Equal Rights Amendment

[Maxirad]

Did the Equal Rights Amendment that was such during the 1970s and early 1980s truly clash with Roman Catholic teaching in any way? It’s my understanding that Alice Paul, who penned the original Equal Rights Amendment, was pro-life.

 

[Dale_M]

For the purposes of accuracy, here is the wording of the Equal Rights Amendment, which failed to be ratified by 3/4 of the states of the US before June 30, 1982:

Joint Resolution Proposing an Amendment to the Constitution of the United States Relative to Equal Rights for Men and Women

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission by the Congress:

"Article–

"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.”

house.gov/house/Amendnotrat.shtml

 

[Insight]

Did the Equal Rights Amendment that was such during the 1970s and early 1980s truly clash with Roman Catholic teaching in any way? It’s my understanding that Alice Paul, who penned the original Equal Rights Amendment, was pro-life.

I can recall that having Mens and Ladies rooms would be against the law, all bathrooms would be unisex. There were several other weird things, such as toy stores could not have seperate boy & girl toy sections, etc.

God Bless

 

[Dale_M]

I can recall that having Mens and Ladies rooms would be against the law, all bathrooms would be unisex.

:ehh:

But according to whom? Political opponents of proposed legislation sometimes make wild claims which don’t bear up to rational scrutiny. I’m having trouble seeing how the text of ERA relates to mandatory unisex bathrooms.

 

[mdgspencer]

Equal rights were already enforced by U.S. law. As far as I can see, though, the Equal Rights Amendment is not against Catholic teaching. People did have questions about how such a sweeping constitutional amendment would effect the judgements of U.S. law. For example, the question was raised when the ERA was being considered as to whether a court might then decide that seminaries which prepare only men for the priesthood would be guilty of violating the Constitution. We are now seeing the excesses that laws making non-discrimination for homosexuals have led to. Right now the Ontario government is requiring “gay clubs” to be established in Catholic schools, clubs which are meant in fact to change the values of the students. And here in the U.S. such laws are now being used against catholic charities because they will not give children in adoption to gay couples. Of course, one form of excess doesn’t mean that another will occur. But the possibility does exist that such excesses would have occurred if there had been an ERA.
My judgement of the ERA: civil law already gives equal rights to women. And while the wording of this amendment does not violate Catholic beliefs, this sweeping amendment may have been used as an instrument to strike out against the Catholic Church and against other believers.

 

[JimG]

“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.”

What does “on account of sex” mean? If equal rights cannot be denied “on account of sex,” gay marriage would already be mandated by this amendment. Laws about sex offenses might be abrogated since prosecution would involve denying the perpetrator equal rights “on account of sex.”

Obviously Catholic seminaries would be in violation of such an amendment because they deny equal rights “on account of sex.” So, for that matter, do single sex colleges and universities, which are increasingly seen as a good thing, not a bad thing.

Allowing men but now women to be topless on a public beach would violate the ERA, as equal rights would be abridged “on account of sex.”

With a little thought I could come up with a host of negative unforeseen consequences. The wording is too broad, too vague, and gives way too much power to Courts for interpretation.

 

[edwest2]

:ehh:

But according to whom? Political opponents of proposed legislation sometimes make wild claims which don’t bear up to rational scrutiny. I’m having trouble seeing how the text of ERA relates to mandatory unisex bathrooms.

It was around this time that the term Unisex was coined. There were Unisex hair salons and attempts at promoting Unisex restrooms. Since the ERA did not pass, it still did not stop this.

Peace,
Ed