Man I wish Rep. Andersson was running again. He would be the first Republican I’ve ever voted for. It stinks that voting your conscience makes you a target these days.
- paddyrollingstone - Thursday, May 31, 18 @ 11:31 am:
when I was a kid my dad was in the House and they would routinely be in session all of June. My brothers and sister and I would come down to spend part of the month in the capitol working as honorary pages. I have vivid memories of the huge pro and anti ERA demonstrations under the Rotunda and recall that someone (not sure if they were pro or anti-ERA) riding in on a horse.
I also remember the feelings that the ERA engendered. The mother of one of our Catholic school classmates and friends of my dad told him that they would never vote for him or come to his fundraisers because of his pro-ERA vote.
JS, move on to the decaf. This is a fun thread, asking for fun answers. Look at the picture again. These two guys are overjoyed with each other, surrounded by women, who by my estimation, would be the ones most encouraged by the passing.
I’m not moved either way by this. I don’t think the bill is historic, memorable or consequential. Because; Fortunately, everything the poorly constructed language in the ERA was meant to address has been addressed over many years by decent people of every human stripe.
Your petty, foolish, judgmental comment says everything about what a un-dimensional person you are. You’re a flack for one thing, and so many others make a better case for that than you. Pound sand. You have no idea what I may have done in regard to equal rights. An educator ought to be better.
Have a little fun. That’s what the post was for.
- Da Big Bad Wolf - Thursday, May 31, 18 @ 3:02 pm:
Is Lou’s hand above or below Andersson’s underpants line?
And very seriously 47, at this point in time, with all of the progress made through the Equal Protection Clause in the Constitution, don’t you think there could be a more specific request than a 35 year old failed, extended, failed again amendment?
Listening to the Female AA Legislators yesterday, made me consider even more that there is some opportunity to offer greater inclusion to women of color.
This bill yesterday is symbolic to be sure, but it accomplishes absolutely nothing. It comes off as a Legislative version of an advisory referendum designed to do something outside of what it might intend. Guess we’ll see if it does.
Really Guy? I am not terribly adept at searching Rich’s archives and haven’t been able to find it. Can you tell me which day you left that particular comment?
If not, just tell me which of the 24 words below you changed?
“Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.”
And no, I don’t think there could be a more specific request even with the 14th Amendment. Perhaps it is largely symbolic, which isn’t your point I know, but I think the symbolism is still relevant and important.
“Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State to any human being on account of gender, creed, race, or any category of personal preference. Further, every reference to “man or men” in the Constitution shall be construed to include woman or women pertaining to rights included therein”.
I’d include language to assume legal status, be it citizenship, legal alien status, work visas, etc.
Thanks Guy. And you think your changes would have increased the chances of passage previously? I’m not so sure. It seems to me that the Phyllis Schlaflys and Jeanne Ives of the world would find much more to gripe about in your version than they “found” in the version that finally passed.
You’re not wrong 47. My version wouldn’t be written to please Rep. Ives or Ms. Schlafly. It would try to more specifically deal with inequities that are more contemporary as our society has changed. I was struck very much by the AA Women Reps who spoke last night who pointed out correctly (in my view) that the ERA didn’t offer any real spelled out equity for them. Or Latina women. It certainly didn’t offer anything for the categories of persons who might face discrimination in our time. I don’t think the framers meant to deliberately not protect women. They were people of their time who didn’t envision 1850 or 1920, let alone 2018. Protecting their husbands and sons was likely seen as protecting them.
I’ve never understood why there wasn’t a new draft of what this amendment was attempting to do; rid our nation of any discrimination of any kind for any reason. They got it right; that every “person” was entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It just took too long for our free society to continue to adapt the principle. That’s on all of us.
Rep Mary Flowers made tremendous sense to me. What we were doing for anyone, we should achieve for everyone.
Government is good at a very short list of things because of it’s mere size. Institutionalizing decency and fairness is one of those things. In fact, I believe it’s the only entity that can do so large of a task. I want everything for my wife, my sisters, my daughters and granddaughters, that I want for myself, my brothers, my sons and my grandsons. Anyone who doesn’t really isn’t allowing their own legacy to thrive.