Guest Author - Brandi Rhoades
Unisex bathrooms. Same sex marriage. Women in the draft. That’s what detractors argue the passage of the Equal Rights Amendment would mean. Others contend that the amendment is needed because of issues still plaguing women. The wage gap still exists in most industries, and women still find high barriers to entry in male-dominated fields, such as engineering.
ERA proponents believe that this amendment, first introduced in 1923, would grant women legal recourse for issues such as the refusal of companies to offer maternity leave and would require sexual harassment and insurance coverage for birth control to be addressed at the federal level. Men, too, would have legal ramifications if they felt they had faced discrimination.
The opponents believe that making any distinction based on sex void would mean that same-sex marriage would be legal immediately and that sports would become a universally co-ed endeavor. Men could sue to enter beauty pageants, and custody battles could become tougher without gender distinctions permitted.
The reality of the ERA is undetermined. Would justices on the Supreme Court require schools to have two football teams or to permit girls to play, voiding the allowed exceptions under Title XI? Because the ERA has not been tested in the court system, it is unclear. Senator Edward Kennedy (D-MA) and Representative Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) would like to find out, however. The two legislators re-introduced the ERA to Congress in June.
Kennedy, Maloney, and other supporters want Congress to grant states a third opportunity to pass the ERA. When the ratification time arrived in 1982, the supporters still were three states short of the ratification. Activists at the Alice Paul Institute, the group most vocal about the passage, are using what they call a “three-state strategy.” These activists want to get the ERA passed in three of the 15 states that failed to pass the ERA.
Then the battle with Congress will begin. In the past, amendments had to go through the entire process again, but the ERA activists want Congress to make an exception. Because the ERA was so close, they believe that going back through the Senate ratification process and having 35 states re-ratify the ERA would be a waste of time. Their opponents argue that the re-ratification is necessary for the amendment to be valid. Continuing since 1923, the ERA still provides plenty of fodder for debates over the legality of forced gender equality.
