The news article on Yahoo! brings up a very interesting point about women's rights - with the development of American society, is it necessary for the ERA to be included in the Constitution? Why?
2007-04-03 09:53:25 · 7 answers · asked by Amy V 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
I remember, what 25-28 years ago when this was a hot topic.
The bottom line why it failed is that it was not about equal rights, it was about special rights.
2007-04-03 10:27:31 · answer #1 · answered by Dog Lover 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
If the existing laws of the land do not ensure equality regardless of gender, then yes, it's necessary.
DO the existing laws ensure such equality? I dunno - women do, statistically, earn less then men for equivalent kinds and levels of work. Will an ERA change that any better than enforcement of existing laws? I dunno.
But, if you accept that men and women are equal, what harm does an ERA do? Why would having it be offensive? How would it limit other rights?
I think it should be there. It's a fundamental tenet of our social structure - or should be.
2007-04-03 09:59:55 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
It is not necessary at all. The ERA is law already. There is no basis or need to amend the constitution.
2007-04-03 09:56:41 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
Earned Run Average?
2007-04-03 09:58:23 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Constitution?? What Constitution?? That damn thing is only used when its good for one person or a group of people. Not the rest of the country for which it is written.
2007-04-03 09:57:45 · answer #5 · answered by UNFORGIVIN_II_II 2 · 1⤊ 3⤋
the era is a joke. Thank God it never made it.
2007-04-03 09:57:10 · answer #6 · answered by lundstroms2004 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋
I think it's necessary, because it would declare ALL forms of sexual discrimination unconstitutional.
2007-04-03 09:57:47 · answer #7 · answered by tangerine 7 · 1⤊ 3⤋