Equal Rights Amendment - Gay Rights

[DisneyMomOK]

I worked to pass the ERA in OK in the 70's (unfortunately, my state is one of the 15 that did not vote for the Amendment). After that whole anti-movement raised its ugly head, I figured it would never happen. However, there are only three states needed to ratify and I wondered if any large gay groups might join with feminists to push the ratification (I would think IL and VA would be two states easy to pick up)? Has anyone here heard about a coalition? Since the Amendment addresses no rights abridged based on sex, wouldn't that mean that civil unions/marriage could not be denied based on gender? I have done some Google searches and cannot find anything on this, but w/ a daughter, I really want this Amendment passed.

Thanks.

 

[Kaliklove]

I thought the ideas that its not about about sexual orientation, its about gender discrimination. The argument may be a stretch. It needs to be picked up by the HRC and other groups for it to stick.

 

[Goofyluver]

A good source of info, including the current status of legislation, and links to agencies such as the Alice Paul Institute is HERE.

 

[DisneyMomOK]

I thought the ideas that its not about about sexual orientation, its about gender discrimination. The argument may be a stretch. It needs to be picked up by the HRC and other groups for it to stick.

If marriage is defined as limited to a male and female, wouldn't that be abridging a right based on gender? I am not an attorney and have no caselaw knowledge on this particular subject and I understand it would be difficult to argue, but a Constitutional Amendment that opened the door, might be easier than state by state attempts. Just wondered if anyone had read anything about this or heard about any coalitions on the subject?

 

[DisneyMomOK]

A good source of info, including the current status of legislation, and links to agencies such as the Alice Paul Institute is HERE.

Yes, that is a very good site, complete with history. In 1972-1974, all of us naive college kids were sure it would pass. It even appeared some states were merely holding back to be the last and, thus, most famous state to vote for the amendment. However, then the Schafly misery started and it was all down hill. I still remember the utter disbelief we all felt as it slipped through our grasp.

 

[serinlea]

Since the Amendment addresses no rights abridged based on sex, wouldn't that mean that civil unions/marriage could not be denied based on gender?

Yup! It would totally invert the nonsense "special rights" argument homophobes like to use, when they say "well, anyone has the right to marry someone of the OPPOSITE sex". The ERA would require gender to be entirely taken out of the equation.

Similarly, the name-change-upon-marriage nonsense could no longer be gender biased in state instutitions. My husband had to go to court to get his name changed (we wanted to both change to one new name together). But as the woman, all I had to do was tell people I'd gotten married, tell them my new last name, and they issued me new ID in that name. No legal documents necessary thanks to societal assumptions. Freaking dumb. My friend wanted us to wait until he finished law school so he could sue the state on our behalf for gender discrimination (with the goal of forcing a ruling that could be used to fight for gay rights). We would've waited, too, if DH's super-common birth name hadn't been making him a repeated victim of identity theft.

I think it's MORE than time for the ERA. Back in the day that the 14th amendment was being passed, feminists fought to have gender included in its protections, but were shut down by those who feared inclusion of gender wouldn't pass. The ERA has been around in some form ever since - introduced in every session of Congress, but rarely making headway until the 70s, and rarely again since its ratification failed in 1981.