Biden declares ERA Amendment has passed

There will not be, most likely never “absolute” equal rights re males and females.

It should say “limited” equal rights.

 

I am not following your point. What rights will never be equal?

 

Yes, it has passed into the sunset clause...

 

Off the top of my head, conscription. Make whatever excuses you like. Characterize it as a "duty" (which is just the converse of a right) if you like. But men and women will never be subject to the duty of conscription equally, or -- if you prefer -- will never have equal rights in the ability to avoid conscription.

 

Doesn’t pass for me. That’s like saying sickly men with bone spurs don’t have equal rights because they weren’t selected for a draft or like saying if you didn’t have bone spurs your rights were violated. Perhaps if we needed 2 million drone operators a draft would include women?

I can’t think off the top of my head a right that isn’t universal.

 

The fate of ERA is exactly why I support an amendment banning abortion. But, of course, they'll never bring it to the table because 1. It would fail miserably and kill the movement and 2. Abortion is more valuable (literally in terms of fundraising) as a wedge issue.

 

Well, of course, it doesn't. That's why I invited you in advance to forward your excuses and equivocations, and you did. We are talking about legal discrimination of the basis of gender, not age or infirmity. Two healthy, young people, one a woman and the other a man, are not equally subject to conscription. That's just a fact. And I am merely pointing it out, not decrying the injustice of it. Men and women are different, generally speaking, and those differences account for different responsibilities under the law in some cases. Different responsibilities usually accounts for different rights. Another contrast occurs under the law in terms of violence; men and woman have different responsibilities and rights vis-a-vis one another in physical altercations, and I would not lead the charge to make that "equal" either.

 

Just more silliness. I am still unsure what equal right men and women should have you are pointing out? The right to get beat up? You can insert an unequal physical dynamic between two men and justify the same treatment as the unequal dynamic between a man and woman.

I get there are physical differences but we are talking equal rights. Just lay out a simple to understand right that should not be equal.

 

I have not argued a "should" one way or the other. I am comfortable with men and women having different rights and responsibilities in areas where they are inherently unequal. I was only pointing out a couple of those areas to you, since you asserted that there were none.

 

Will the Trump administration (a) ignore Biden's declaration, (b) basically say "lol nope", or (c) lead with the second side of the equality sword (so-long to VAWA, government-supported women's shelters without equivalent for men, WIC, support programs specific to women in education, preference for mothers in family courts, alimony, etc.)? Very interesting indeed.

 

this thing has been hanging around since 1970's, how long can this type of amendment be allowed to float around. As I read it, hell most if not all of it has already passed in other forms of legislation

 

So, does this amendment only apply to biological women …. or does a male who thinks he’s female receive any more rights/protections from it?

 

Depends on who you ask. As far as I know, there is no court case or law that requires us to collectively pretend that certain men are women. As far as I know, that remains an individual’s decision on how much they care to play along or not play along.

 

Conscription is a fair example - in 2021, SCOTUS declined to hear the challenge to the draft, citing an ongoing review as well as the Court's long-standing deference to Congress on matter involving national defense and military affairs. When it comes to individuals' right to self defense, I'm not aware of any rights or responsibilities which are based solely upon the sex of the parties involved. Practically, of course, men are bigger and stronger than women on average, so there is going to be a correlation between sex and proportionality considerations. But I don't think they're bright lines or categorical rules.

 

Amendment text below. It (1) says "sex", not "gender" and (2) is symmetric. It's not "women now get more rights"; it's "males and females get the same rights". The ERA is ambiguous on what the resolution to a status quo of "males get A, females get B" is -- everyone gets A vs. everyone gets B vs. everyone gets both, etc.

"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."

 

Seems like a stretch to call non-conscription a right but let’s go with it. Conscription can also include non-combat roles right? So assuming that ever happens again, I can see both men and women being drafted and roles being assigned based on capability.

 

Is that really a right for anybody?