Illinois is the 37th state to ratify ERA

[DGUtley]

llinois lawmakers approved the Equal Rights Amendment on Wednesday, despite a 1982 deadline for ratification. Is it too late to pass the Equal Rights Amendment? Illinois is the 37th state to ratify it, one short. At Kent State, I marched for the ERA. I believed strongly then that we needed it. I'm not so sure now b/c of all of the federal laws and decisions protecting equal rights. Is it too late to pass it? Do we need it?

Attachment 23615

Is it too late to pass the Equal Rights Amendment? Illinois is the 37th state to ratify it

[nathanbforrest45]

Well, we ignore every other rule that may thwart left wing policy so why not this one?

We don't need it. What are women forbidden to do today that the ERA would correct?

[gamewell45]

llinois lawmakers approved the Equal Rights Amendment on Wednesday, despite a 1982 deadline for ratification. Is it too late to pass the Equal Rights Amendment? Illinois is the 37th state to ratify it, one short. At Kent State, I marched for the ERA. I believed strongly then that we needed it. I'm not so sure now b/c of all of the federal laws and decisions protecting equal rights. Is it too late to pass it? Do we need it?

Attachment 23615

Is it too late to pass the Equal Rights Amendment? Illinois is the 37th state to ratify it

Probably a good idea to pass it, therefore it'll be etched in stone. While there are laws today that protect both sexes, they can easily be changed or repealed. This way it'll be a constitutional issue and will apply equally among the 50 states. Either way I cannot see the passage of it reflecting discredit nor being detrimental to the country.

[nathanbforrest45]

Probably a good idea to pass it, therefore it'll be etched in stone. While there are laws today that protect both sexes, they can easily be changed or repealed. This way it'll be a constitutional issue and will apply equally among the 50 states. Either way I cannot see the passage of it reflecting discredit nor being detrimental to the country.

I see it as just another way leftist can twist the Constitution to make it mean whatever they want it to mean.

Here is the Text of the Equal Rights Amendment

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.

What exactly does this mean? What "rights" are to be protected? I predict that as a result of this amendment new "rights" will be fabricated out of whole cloth. What Constitutional mandated rights are not protected for women now?

Its unnecessary and since it has pasted its statue of limitations 36 years ago it would be illegal to pass.

[MisterVeritis]

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.

[IMPress Polly]

llinois lawmakers approved the Equal Rights Amendment on Wednesday, despite a 1982 deadline for ratification. Is it too late to pass the Equal Rights Amendment? Illinois is the 37th state to ratify it, one short. At Kent State, I marched for the ERA. I believed strongly then that we needed it. I'm not so sure now b/c of all of the federal laws and decisions protecting equal rights. Is it too late to pass it? Do we need it?

Attachment 23615

Is it too late to pass the Equal Rights Amendment? Illinois is the 37th state to ratify it

While many of the laws that the ERA would have struck down in one fell swoop have been eliminated since the ERA ratification movement of the '70s/early '80s, ratification would still have a positive impact. One can tell by the impact that state-level versions of the ERA have had!

Formally it's too late, but honestly I think that, like with the 1978 extension of the ratification deadline, the public today may be in a mood to bend the rules on legal deadlines again if the requisite number of states actually do belatedly ratify it now.

[gamewell45]

I see it as just another way leftist can twist the Constitution to make it mean whatever they want it to mean.

Here is the Text of the Equal Rights Amendment

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.

What exactly does this mean? What "rights" are to be protected? I predict that as a result of this amendment new "rights" will be fabricated out of whole cloth. What Constitutional mandated rights are not protected for women now?

Its unnecessary and since it has pasted its statue of limitations 36 years ago it would be illegal to pass.

Laws and statues can be changed very easily on a state by state basis. If a state decided that they wanted to change a law that would afford women less protection under the law and it was successfully changed, right now, under the constitution it would be legal for them to do that.

An amendment ensures that it is constitutionally protected and is applied equally among the states.

If another state ratifies the amendment and it is determined that it is legal, my next question to you is:

By passage of the amendment, will it reflect discredit or be detrimental to the country? I don't think so, your merely re-affirming what the country already has, just now it'll be "engraved in stone", so I don't see any issue with it's passage.

[DGUtley]

While many of the laws that the ERA would have struck down in one fell swoop have been eliminated since the ERA ratification movement of the '70s/early '80s, ratification would still have a positive impact. One can tell by the impact that state-level versions of the ERA have had! Formally it's too late, but honestly I think that, like with the 1978 extension of the ratification deadline, the public today may be in a mood to bend the rules on legal deadlines again if the requisite number of states actually do belatedly ratify it now.

I could be talked into the ERA, but I can't be talked into a "bend the rules" situation on the Constitution. We don't bend the rules. It's the sidelines. IF we want the ERA (and maybe we do), let's go through the hoops.

[CCitizen]

I hope that would be a great step in ending Discrimination Against Men:

-- Men are discriminated in Divorce
-- Male victims of Domestic Violence are more likely to be arrested then get help
-- Male offenders are more likely to be convicted on less evidence then female offenders, once convicted they get 63% longer sentences for the same crime
-- Men accused of many crimes are presumed guilty
-- Anyone who discusses these issues offline is fired/blacklisted

``In October 2008, the National Coalition For Men won a landmark appellate case in California that held it is unconstitutional to exclude male victims of domestic violence from the statutory funding provisions or from state-funded services." Here.

[CCitizen]

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.

I hope it is passed!