The ERA is a foolish amendment made by people who think they can rule the tides by passing laws. Men and women are significantly different, not equal. Equal means the same. I want men and women to be different. Viva la difference! Celebrate diversity!
Stephen Malcolm Anderson knew this.
What we really want is for men and women to be treated as equals in the ways they are equal and treated as different in the ways they are different. And the ERA does not say that.
Sometimes women need MORE rights under the law. One example: women get pregnant. Sometimes men need MORE rights under the law. One example: men get shut out of the child rearing process.
Futhermore, the ways that men and women are different changes as technology changes. Women with firearms are just as deadly as men. Not true with swords. So putting this fictional complete equality in the hands of judges bound by precedent means that it is so much harder to keep the law in sync with the times.
Bad philosphy leads to bad law.
Send the ERA to the trash can. Our legislatures will do just fine making sure men and women get what they need. Why am I so sure? Men and women both have the vote.
As someone who's generally a minarchist, and who believes in natural rights of sentient beings when they recognize the natural rights of other sentient beings (two positions that tend to send folks into apoplexy), I think this is an unnecessary and stupid amendment.
Any sort of amendment like this doesn't grant more things that should be rights. Those aren't the government's to give. What it does is allow special privileges for those mentioned in the text, and limit the freedom of association (which I believe IS a natural right) of others. And yes, I do know this allows for discrimination.
Does the ERA change anything that has already been included in the Constitution? That's the ONLY reason for an amendment. Otherwise, just apply everything in the constitution to everyone, and go with that.
Dan, that's the gist of Volokh's post. Short version: the current amendment language could stir up theoretical issues (same-sex locker rooms, all bars against women in combat roles eliminated) best left alone. The good professor also pointed out that the effect of the past several decades of jurisprudence has already provided what ERA supposedly establishes.
I seem to recall reading -back in the day- that even some of the amendment supporters agreed that ERA was more symbolic than necessary, and in that respect I think it's a waste of time.
Wince, you raise points I hadn't considered re: child rearing...
3.31.2007 3:33pm
Commenting on Dean's World is a privilege, not a right. Dean is your host, you are his guest, and you should behave in that fashion. Dean is not your babysitter, nor is he your punching bag. Please remember this. In general, you are free to disagree with anyone on any subject you wish, but abusive behavior will not be tolerated.
Of course we all lose our tempers now and then. Dean freely admits to being imperfect in this regard, which is why regulars to this establishment will generally be cut more slack than people who we don't know very well.
Still: behave like an adult, or go find somewhere else to play. Thanks.
Stephen Malcolm Anderson knew this.
What we really want is for men and women to be treated as equals in the ways they are equal and treated as different in the ways they are different. And the ERA does not say that.
Sometimes women need MORE rights under the law. One example: women get pregnant. Sometimes men need MORE rights under the law. One example: men get shut out of the child rearing process.
Futhermore, the ways that men and women are different changes as technology changes. Women with firearms are just as deadly as men. Not true with swords. So putting this fictional complete equality in the hands of judges bound by precedent means that it is so much harder to keep the law in sync with the times.
Bad philosphy leads to bad law.
Send the ERA to the trash can. Our legislatures will do just fine making sure men and women get what they need. Why am I so sure? Men and women both have the vote.
Yours,
Wince
Any sort of amendment like this doesn't grant more things that should be rights. Those aren't the government's to give. What it does is allow special privileges for those mentioned in the text, and limit the freedom of association (which I believe IS a natural right) of others. And yes, I do know this allows for discrimination.
Does the ERA change anything that has already been included in the Constitution? That's the ONLY reason for an amendment. Otherwise, just apply everything in the constitution to everyone, and go with that.
I seem to recall reading -back in the day- that even some of the amendment supporters agreed that ERA was more symbolic than necessary, and in that respect I think it's a waste of time.
Wince, you raise points I hadn't considered re: child rearing...
Of course we all lose our tempers now and then. Dean freely admits to being imperfect in this regard, which is why regulars to this establishment will generally be cut more slack than people who we don't know very well.
Still: behave like an adult, or go find somewhere else to play. Thanks.