Church Renews Opposition to ERA

[slavereeno]

Ahh politics. So much fun.

DW was in conversation with a (TBM, female) friend who said that if the this gets passed, that the ensuing lawsuits would bring out all sorts of evils. Such as, gender and sexual preference fluidity that would allow child molesters to go free!

I recall my father arguing that it would strip "privileges" from women, such as not having to register for selective service, alimony laws, women's only colleges/bathrooms, "Women's" shelters, etc.

I am not supporting these arguments just reporting what my ears are hearing out here in the trenches, or throwing fuel on the fire, take your pick.

[alas]

Ahh politics. So much fun.

DW was in conversation with a (TBM, female) friend who said that if the this gets passed, that the ensuing lawsuits would bring out all sorts of evils. Such as, gender and sexual preference fluidity that would allow child molesters to go free!

I recall my father arguing that it would strip "privileges" from women, such as not having to register for selective service, alimony laws, women's only colleges/bathrooms, "Women's" shelters, etc.

I am not supporting these arguments just reporting what my ears are hearing out here in the trenches, or throwing fuel on the fire, take your pick.

The thing is, feminists think that if there is a draft, women should get drafted too. And actually having an all voluntary force causes the government to treat their member as humans instead of cannon fodder and pay them equivalent to non military jobs. Battered women’s shelters should offer shelter to battered husbands if they need it and most of them do, the one I worked in offered all services to whoever needed them, including shelter to abused husbands. The rape victims counseling service I worked for also counseled men. And alimony laws are already gender neutral. And restrooms can be separate but equal, or the gender neutral ones I used in Europe, where everybody went into a common area with sinks and then went into a private booth to pee, then back to the common area to wash your hands. Nobody had a problem with that and as the mother of a four year old who thought he was old enough to go in the men’s room, I much preferred this family friendly arrangement. As as far as sexual predators, far from letting men who rape girls off the hook, it has become gender neutral and women who seduce underage boys are subject to rape charges. Yea for the equality that we have achieved.

Those arguments are just scare tactics, and when you actually look at them, they are all doable or even an improvement.

[Jeffret]

Such as, gender and sexual preference fluidity that would allow child molesters to go free!

The text of the amendment was posted earlier. I can't see anything in there about child molesters.

Nor even about dogs and cats living together.

[Thoughtful]

Most feminists want to abolish the draft. Whether pedophilia is a sexual orientation has nothing to do with gender equality, and even if it is (which is probably is for true pedophiles, but most child molesters may not even be oriented as pedophiles) consent is still the issue. Children cannot consent and do not gain from sexual relationships with adults.

[moksha]

PROVO - Brigham Young University Spokesman B. Ellis Dee has announced that students will not be allowed to see the movie Wonder Woman 1984, because it portrays the rights of women in a manner unpleasing to the Lord. When asked for clarification, Elder Ellis Dee referred press members to the Church's newest family proclamation entitled, Pregnant, Barefoot and in the Kitchen: An LDS Women's Guide to Attaining the Celestial Kingdom.

[Not Buying It]

Ahh politics. So much fun.

DW was in conversation with a (TBM, female) friend who said that if the this gets passed, that the ensuing lawsuits would bring out all sorts of evils. Such as, gender and sexual preference fluidity that would allow child molesters to go free!

I recall my father arguing that it would strip "privileges" from women, such as not having to register for selective service, alimony laws, women's only colleges/bathrooms, "Women's" shelters, etc.

I am not supporting these arguments just reporting what my ears are hearing out here in the trenches, or throwing fuel on the fire, take your pick.

I kind of think some of those opposed to the ERA probably can't even articulate why they are opposed. That's why you see all kinds of ridiculous arguments about gender fluidity and freeing child molesters. Consciously or not, some people feel threatened by changes to patriarchal dominance in our culture. The Church can blah blah blah about women's role as mothers and the dangers of sexual temptation in the workplace and all kinds of ridiculous crap they used to justify their opposition to the ERA back in the 70s, but the real reason they opposed it is because it threatened the patriarchal structure of the Church - not legally, legally it wouldn't impact them at all, but it would give women ideas. What can't women hold the priesthood? Why should a 12 year old boy have more priesthood authority than the General Relief Society President?

Can't have women getting all uppity, so back in the 70s the Brethren vigorously opposed it and went so far as to prohibit women from praying in Sacrament Meeting just to re-emphasize their place. But the Church knows it isn't socially acceptable to talk about the real reason for opposing the ERA, so they give all kinds of duplicitous, disingenuous garbage about the special role of women and all that.

I think a lot of members are the same way - they sense things like the ERA threaten the status quo, so they instinctively oppose it, but if you press them about why, they can't articulate their reasons and end up rambling about gays and child molesters.

P.S. The Founding Fathers certainly did not intend to include women when they used the words "man", "men", or "mankind". Women were property. Hell, black men who were slaves were property and only considered 3/5ths of a person for the purpose of allocating representatives in Congress. Let's not be too generous in our thinking about how the Founders viewed women. In some ways a lot of the Founding Fathers were pretty big jerks, whether we want to admit it or not.

[Flaming Meaux]

I've done a bit of googling this morning but I think I'm finding mostly one-sided arguments on both sides, with a fair amount of fear and disgust for the other side. I barely remember this fight from childhood - can anyone share a good source on the actual legal ramifications, pro and con, for this amendment? I admit to having a deep distrust of politics and government officials (who act more like celebs these days) but I'd like to hear some honest legal analysis.

There are some technical legal ramifications to the passage of the Equal Rights Amendment, but I say 'technical' to distinguish it from 'practical' legal ramifications. The passage of the Equal Rights Amendment would not have broad-reaching consequences; it would result in changes of interpretation in certain edge cases, but I'd say its passage would largely be a symbolic victory, not one that changes the sate of play on the ground in any material way. Of relevant comparison are the following:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall . . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

During the pendency of the ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment, the Supreme Court has already determined that discrimination on the basis of sex is constitutionally suspect under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment (note that, while the 14th Amendment by its terms only applies to state and local governments, the Equal Protection Clause also restricts the ability of the federal government to discriminate on the basis of sex via the Due Process Clause of the 5th Amendment--the 'reverse incorporation' principle).

Now here comes the technical distinction--when a particular discrimination in the law is subject to judicial review, the court applies one of three standards: (i) strict scrutiny, (ii) intermediate scrutiny, or (iii) rational basis review. Each of these standards speak to how narrowly the law must draw a discriminatory distinction, and how important the government interest that is being served by drawing that distinction. The first standard, strict scrutiny, is a very high bar to pass and, in practice, very few laws that are subjected to strict judicial scrutiny are ruled to be constitutional--either because the law is not sufficiently narrowly tailored, or because the government interest being served is not compelling enough to override other concerns (typically infringements on constitutional rights, or because the law is discriminating on an inherently suspect basis, such as race or religion, among other things). Rational basis is, conversely, a very low bar to pass, and almost every law subjected to rational basis review is considered constitutional because the law need only be rationally related to a legitimate government purpose (note: this was one of the interesting facets of the gay marriage cases, in that the courts found the anti-gay marriage limitation to fail even rational basis review).

As you may have guessed, 'intermediate scrutiny' falls somewhere in the middle. Intermediate scrutiny also happens to be the standard on which discrimination on the basis of sex is evaluated (requiring a 'substantial relation' to an 'important' government purpose). Interestingly, one of the reasons why discrimination on sex is subject to the lower standard is that, when it was first applied, the justices took note of the fact that the ERA would, by its terms, make discrimination on the basis of sex subject to the strict scrutiny standard. Since the resolution of that question was currently in the 'political' realm, they declined to apply it as a matter of constitutional interpretation.

So, very long way of saying that the ERA would mean discriminatory laws on the basis of sex would be held to a higher standard of judicial review. Practically, this would only impact a subset of yet-to-be-determined laws that would pass intermediate scrutiny, yet would fail strict scrutiny.

Also of note is that either amendment (14th or ERA) only restrict governmental action, so to the extent private businesses or employers or whatever want to draw discriminatory distinctions between men and women the amendments will not reach those behaviors except in very very very limited circumstances, which I will omit here for brevity. If women want, say, equal pay at a private employer, they have to rely on other laws to get that, which implicates a very different set of constitutional powers in terms of Congress having the ability to legislate in that space (e.g., the Commerce Clause).

Anyway, so not a lot on the ground will change simply by passage of the ERA. There are some people who think it may result in a net harm, in that subjecting sexual distinctions to strict scrutiny may actually make certain programs which benefit women unconstitutional (e.g., government affirmative action programs benefiting women). Not sure I buy that argument given that affirmative action has been upheld as constitutional in other contexts, but its a risk that some people like to highlight.

[Flaming Meaux]

Oh, and should go without saying, but the above analysis is specifically why the legal landscape for the church would not change one whit due to passage of the ERA. Handwringing about being forced to ordain women is as misplaced as handwringing about being forced to marry gay people, and both evidence a complete ignorance of how the law would apply.

Now, it is possible that the passage of the ERA changes public perception more towards gender equality, and discriminatory behavior is viewed as unacceptable even in instances where it isn't unconstitutional or illegal, and it is quite possible the church fears that.

[Jeffret]

Thanks for the detailed explanation, Flaming Meaux.

There are some people who think it may result in a net harm, in that subjecting sexual distinctions to strict scrutiny may actually make certain programs which benefit women unconstitutional (e.g., government affirmative action programs benefiting women). Not sure I buy that argument given that affirmative action has been upheld as constitutional in other contexts, but its a risk that some people like to highlight.

I'm sure there will be some negatives -- the patriarchy certainly doesn't give in easily -- but I have a hard time believing it would be a net negative. Some negative, but a bunch more positive. So, I'm definitely in favor as a step in the right direction. The alternative is basically to rest and do nothing.

Now, it is possible that the passage of the ERA changes public perception more towards gender equality, and discriminatory behavior is viewed as unacceptable even in instances where it isn't unconstitutional or illegal, and it is quite possible the church fears that.

I'm pretty confident this is the case.

[Palerider]

Let's not be too generous in our thinking about how the Founders viewed women. In some ways a lot of the Founding Fathers were pretty big jerks, whether we want to admit it or not.

Having done a little more reading on this topic since this thread was started, I have come to the conclusion that although the Founders were very forward looking and that we owe them an enormous debt of gratitude for laying the cornerstones of the nation, they were also men of their time. They generally saw women as an addition of beauty to their own public persona and although they did appreciate SOME of their advise and intellect in private, a woman's place was definitely not in the public, political or commercial realm. As women their place was largely seen as makers of an enhanced home and the nurturers of children. As wives, they were expected to assume a part of their husbands' identity and (in public especially) hold his opinions and thinking to be her own.

Generally speaking the Founders would have seen no reason to change that paradigm. And yet in creating the nation as they did, one would have to admit that they unknowingly paved the way for the present social contract that exists today. By comparison there are countries and nation's where women have it much worse than they do here. But on the other hand that shouldn't stop us from making America as perfect as possible in an imperfect world.

[slavereeno]

Flaming Meaux,

This was an excellent analysis, thank you.

Anyway, so not a lot on the ground will change simply by passage of the ERA. There are some people who think it may result in a net harm, in that subjecting sexual distinctions to strict scrutiny may actually make certain programs which benefit women unconstitutional (e.g., government affirmative action programs benefiting women). Not sure I buy that argument given that affirmative action has been upheld as constitutional in other contexts, but its a risk that some people like to highlight.

As I was discussing this with my TBM sister, this weekend I think we sort of came to a stalemate where we sort of agreed on what you said in the quote above. I did bring up some modifications to the 1970's version of this that Carl Hayden put on there. TBM sis seemed to think she could support the ERA with the Hayden rider. She insists that Men and Women are indeed different and as such occasionally there may need to be considerations made. She would never want any of her children on the battlefield but feels that there is higher risk with her daughters. She also brought up the transgender cyclist that was mediocre in the male races but is currently winning like crazy now that she is cycling as a woman.

[Jeffret]

She would never want any of her children on the battlefield but feels that there is higher risk with her daughters.

A lot of women already serve very capably in the U.S. military.

[slavereeno]

She would never want any of her children on the battlefield but feels that there is higher risk with her daughters.

A lot of women already serve very capably in the U.S. military.

There was never any doubt of that, the issue was whether in times when it's necessary to compel citizens to fight, should female citizens be able to abstain from the draft.

My guess is that arguing over the draft is moot in the modern era. It's hard to see this ever needing an actual answer.

[Not Buying It]

She would never want any of her children on the battlefield but feels that there is higher risk with her daughters.

A lot of women already serve very capably in the U.S. military.

There was never any doubt of that, the issue was whether in times when it's necessary to compel citizens to fight, should female citizens be able to abstain from the draft.

My guess is that arguing over the draft is moot in the modern era. It's hard to see this ever needing an actual answer.

I hope not, but just because we haven’t fought a war in 50 years where we needed the draft doesn’t mean it couldn’t happen. We’ve actually just been a lot luckier than those who came before us, but it could happen again. It may not necessarily be moot.

[Palerider]

Thought many of you would find this article very interesting on the timeline between the church and the ERA.
One gets the feeling that they can feel the church's stance change on the ERA as one recalls who would have been in leadership at certain times. A leaning towards control as time progresses?

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/yearofpol ... e-era/amp/

[Jeffret]

My guess is that arguing over the draft is moot in the modern era. It's hard to see this ever needing an actual answer.

I hope not, but just because we haven’t fought a war in 50 years where we needed the draft doesn’t mean it couldn’t happen. We’ve actually just been a lot luckier than those who came before us, but it could happen again. It may not necessarily be moot.

Now we're definitely getting into some complicated politics, military planning, and future guessing. Some key points. We don't have a draft now. We haven't used one for a long time and haven't needed one for even longer. The Selective Service we now have is ill-suited to any needs we can currently predict. If we ever needed it, we would certainly find it doesn't provide what we needed.

It makes no sense to condition women's equal rights on a situation that we are totally incapable of predicting. Or to put it another way, we have no idea what the answer would be until we're in the situation where we need an answer. We shouldn't limit women's equality on that basis, so that question is essentially moot.

(An all-out World War III probably wouldn't need large numbers of canon fodder and as Einstein said World War IV probably wouldn't be possible.)

[alas]

My guess is that arguing over the draft is moot in the modern era. It's hard to see this ever needing an actual answer.

I hope not, but just because we haven’t fought a war in 50 years where we needed the draft doesn’t mean it couldn’t happen. We’ve actually just been a lot luckier than those who came before us, but it could happen again. It may not necessarily be moot.

Now we're definitely getting into some complicated politics, military planning, and future guessing. Some key points. We don't have a draft now. We haven't used one for a long time and haven't needed one for even longer. The Selective Service we now have is ill-suited to any needs we can currently predict. If we ever needed it, we would certainly find it doesn't provide what we needed.

It makes no sense to condition women's equal rights on a situation that we are totally incapable of predicting. Or to put it another way, we have no idea what the answer would be until we're in the situation where we need an answer. We shouldn't limit women's equality on that basis, so that question is essentially moot.

(An all-out World War III probably wouldn't need large numbers of canon fodder and as Einstein said World War IV probably wouldn't be possible.)

Even if there is a real war instead of the constant no purpose combat like we are currently doing in Afghanistan, I don’t think the draft will be brought back. The modern military doesn’t need draftees, so drafting women is a moot point. It just takes too much time to train draftees to be computer programmers, helicopter pilots, jet pilots, electrical engineers, before their time is up and they are out. Draftees were in for two years. Enlisted are in for 4. The modern army is not foot soldiers who need a couple of weeks of basic, but techs who need 6months to a year f training. The military needs fewer total men and women, but better trained, and muscle is less important than brain. People needs to be highly trained to operate the equipment and technology. They need better quality volunteers than the draftees of 50 years ago. Of course they are going to have to pay them better and treat them better. But soldiers are no longer the cannon fodder they were in WWII. Women in the military are not as likely to be in hand to hand combat, where women are at a disadvantage. More likely be be blown up by a home made bomb planted in the road as their vehicle drives over it.

[Thoughtful]

I hope not, but just because we haven’t fought a war in 50 years where we needed the draft doesn’t mean it couldn’t happen. We’ve actually just been a lot luckier than those who came before us, but it could happen again. It may not necessarily be moot.

Now we're definitely getting into some complicated politics, military planning, and future guessing. Some key points. We don't have a draft now. We haven't used one for a long time and haven't needed one for even longer. The Selective Service we now have is ill-suited to any needs we can currently predict. If we ever needed it, we would certainly find it doesn't provide what we needed.

It makes no sense to condition women's equal rights on a situation that we are totally incapable of predicting. Or to put it another way, we have no idea what the answer would be until we're in the situation where we need an answer. We shouldn't limit women's equality on that basis, so that question is essentially moot.

(An all-out World War III probably wouldn't need large numbers of canon fodder and as Einstein said World War IV probably wouldn't be possible.)

Even if there is a real war instead of the constant no purpose combat like we are currently doing in Afghanistan, I don’t think the draft will be brought back. The modern military doesn’t need draftees, so drafting women is a moot point. It just takes too much time to train draftees to be computer programmers, helicopter pilots, jet pilots, electrical engineers, before their time is up and they are out. Draftees were in for two years. Enlisted are in for 4. The modern army is not foot soldiers who need a couple of weeks of basic, but techs who need 6months to a year f training. The military needs fewer total men and women, but better trained, and muscle is less important than brain. People needs to be highly trained to operate the equipment and technology. They need better quality volunteers than the draftees of 50 years ago. Of course they are going to have to pay them better and treat them better. But soldiers are no longer the cannon fodder they were in WWII. Women in the military are not as likely to be in hand to hand combat, where women are at a disadvantage. More likely be be blown up by a home made bomb planted in the road as their vehicle drives over it.

Annnnd involuntary conscription exacerbates PTSD/CPTSD. A draft has unintended consequences, as do unpopular wars like Vietnam.

[alas]

Now we're definitely getting into some complicated politics, military planning, and future guessing. Some key points. We don't have a draft now. We haven't used one for a long time and haven't needed one for even longer. The Selective Service we now have is ill-suited to any needs we can currently predict. If we ever needed it, we would certainly find it doesn't provide what we needed.

It makes no sense to condition women's equal rights on a situation that we are totally incapable of predicting. Or to put it another way, we have no idea what the answer would be until we're in the situation where we need an answer. We shouldn't limit women's equality on that basis, so that question is essentially moot.

(An all-out World War III probably wouldn't need large numbers of canon fodder and as Einstein said World War IV probably wouldn't be possible.)

Even if there is a real war instead of the constant no purpose combat like we are currently doing in Afghanistan, I don’t think the draft will be brought back. The modern military doesn’t need draftees, so drafting women is a moot point. It just takes too much time to train draftees to be computer programmers, helicopter pilots, jet pilots, electrical engineers, before their time is up and they are out. Draftees were in for two years. Enlisted are in for 4. The modern army is not foot soldiers who need a couple of weeks of basic, but techs who need 6months to a year f training. The military needs fewer total men and women, but better trained, and muscle is less important than brain. People needs to be highly trained to operate the equipment and technology. They need better quality volunteers than the draftees of 50 years ago. Of course they are going to have to pay them better and treat them better. But soldiers are no longer the cannon fodder they were in WWII. Women in the military are not as likely to be in hand to hand combat, where women are at a disadvantage. More likely be be blown up by a home made bomb planted in the road as their vehicle drives over it.

Annnnd involuntary conscription exacerbates PTSD/CPTSD. A draft has unintended consequences, as do unpopular wars like Vietnam.

OMG, Vietnam! My husband got supper lucky, part of why he enlisted when his draft number was within a week, and never went to Vietnam. But 90% of the men he is contemporary with did. He knew names on the wall. But he couldn’t wear his uniform anywhere but on base, without being treated with contempt. Spit on even. So, part of the PTSD in the Vietnam Vets is the way the military was treated during that era, it wasn’t the draft, it wasn’t the combat, it was the anti war sentiment among civilians that did a great amount of damage and yes, my husband still has some of the damage from Vietnam even though he wasn’t there, but in Berlin spying electronically on Russia. He doesn’t want military honors when he is buried, which kinda hurts still. He still has some of the shame from being military during Vietnam.

[Random]

women's only colleges/bathrooms,

When this was going on around the late 70s, a young man told me that if ERA passed, that meant men would be able to go into women's restrooms. ERA was painted as a big evil, and Sonja Johnson was ex'd over it - but not really. She was ex'd because she told people not to listen to the missionaries. (It was really confusing to me at the time what was really going on with her and the Church; who was telling the truth?)