Saturday, July 26, 2008

Gay, Lesbian, and Female Rights

Allow me to begin this post by talking about women, the inferior sex, at least in the opinion of our democratic republic. In 1923, the equal rights amendment was introduced to congress. In order to amend the constitution in this manner, both houses in congress have to vote in favor of the bill by a 2/3 majority. The amendment then must be ratified by 3/4 of the states. There is another process to amending the constitution, but it has never been used, so we won't go there. The ERA was proposed to every congress for 49 years until it finally received a 2/3 vote from both houses of congress.

When it came to ratification by the states, only 35 of the necessary 38 states ratified the ERA. I am sad to say that my home state, Illinois, was not one of the 35 (The only other northern state not to ratify was Missouri). What were the words that caused so much controversy? Let's see if you think this is a radical amendment:

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.


That's it! Surely this amendment would have no problem passing today, right? That was just the sexism of the times. Wrong! This amendment has been proposed to every congress since it failed ratification in 1982. It was last proposed in the house by Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) and in the senate by Ted Kennedy (D-MA).

This bill does not even affect controversial issues like abortion. States with ERA in their state constitutions and anti-abortion laws find the two not to be in conflict. ERA does not affect marriage or allow same-sex marriage. ERA does not limit states rights, as it really only explicitly states what the 14th amendment is supposed to imply (But doesn't)

Why can't we get ERA passed????


Now onto another issue...Gay marriage.

I believe that marriage is an issue that is and should be left to the states; however, I also believe that a bill, like the ERA should be proposed with respect to LGBT rights (But let's focus on women's rights for now - we have to take baby steps). I believe that civically, LGBT people should be allowed to marry, but I also respect people's right to freely practice religion, even if their religion excludes LGBT people from religious marriage ceremonies. And that's what I think about that.

-Please Heed the Call

2 comments:

Cait said...

Agreed but I think there should be an amendment similar to the 14th addressing the rights of the LGBT community outlawing discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Churches can do whatever the hell they want, but LGBT couples deserve the same legal and financial rights as their heterosexual counterparts, whether it be in the form of "marriage", "civil unions", or something completely different.

Anonymous said...

That's what I meant...we should have an ERA for LGBT people, an amendment that prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. I just think we should get women's rights passed first (Unless we get a house and senate that will support all of it). I just don't want the opposing side to argue that equal rights for women is a slippery slope.