" Sec. 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.

Sec. 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by

appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Sec. 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the

date of ratification"

If the United States is a country based on the ideals of liberty and freedom, then why has our government and society not secured the principles of equality for over half of our population by ratifying the Equal Rights Amendment? The words and message of the ERA are simple and basic, but the application and ratification of this amendment has sparked a controversy that has spanned most of the 20th century. The goals of this amendment are to erase policies and acts of discrimination based on gender and to create a national equality between the sexes. Many states in the U.S. have added Equal Rights Amendments to their own state constitutions, but there is still a need for an amendment at the federal level to give equal and blanketed protection for both women and men throughout our nation. The problems with the Equal Rights Amendment spawn from its highly debated history, the possibilities of its great social impacts, and its uncertain future.

The History of the ERA:A Struggle For Equality

The ideals of liberty, freedom, and democracy in the United States are secured by our Bill of Rights and the other amendments in the US Constitution. The problem with our constitution is that it does not secure equality and freedom from discrimination for women. Historically our society and government have been structured to benefit white males and to secure their power. Minority groups in our country have had to struggle to secure the benefits of freedom and equality for their people. Although they are a majority in number, women have long suffered as a power minority in their struggle for equality.

The origins of feminism and the struggle for women's equality in the US dates back to the creation of our nation. In 1776, Abigail Adams wrote to her husband John Adams while he was attending the Second Continental Congress. In her letter she stated:

"And in the new code of laws which I suppose it will be necessary for you to make, I desire that you would remeber the ladies, and be more generous and favorable to them then your ancestors...If particular care and attention is not paid to the ladies, we are determined to foment a rebellion and will not hold ourselves bound by any laws in which we have no representation."

This letter from Mrs. Adams helped to set an early tone for the struggle of women's rights. In 1848 a group of several hundred women led by Lucretia Mott met in Seneca Falls, NY. At this meeting they drew up a declaration stating grievances of women and their need for equality with men as fellow US citizens. The "Seneca Falls Declaration" was worded similarlily and parallel in concept to the Decleration of Independence.

In 1868 the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified to guarantee equality for the newly freed slaves. The wording of the Equal Protection Clause made the Amendment aplicable to "all people" which could have been interpreted as granting equality to women. Unforunately the Supreme Court has historicly interpreted this amendment as a racial protection clause and not a gender issue.

The Equal Rights Amendment was created by Alice Paul in the early 20's after the success of women's sufferage in winning the right to vote. Alice Paul was a radical feminist and the founder of the National Woman's Party. She fought assertively through the beginning part of the 20th century for woman's sufferage. After the 19th Amendment was passed in 1920, Paul decided to concentrate her efforts on creating an amendment to the constitution that would ensure gender equality. Her amendment was finally introduced to congress in 1923 by Republicans Senator Curtis and Represenative Anthony (a nephew of suffragist Susan B. Anthony). The ERA was met with an instant opposition of conservatives and a coalition of Progressive orginizations and labor unions. The ERA was introduced in Congress every year and suffered defeat each time by these powerful opposition groups.

During the 1940's the Republican and Democratic (despite labor opposition) Parties revitalized the ERA by adopting it in their national party platforms. Despite the growing support that was created for the ERA, the Amendment didn't come close to passing in congress until the 50's. In 1950 the Senate pased an amended version of the ERA that contained the "Hayden rider". The Hayden rider changed the wording of the ERA to protect "rights, benefits, and exemptions" of women. This new amended version worked against the basic philosophies of equality in the original ERA. Women's orginizations fought desperately in the House of Represenatives to keep this new version from passing. In both 1950 and 1953 the House recessed without a vote on the issue due to the blocking efforts of women.

Support for the ERA gained even more momentum throughout the 1950's and 60's. In 1964 the ERA gained the liberal support it needed when Title VII of the Civil Rights Act was passed. Title 7 was created to end job dicrimination against blacks, but a provision was added that ended discrimination based on sex. In 1967 the National Orginization of Women (NOW) added the ERA to its Bill of Rights for Women. This step put NOW at the forefront of the battle for the ERA, a position it still holds today.

The Pittsburgh chapter of NOW decided in February of 1970 to take direct action on the ERA by disrupting hearings by the US Senate Subcommittee on Constitutional Amendments. At this hearing 20 members of NOW demanded that the ERA be presented to the full congress in the spring. During the next few months the ERA gained strong support by uniting with the UAW and the US Department of Labor. In May Senate Subcommittee hearings began on the ERA. In June a discharge petition forced the ERA out of the House Judiciary Committee and into the full House. In 1971, after less than an hour of open debate, the House of Represenatives passed the ERA with a vote of 350 to 15.

The ERA met with a little more hostility and opposition when it went to the Senate. The main problem that Senators had with the Amendment was the aspect of military service by women. Many Senators proposed changes to the amendment which would make women exempt from the draft. These changes were considered unacceptable by major women's orginizations. Finally in March of 1972, after almost a year of struggle and debates, the orriginal version of the ERA passed the US Senate with a vote of 84 to 8.

Within an hour of passage by the Senate, the Legislature of Hawaii voted unanimously to ratify the new constitutional amendment. In the next 3 days 5 more states joined Hawaii by unanimously ratifying the amendment. Through 1972 and early 1973, twenty-four more states voted to ratify the ERA.

In late 1973 the ratification process was slowed down because of poor state ERA orginization and Roe vs. Wade. ERA orginizations had an easy time influencing the congressional vote in Washington because of the centralized locations of their national headquarters. Most states that still hadn't ratified in 1973 didn't even have an active ERA coalition. The 1973 Supreme Court decision on Roe vs. Wade gave a large blow to the ERA movement. Many conservatives and traditionalists linked the abortion issue and the ERA together as movements supported by "women's libbers" who were out to destroy traditional American values. These conservatives gained great support and momentum in their battle which helped defeat the ratification of the ERA. Ten years after the orriginal passage by the US Senate, the ERA ran out of time for ratification and died, only 3 states short of the required thirty-eight.

Social Impacts of The ERA: A Necessary Revolution

The Equal Rights Amendment would create a necessary blanket policy that would secure and protect the equal rights of both women and men throughout the US. An amendment to the constitution is legally necassary to protect universal equal rights because laws and court decisions can interpreted in multiple ways and even overturned. A constitutional amendment could not be changed by lower levels of government. The only way to overturn the freedoms ensured in the ERA would be to pass another amendment to retract the ERA. Many opponents of the ERA feel that our government already has enough policies to protect women's rights and that the ERA isn't necessary. The problem with this argument is that only an ERA would give US citizens universal protection that could not be overturned by lower courts. The ERA would be consistent with other constitutional amendments guaranteeing basic principles of indvidual freedom and dignity. The arguments on the social impacts of the ERA range from creating great positive changes, creating negative changes, and that the ERA would have no real immediate tangible affects on the US.

The first perspective on the social impacts argues that the ERA is a necessary development that will produce great changes and benefits for both sexes. Historicly the US government has been bassed on a male heirchy of power that supressed and dicriminated against women. "A constitutional gurantee of equality would absolutely shift the burden away from those fighting discrimination and place it where it belongs, on those who would discriminate. They would have to justify why discrimination should be allowed rather than women having to explain why we deserve equality."

The main tangible benefit that the ERA would bring is economic equality between men and women. In 1994, women were still being paid only 74 cents for every dollar a man was making. The main reason why women are making less than men is that women are dicriminated against when it comes to higher paying jobs. Even the Senate admitted that Title VII and the Equal Pay Act "fail to reach discrimination in many areas, allow for substantial examptions in some cases, and have often been implemented too slowly." The Equal Rights Amendment would close the loopholes in discrimination laws which in turn would help to bridge the gap in wage earnings.

Another area that would be affected by the ERA is marital status. Traditionaly laws concerning marriage in the US have been bassed in the philosphy of the English Common Law. The Common Law treated married women as the property of their husbands and gave the man complete control over property rights. Some states today still consider household goods and property purchased during a marriage as being the sole property of the husband as the head of the family. The ERA would abolish all laws that discriminate against women's rights and property ownership in a marriage.

Many opponents of the ERA argue that the amendment will have negative social affects on the family, the military, the workplace, and acceptance of homosexuality. The problem with many of these arguments is that they are based on fears and not on the reality of the ERA. Opponents of the pro-ERA movement ignore the facts that we have learned about the aplication of equal rights in states that have adopted equal rights legislation into their constitutions.

Conservatives who oppose the ERA often argue that feminism and the ERA movement are bringing the destruction of traditional families and values. Many of these people are white males who come from right-wing conservative backgrounds. They argue that men are the natural heads of power in the home and that the ERA would take away the necessary power structure of the household. This view takes an ignorant look at equality and is stagnant in its ability to adapt to evolving modern family structures.

The passing of the ERA would allow women to have active rolls in all areas of our military, including participation in combat. This issue was highly debated in the Senate in the 1970's when the ERA was passed by congress. Many Senators tried to add provisions to the amendment that would keep women exempt from the draft and active participation in combat. Women's orginizations saw these exception as being conflicting with the concept of gender equality and oppossed their passage with the ERA. Although these provisions were blocked by women, the attitutdes that created these provisions initially were not changed. Opponenets of military participation believe that women would be an emotional distraction to soldiers in combat on the front lines and would hinder our military strength.

The ERA would end all discrimination in the work place based on gender. Some ERA oponents argue that there are some jobs that a man is naturally better at and that equal rights legislation would ignore this reality. The ERA would eliminate all legislation that discriminates against employees based on gender. Many of these laws were set up during and after WWII to protect women in the work place by limiting the number of hours they could work and the types of jobs they could hold. These opponenets would argue that these laws are necessary because they simply protect the natural weaknesses and strengths of women.

The wording of the ERA could be interpreted to include protection of rights for homosexuals and bi-sexuals. Many Christian conservatives are opposed to granting homosexuals freedom and equality because they find their lifestyle moraly wrong. This argument isn't usually part of the main opposition to the ERA since it is not specificaly mentioned in the amendment, but it is an underlying reality in the opposition.

The last main argument about the affects of the ERA is that the amendment wouldn't create any real immediate changes in American society. People who support this argument range over a wide variety of groups. Most people who held this view didn't work very hard for the ERA unless they held very strong beliefs in gender equality. Since these people did very little for the movement the ERA wasn't properly represented and explained in the state and local levels. This lack of representation helped to keep the amendment from being ratified.

The Uncertain Future of The ERA/Concluding Comments

The controversial history, social impacts, and uncertain future of the ERA have made it a tough topic for politicians and woman's orginizations to deal with. Since the ERA's defeat in 1982 it has been resubmitted in every congress every year where it gets tied up in committee hearings. NOW and other women's orginizations are still fighting desperately to get a constitutional amendment to secure equality and freedom for all women. At its 1995 national conference NOW expanded its constiutional amendment strategy to eliminate discrimination based on sex,race, sexual orientation, marital status, ethnicity,national origin, color, and indigence. The new Constitutional Equality Amendment (CEA) was drawn up in 1996 to include these new areas. The CEA is a longer and more specific statement than the ERA with more progressive and radical demands for equality.