Equal Rights Amendment

{{constnav}}
The '''Equal Rights Amendment''' ('''ERA''') is a proposed amendment to the [[United States Constitution]]. Congress originally mandated a 1979 deadline for the required 38 states to ratify the amendment, later extended to 1982. The complete text of the amendment was:

:Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
:Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
:Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.<ref>{{wayback|http://equalrightsamendment.org/era.htm}} ERA History</ref>

The ERA intended to forbid [[sexism]] by U.S. federal and state governments.<ref name="Brown">Brown, Barbara A., et al. [https://www.jstor.org/stable/795228 The Equal Rights Amendment: A Constitutional Basis for Equal Rights for Women]. ''The Yale Law Journal'', vol. 80, no. 5, 1971, pp. 871-985. ''JSTOR''.</ref> Opponents raised all sorts of criticisms of the ERA, such as that it would subject women to military [[conscription]],<ref name="RBG">Ginsburg, Ruth Bader. [https://www.jstor.org/stable/25726416 The Need for the Equal Rights Amendment]. ''American Bar Association Journal'', vol. 59, no. 5, 1973, pp. 1013–1019. ''JSTOR''.</ref>{{rp|1018}} bring about the end of sex-separated public bathrooms,<ref name="RBG" />{{rp|1018}} lose women beneficial labor laws,<ref name="RBG" />{{rp|1017}} or be broadly interpreted by courts to also apply to private clubs and let Susie Derkins into the G.R.O.S.S. clubhouse.

Passage of the ERA was a priority issue for [[feminism|feminists]]. Alternative solutions to legally enforced sexism, such as the extension of the [[Equal Protection Clause]] and passage of piecemeal legislation, had proven slow and unreliable by the early 1970s. With regard to the 14th Amendment, the Supreme Court had historically proven to class women separately from men, finding in ''Muller v. Oregon'' (1908), for instance, that woman "is properly placed in a class by herself".<ref name="Brown" />{{rp|877}} In 1971, the Supreme Court refused to re-examine its 1961 finding that a Florida law requiring women to volunteer to be on a jury, while men were automatically registered, did not constitute discrimination.<ref name="RBG" />{{rp|1015}}<ref>[https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/368/57/ Hoyt v. Florida, 368 U.S. 57 (1961)]</ref> Reliance on piecemeal legislation failed to address "the large role which generalized belief in the inferiority of women plays in the present scheme of subordination".<ref name="Brown" />{{rp|883}} Although the ERA had momentum on its side at first,<ref group="note">The amendment was ratified by 30 of the 38 required state legislatures within a year of its approval by Congress.</ref> an organized backlash led by [[Phyllis Schlafly]], who claimed that American women were the most privileged class of people in history,<ref>Schlafly, Phyllis. [https://www.phyllisschlafly.com/family/whats-wrong-with-equal-rights-for-women-february-1972/ What's Wrong With "Equal Rights" for Women?] ''The Phyllis Schlafly Report'', vol. 5, no. 7, 1972.</ref> and her infamous [[Eagle Forum|STOP ERA]] organization ultimately made opposition to ratification of the ERA a signature issue for the [[New Right (United States)|New Right]]. Ultimately, [[Indiana]] would be the last to ratify the ERA within the deadline, leaving the amendment three states short.

As the courts already recognize sexual [[discrimination]] to be a violation of the [[Fourteenth Amendment]], the ERA would have had almost no practical effect. The main effects would have been protecting against courts overruling precedence to find sexual discrimination permissible (an extremely unlikely possibility) and possibly ensuring that sexual discrimination would be evaluated under strict scrutiny rather than intermediate. It would also have prohibited sexual discrimination against non-citizens; a literal reading of the Fourteenth Amendment limits its protection only to citizens.<ref>[https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-14/ The 14th Amendment, Section 1]</ref>

The passage of the Equal Rights Amendment could render laws denying recognition to [[same-sex marriage]]s as unconstitutional.{{efn|Discrimination against gay people, including in the form of marriage inequality, is already supposed to be illegal under sex-based anti-discrimination protections, per {{w|Bostock v. Clayton County||.}} However, more explicit constitutional protections (other than e.g. the [[Equal Protection Clause]]) would be a much neater thing to have, not least because they are harder to repeal.}} Several American jurists argue that denying a person the right to marry a member of their sex constitutes gender discrimination. [[Anthony Kennedy]] has himself entertained this question,<ref>[http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2013/06/anthony_kennedy_s_gay_marriage_views_the_supreme_court_justice_may_see_banning.single.html Slate: What Is Anthony Kennedy Thinking?] 12 June 2013</ref> and former [[Massachusetts]] Supreme Judicial Court Justice John M. Greaney supports this position too.<ref>[http://www.boston.com/news/daily/18/sjc_gaymarriage_decision.pdf ''Goodridge v. Department of Public Health''], pages 64-76 of the linked PDF</ref>

[[Nevada]], [[Illinois]], and [[Virginia]] ratified the ERA in 2017, 2018, and 2020 respectively, giving it the necessary 38 states. However, given the bill's expired deadline and five purported rescinded ratifications, its status is currently disputed.<ref>[https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2021/may/5/illinois-nevada-virginia-ask-federal-appeals-court/ Illinois, Nevada, Virginia ask federal appeals court to count them in ERA ratification], Stephen Dinan, ''The Washington Post'' May 5 2021</ref>

==Notes==
{{reflist|group="note"}}

==References==
{{reflist}}
{{stub|politics}}
{{constitutionbox}}
[[Category:Sexism]]

Categories: Sexism