by Nicholas Beaudrot of Electoral Math
Set aside the scaremongering from Phylis Schafly about unisex bathrooms. What are the practical consequences of enacting the Equal Rights Amendment? What rights does it protect that the equal protection clause in the fourteenth amendment, now interpreted to apply broadly to stop discrimination against any "suspect class" including women, doesn't protect? What discriminatory laws that might otherwise be held constitutional would become unconstitutional? What enforcement legislation (e.g. portions of the Violence Against Women Act) that's currently unconstitutional would become constitutional? Or is it purely symbolic?
I'm genuinely curious about the answers here. I'd like to believe that discrimination in law or policy on the basis of sex would not be upheld by todays courts. But perhaps I'm being idealistic.
Discuss.
Update: The ERA's "why" page is a good start. Gender discrimination is subject to "heightened scrutiny" a somewhat lower standard than the "strict scrutiny" standard applied to racial discrimination. The "let women into VMI" case seems to be the rallying cry. But, the women's groups won the VMI case, with the court voting 7-1 to allow women to enroll (Scalia dissenting, Thomas recusing). ERA advocates also point to other discrimination reducing laws that have failed to pass as evidence that discrimination, or at least apathy towards reducing discrimination, in Congress still exists. No arguments there, but I don't see how the ERA will allow the courts to change the set of available defenses under the Equal Pay Act without a legislative change.
