Answering lc scotty's great questions!
Visitor lc scotty posted, in part:
“What rights do you feel you lack that the ERA would have rectified? At this stage in our nations history, there is no constitutional protection that I enjoy that you do not. That I am aware of...”
(also) “Anal warts? You're making this shit up right?”
First, because I find it so hysterical, you can find info about Rush's butt problems on www.chickenhawk.com - which makes no bones about its contention that the biggest mouths in favor of the war in Iraq have the smallest military experience (or in most cases, including Vice President Cheney, Karl Rove, President Bush, Limbaugh, etc., none at all).
About the ERA: the Constitution does not provide any equal protections for women other than the right to vote. In fact, the struggle for the ERA mirrors the struggle for gender equality (including same sex marriage). Here’s a site can get to the heart of the ERA matter a lot better than I can here: http://www.equalrightsamendment.org/why.htm
The Constitution was so specific about who DID deserve rights, it’s a dinosaur of a document. When Ben Franklin signed, he did so with reservations (thanks to Gore Vidal for this quote): “I am in favor of this Constitution, as flawed as it is, because we need good government and we need it fast. And this, properly enacted, will give us, for a space of years, such government.”
“But then it will fail, as all such constitutions have in the past, because of the essential corruption of the people. And when the people become so corrupt, we will find it is not a republic that they want but rather despotism -- the only form of government suitable for such a people.”
Corruption and moral values – inextricably linked, yet the latter is the only one we ever talk about. Especially folks who think THEIR values are the ONLY values. And that Jesus is in their corner, exclusively.
As far as lc scotty’s comment about the sanctity of marriage being shot because of quickie divorce, etc., I agree with the contention that too many folks look at marriage as a solution to the live-in quandary, a solution to getting accidentally pregnant, a temporary arrangement. But I believe in marriage, I really do. I admit, my first marriage failed, but my second is based firmly on a shared concept of moral values and all that entails (particularly social justice, helping others get rights that we might otherwise take for granted).
Liz Taylor, Eddie Fisher, Ava Gardner, Britney Spears, all poster children for the concept of wedding ring as nothing more valuable or treasured than a bubble gum machine prize. Paris Hilton, Paris Schmilton. But there are so many wonderful, committed couples out there! Let them marry, regardless of gender!
Thx for logging on, and I hope this clears up where I stand. Peace!
“What rights do you feel you lack that the ERA would have rectified? At this stage in our nations history, there is no constitutional protection that I enjoy that you do not. That I am aware of...”
(also) “Anal warts? You're making this shit up right?”
First, because I find it so hysterical, you can find info about Rush's butt problems on www.chickenhawk.com - which makes no bones about its contention that the biggest mouths in favor of the war in Iraq have the smallest military experience (or in most cases, including Vice President Cheney, Karl Rove, President Bush, Limbaugh, etc., none at all).
About the ERA: the Constitution does not provide any equal protections for women other than the right to vote. In fact, the struggle for the ERA mirrors the struggle for gender equality (including same sex marriage). Here’s a site can get to the heart of the ERA matter a lot better than I can here: http://www.equalrightsamendment.org/why.htm
The Constitution was so specific about who DID deserve rights, it’s a dinosaur of a document. When Ben Franklin signed, he did so with reservations (thanks to Gore Vidal for this quote): “I am in favor of this Constitution, as flawed as it is, because we need good government and we need it fast. And this, properly enacted, will give us, for a space of years, such government.”
“But then it will fail, as all such constitutions have in the past, because of the essential corruption of the people. And when the people become so corrupt, we will find it is not a republic that they want but rather despotism -- the only form of government suitable for such a people.”
Corruption and moral values – inextricably linked, yet the latter is the only one we ever talk about. Especially folks who think THEIR values are the ONLY values. And that Jesus is in their corner, exclusively.
As far as lc scotty’s comment about the sanctity of marriage being shot because of quickie divorce, etc., I agree with the contention that too many folks look at marriage as a solution to the live-in quandary, a solution to getting accidentally pregnant, a temporary arrangement. But I believe in marriage, I really do. I admit, my first marriage failed, but my second is based firmly on a shared concept of moral values and all that entails (particularly social justice, helping others get rights that we might otherwise take for granted).
Liz Taylor, Eddie Fisher, Ava Gardner, Britney Spears, all poster children for the concept of wedding ring as nothing more valuable or treasured than a bubble gum machine prize. Paris Hilton, Paris Schmilton. But there are so many wonderful, committed couples out there! Let them marry, regardless of gender!
Thx for logging on, and I hope this clears up where I stand. Peace!
posted by Amy Barlow Liberatore @ 5:04 PM
1 Comments:
At 9:34 AM,
LC Scotty said…
Hi Amy.
Checked out the ERA site and the Constitution (again), and I have to say that I disagree. I think that the 14th amendment is perfectly clear.
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"
With respect to the government, you and I are equally protected. Legally protected government discrimination exists (IMHO) because the courts have allowed it. The freedom from discrimination in employment, or housing etc is not gauranteed to anyone in the constitution, but it is in the laws.
I am unfamiliar with some of the legislation mentioned on the ERA site (the Fair Pensions Act, and the Paycheck Fairness Act ), but I have issues with the violence against women act. Does the fact that I think this law is a poor piece of legislation mean that I support or endorse, in any fashion, violence against women? Absolutely not. Spousal abuse (in either direction) is a terrible thing. Letting loose your age on the person you're supposed to be sharing your life with is a heinous act. It is a fact, however, that men also suffer from domestic abuse, but receive no protection under this law. In the spirit of equal protection, why is violence against women singled out as more contemptible?
I have my reasons for feeling it is more contemptible, but you would (maybe) find it sexist. It's the old chivalry, women and children first, holding doors open mentality that I cling to. Don't misunderstand me though. I have no problem with women occupying any role in our society, as long as thye can prove that they can do it. Just like anybody else. If a man has to perform physical feat X to level Y to get job Z, then a woman should be held to the exact same standard. If she meets that standard, she should be as welcome to that position as anyone. The same goes for non-physical jobs. Either you got the moxie or you ain't. Maybe that is a dichotomy, maybe it is not self consistent, I don't know.
Have a nice weekend!
Post a Comment
<< Home