Jonah Patel
The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) was a proposed amendment to the US Constitution that aimed to prohibit sex discrimination and guarantee equal rights for women. Despite gaining traction in the 1960s and receiving bipartisan support, the ERA faced strong opposition from conservative religious and political organizations. The main constitutional argument against the ERA was that it would reduce women's rights and protections, such as exemption from military service and financial support from husbands. Opponents also believed that traditional family and gender roles, as dictated by their religious beliefs, would be threatened. This led to a divide among women, with those supporting traditional gender roles opposing the ERA. The debate around the ERA highlighted the complexities of constitutional amendments and the challenges faced when attempting to ensure equal rights for all citizens.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| The ERA would threaten traditional gender roles and identities | Women would lose privileges and protections such as exemption from military service and combat duty, financial support from husbands, and benefit of protective labour laws |
| The ERA would threaten religious beliefs | The ERA would conflict with God-given differences between men and women and disregard traditional family and gender roles |
| The ERA was not necessary | Men and women were already equal enough with the Equal Pay Act of 1963 and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 |
| The ERA was not needed | The Supreme Court could give sex the same "suspect" test as race and national origin, through interpretation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution |
| The ERA was not beneficial to women | The ERA would invalidate protective laws such as alimony and eliminate the tendency for mothers to obtain custody over their children in divorce cases |
| The ERA was not a legislative priority | The ERA was unsuccessfully introduced in every session of Congress from 1923 until 1972 |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
The ERA would reduce women's rights and freedoms
The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) was a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution that would invalidate many state and federal laws that discriminate against women. The ERA was first introduced to Congress in 1923, three years after women in the United States gained the right to vote. Despite gaining approval from the Senate in 1972, the ERA was not ratified by the requisite majority of 38 states until 2020.
Despite the ERA's goal of reducing sex discrimination, some argued that it would reduce women's rights and freedoms. One of the main objections to the ERA was based on the fear that women would lose privileges and protections, such as exemption from compulsory military service and combat duty, and economic support from husbands for themselves and their children. In addition, opponents argued that the ERA would invalidate protective laws such as alimony and eliminate the tendency for mothers to obtain custody over their children in divorce cases.
The ERA also faced opposition from religious groups, especially Mormons, fundamentalist Christians, and Catholics. These groups claimed that the ERA conflicted with God-given differences between men and women and disregarded traditional family and gender roles embedded in their religious beliefs. They argued that the ERA threatened the spiritual and emotional guidance that women provided to their families and forced women to question their value.
Schlafly, a prominent opponent of the ERA, often argued that the ERA would result in women being drafted and sent into combat. She and her colleagues gained the attention of traditional wives and mothers, making them fear the consequences of the ERA. Schlafly also claimed that the ERA would threaten Social Security benefits for housewives and that protective laws, such as those related to alimony and child custody, would be lost.
Overall, opponents of the ERA believed that it would reduce women's rights and freedoms by eliminating exemptions and protections specific to women and disregarding traditional family and gender roles. They argued that the ERA would threaten the status quo and create negative consequences for women and families.
Vote Yes: Empowering Change Through Constitutional Reform
You may want to see also
It would invalidate protective laws for women
The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) was a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution that would invalidate many state and federal laws that discriminate against women. The central principle of the ERA is that sex should not determine the legal rights of men or women. The text of the ERA states that "equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex".
One of the main constitutional arguments against the ERA was that it would invalidate protective laws for women. This argument was particularly resonant with traditional wives and mothers, as well as working-class women. The argument was that the ERA would result in women losing privileges and protections, such as exemption from compulsory military service and financial support from husbands for themselves and their children. The ERA was also argued to threaten Social Security benefits for housewives and eliminate the tendency for mothers to obtain custody over their children in divorce cases.
The ERA's opponents argued that women already enjoyed equality with men, pointing to the Equal Pay Act of 1963 and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. They claimed that the ERA was unnecessary and that it would disrupt traditional family and gender roles. The ERA was also opposed by religious groups, who claimed that it conflicted with God-given differences between men and women and disregarded traditional gender roles embedded in their religious beliefs.
Despite gaining the support of feminist groups and lawmakers such as Martha Griffiths and Shirley Chisholm, the ERA faced intense opposition from conservative religious and political organizations, which ultimately prevented its ratification until 2020. The arguments against the ERA, particularly those focused on the potential loss of protective laws for women, were effective in swaying public opinion and preventing the amendment's inclusion in the Constitution for almost a century.
Tillis' Amendment: Constitutional Reform
You may want to see also
It would threaten traditional family and gender roles
The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) was a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution that would invalidate many state and federal laws that discriminate against women. The ERA's central underlying principle is that sex should not determine the legal rights of men or women.
Despite the ERA's promise to benefit wives by forcing states to recognize the contributions housewives make to family life, opponents of the amendment argued that it would threaten traditional family and gender roles. Religious groups, including Mormons, fundamentalist Christians, and Catholics, claimed that the ERA conflicted with God-given differences between men and women and disregarded gender roles embedded in their religious beliefs.
Schlafly, a prominent opponent of the ERA, argued that God's mission for women was to provide spiritual and emotional guidance to their families. She claimed that the ERA threatened this mission and forced women to question their value. Schlafly and her organization, The Eagle Forum, argued that the ERA would harm women by reducing their rights to exemption from compulsory military service and financial support from their husbands. They also claimed that the ERA would invalidate protective laws for women, such as alimony and the tendency for mothers to obtain custody of their children in divorce cases.
Opponents of the ERA appealed to women who supported traditional gender roles by stressing that the amendment would threaten their Social Security benefits and protective labor laws. They argued that the ERA would result in women being drafted into the military and sent into combat, threatening their traditional roles as caregivers and homemakers. Many women felt that the ERA was a personal attack on their lifestyles and values, and the campaign against its ratification generated fears about the potential consequences for traditional wives and mothers.
The opposition to the ERA by conservative religious and political organizations effectively brought ratification to a standstill, with only 35 states voting in favor of the amendment by the 1982 deadline, three states short of the necessary majority. The rise in social conservatism led Americans to draw limits on a constitutionally mandated equality between the sexes, prioritizing the preservation of traditional family and gender roles over the advancement of women's rights.
First Amendment: Who is Unprotected by the Constitution?
You may want to see also
Explore related products
$29.95 $29.95
Women would lose privileges and protections
The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) was a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution that would invalidate many state and federal laws that discriminate against women. The ERA states that "equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex".
Despite the ERA's goal of protecting women's rights, some argued that it would instead result in women losing privileges and protections they currently enjoyed. One of the main concerns was that women would lose their exemption from compulsory military service and combat duty. This argument was particularly persuasive, with opponents of the ERA hanging "Don't draft me" signs on baby girls during the Illinois legislature's debate.
Another key privilege that women were feared to lose was economic support from their husbands, both for themselves and their children. This included concerns about losing alimony and child custody in divorce cases. The ERA was also seen as a threat to Social Security benefits for housewives and the tendency for mothers to obtain custody of their children.
In addition to these, opponents of the ERA argued that women would lose the benefit of protective labour laws. For example, it was suggested that single-sex bathrooms would be eliminated and women's colleges would have to admit men.
The loss of these privileges and protections was a significant argument against the ERA, tapping into fears about the consequences of the amendment for traditional wives and mothers. While proponents of the ERA promised that it would benefit wives, they were unable to provide concrete assurances to counter these fears.
Amendment History: The Right to Bear Arms
You may want to see also
The ERA would conflict with religious beliefs
The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) was a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution that would invalidate many state and federal laws that discriminate against women. The ERA states that "equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex".
The ERA faced opposition from religious groups, including Mormons, fundamentalist Christians, and Catholics, who argued that it would conflict with their religious beliefs. They claimed that the ERA disregarded traditional family and gender roles embedded in their religious teachings. These religious groups asserted that God intended for women to provide spiritual and emotional guidance to their families, and they believed that the ERA threatened this mission.
For instance, Schlafly, a devout Catholic and leader of the opposition to the ERA, argued that the amendment would endanger the traditional privileges of women, such as exemption from compulsory military service and the right to financial support from their husbands. She further claimed that the ERA would result in the loss of protective labour laws for women and potentially impact child custody arrangements in divorce cases.
The ERA's opponents from religious groups also suggested that the amendment could lead to the elimination of single-sex bathrooms and argued that it was unnecessary due to existing legislation like the Equal Pay Act of 1963 and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. They believed that the ERA would conflict with God's intended differences between men and women, and they worked to prevent its ratification by spreading fear and uncertainty about its potential consequences.
Despite the strong opposition from these religious groups, the ERA gained support from feminists and other advocates who believed it was crucial for guaranteeing equal rights for women and ensuring that sex did not determine legal rights.
The 11th Amendment: A Constitutional Addition in 1795
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
The ERA is a proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution designed to guarantee equal legal rights for all citizens, regardless of sex.
One constitutional argument against the ERA is that the U.S. already has the 14th Amendment, which guarantees equal rights to all citizens. The ERA was also argued to endanger women's equality by prohibiting the government from acting "on account of sex" and, therefore, from addressing sex inequality.
The 14th Amendment, passed in 1868, was intended to give former male slaves equal protection and voting rights. However, it did not explicitly mention women, and subsequent interpretations of the amendment have left women with limited protection from discrimination.
The ERA would apply to the government and not private actors, so its effects would not be immediate or drastic. It would also not prohibit state-sponsored discrimination against women that is not already unconstitutional.
