ERA: What the Right is Willing to Sacrifice Women’s Rights For

The Equal Rights Amendment may finally see the light of day.  Shakes has it down to a science:

I’m crying. I’m honestly sitting here crying, reading that line and thinking that it may finally make its way into the Constitution in my lifetime.

That sentence would subject legal claims of gender discrimination to the same strict scrutiny given by courts to allegations of racial discrimination.

…”I think we’ve made a lot of people think about this and say, ‘Yes, this is the right thing to do,’ ” said Arkansas state Rep. Lindsley Smith (D), who sponsored the ERA and has vowed to bring it up again when the legislature reconvenes in 2009. “The question I get most frequently is ‘Lindsley, I thought this already was in the Constitution.’ “

Yeah, I’ve heard that once or twice myself. Probably because most Americans are fucking amazed that it isn’t.

There is no reason in hell why it shouldn’t already be.  That won’t stop the bigoted opposition from trying to stop the amendment (emphasis mine):

Of course, the usual suspects are reemerging to fight it, just like they did last time: “In the 1970s, Schlafly and others argued that the ERA would lead to women being drafted by the military and to public unisex bathrooms. Today, she warns lawmakers that its passage would compel courts to approve same-sex marriages and deny Social Security benefits for housewives and widows.” The real issue buried in all that nonsense is, of course, “same-sex marriages.” Other opponents are all fidgety “because courts in two states have ruled that equal-rights amendments in state constitutions justify state funding for abortion.” Said Arkansas state Rep. Dan Greenberg (R): “The more general language you have in a constitutional amendment, the more unpredictable the policy impact will be.”

Yeah, who knows what will happen when we finally recognize women as equals?! Maybe frogs will fall from the fucking sky!

The same fear of unexpected repercussions was dredged up when Massachusetts began recognizing same sex marriages.  Shakes is right on though, this will be a battle about same sex marriage and abortion, although I expect same sex marriage to play a more prominent role (it is scarier, after all).  I don’t know how successful that strategy will be.  Amanda has some good insights:

I welcome the fight. The only thing that the ERA has against it is that it’s pretty much certain that if it passes, same sex marriage will get legalized in its wake. That’s politically problematic, but as a human rights issue, it needs to happen. Expect that conservatives will return to the issue repeatedly, and denying that this is a side effect is both degrading to gays and lesbians and untrue to boot. But again, this isn’t the 70s. People have become acclimated to the idea of gender-neutral marriage, so that’s not nearly the obstacle it was in the past.

Even so, it will help to frame this firmly as a trade.  As Shakes notes:

Opponents of the WEA are so tired. Their arguments against it are so tired. Waaaaah! Same-sex marriage! Waaaaah! Abortion! They’re willing to deny my equality under the law just because it might open the door to other battles they’re eventually going to lose, anyway.

There is no reason to trade fundamental equality under the law for homophobia.  That is precisely what opponents of the ERA are preparing to do.   It puts them in a weak position.  It comes down to:

“My Rights or Your Bigotry?”

The right to be free from discrimination applies to everyone, not just women.  The fact that it will have the most impact on Women’s Rights is simply sad commentary on our society.  This is a Human Rights issue, and it is past time for the United States to take a strong lead by confirming Equal Rights regardless of Sex.