thought that the founders wanted to get rid of slavery. I'll have to look more into that cuz I'm not sure...

This is fascinating history, I recently bought Carl Sandbergs history of Lincoln that I plan to read soon.

I would recommend Team of Rivals.

Takes me back to 1975 when I was dating a girl at YBU that would wear a "ERA NOW" t-shirt (but never to class). We went on a date to one of the Friday night "concerts impromptu" at the Wilkinson center where she signed up and sang Helen Reddy's "I am Woman."

Can't imagine why she didn't get kicked out.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/15/2020 05:25PM by fossilman.

Next is the sound of dozens of lawyers, later judges, figuring out the 'deadline' provisions & determine if the Virginia ratification is effective / officially recognized or not.

Worth it or not? that will be for history writers & others of later years to be .

It is worth it regardless of whether the date has expired, for it symbolizes both the gradual acknowledgement of female equality by the United States and admission by Virginia that it regrets its past position.

Unlike The Mormon Church which will never apologize for its harems of breeding women, inequality, sexism, and inequality in pay. The one thing it got right was soullessly for the numbers. They wanted 100 percent person for them women's votes and the right to treat them in their state as no more than herd and seen farm animals. Only "uppity" women in SLC got to be anything more than help meets.

Re macaRomney's posted sexism: I've said this multiple times in the past, but it still applies: "where to start?" I don't have a lot of time right now.

This analysis of the amendment's issues from a website I'd probably better not list because political.
__________
This now raises at least three significant legal questions, none of which are answered by the Constitution:

(1) Can Congress actually establish a passage "deadline"?;

(2) If so, could a new Congress ... extend that deadline; and

(3) Are states allowed to rescind ratifications?

Nobody knows the answers to these things, as these exact issues have never come up before (although there is the somewhat similar precedent of the 27th Amendment, which was ratified over 200 years after being proposed).

If the [D's] do capture the House and Senate, they are undoubtedly going to extend the deadline and act like the amendment is part of the Constitution. Then somebody will sue and the case will land on Roberts' plate in a few years. Given the lack of guidance in the Constitution, Roberts and the other eight justices have little to go on, other than their personal preferences.
________________

Do you ever wonder if macaromney posts these things to get everyone riled up? He is so far off. My dad would never have said those things and he would have been 88 this year. He had some of the bigoted attitudes. He actually treated his daughters better than his sons. He expected us to make wise decisions and we definitely worked as hard as our brothers did on the farm. He also thought nothing of the priesthood. It was more of a pain in the ass to him. My brothers hated it, too. We were never taught our brothers had authority over us and they certainly did not act like they did. My brothers are all easy to get along with. Great guys.

So I'm always shocked to read what macaromney says about women.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/16/2020 12:55PM by cl2.

Thank you cl2. Nice to see you! And good to see some old boardie's still hanging around. I have no working experience with our friend macaRomney. But, some folks like to toss grenades into a room just to watch them explode :)

I feel like I'm in the 70's again.

rubicon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I feel like I'm in the 70's again.


Being a High Priest was a better gig!

I didn't know either of you were that old.

One of my earliest memories is Woodstock. We were at my aunt’s house and the news was covering it. I remember all the adults going on how horrible it was. All that sex, drugs, rock and roll and hippies.