In response to the class-action lawsuit against Wal-Mart being rejected in a 5-4 split decision by the US Supreme Court, Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) have reintroduced the Equal Right Amendment.

One of the first WTF! (What-The-Fetch, of course) moments I had about the church was when I came across a stash of anti-ERA propaganda as a teenager in the 90's. I was disgusted by the stupidity of the claims and the condescending attitudes toward women. Even then, though I had been raised by anti-feminist, anti-intellectuals, I sensed the irrational paranoia and sexism and was incredibly uncomfortable with the church's stand. Though it was the better part of a decade before I had courage enough to draw the natural conclusions about the church (that it wasn't 'true', that it was full of shit), reading those pamphlets was disturbing enough that I never could come to terms with the church's treatment of women, even during years of faithful belief and activity.

Well, the church's involvement has not been forgotten by the world. News shows are running footage of LDS church leaders right alongside footage of irrational 70's anti-ERA activist Phyllis Schafly. And now, with increasing attention to Mormonism in general (thanks to high-profile campaigners Huntsman and Romney, and the ill-conceived Prop-8 debacle) the old-school anti-ERA is especially meaningful.

If the church thinks the public will forget about their anti-equality political activities any time soon, they're completely naive. The church is still getting press for political battles that are over thirty years old. Although church members and leaders may be quick to forget the church's sexism and bigotry, the educated public is not going to forget the racist, sexist, and homophobic ideals the church worked so hard to proliferate publicly and politically.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show/#43571482

ERA would not have affected the Wal-Mart case whatsoever.

Don't most states have their own ERA by now?

washington state (fairly liberal):

some gals were arrested & convicted for top-free sunbathing in a public park near seattle.

they claimed that the law is unConst. biased against women/females, since men/males don't have to wear tops...

the WA st supreme ct... jumped thru a BUNCH OF HOOPS having to do with women's role in reproduction, breast feeding, etc...


Upheld their conviction!!!

STUPID!!!!!

Also, Washington state won't put the father’s name on a birth certificate if you are not married. They leave it blank! I have my son's birth certificate to prove this. I actually called a few years ago to inquire about this. My son was born in 1980 so I thought that it was an antiquated law, but it’s not, still on the books! You have to go to court to get the father added if you are not married when the child is born.

Shall we say 1940!

but I couldn't get his name OFF of the certificate. My son had to legally change his own name when he was 18. (The judge was really worried that he'd make my son a "bastard" if he took the name away and traumatize the young man (he was a teenager) who had asked for this in the first place.

Sigh....

on sex.
I think they just want to make sure you don't just name somebody as the father without proving it?
I think it's a matter of marriage laws, not sex discrimination.
Single people are being discriminated against, maybe, but not by sex.

Badgirl, could be right. All I know is that my son does have a bio father who was even present at his birth. I remember the nurse in the hospital coming into my hospital room to get the details for the birth certificate. After I gave her my info and my son's name, I then started to give her the fathers info and she smiled at me and said, "We don't need that" and walked out of the room. A few months later when I got the birth certifacate, the father was left completelty blank. I was young and dumb at the time and never married my son's dad so I never pursued this until my son was a older. I was told at the time (2005) that it was the law and the only way that I could only add the fathers name if I went to court and got an afidavit.

but the only way to get them changed is to get the ACLU or somebody to bring it to the state supreme court and get the law struck down as being unconstitutional or discriminatory or whatever.

That can't just take the mother's word for who the father is when she isn't married. Otherwise, you would have Bill Gates, or if they are Mormon worshipers, Steve Young, Donnie Osmond, or Jimmer being named as the father so they could get child support since their name was on the certificate.

On the other hand, if the father is there and says to put his name on the certificate....but, there probably aren't laws in place for that. It would involve if John Doe says he is the father, how does he prove he is John Doe and not just some random male the mother got to play the part so she can collect support from John Doe?

That's probably why they say go to court afterward, so the court can deal with the identification, etc., and not put the burden on some nurse of having to get proof the person who claims to be the father is really the person he claims he is.

but the Wal-Mart case has increased public awareness and interest in issues of gendered pay-discrimination-- and consequently the ERA.

The ERA is still a relevant piece of legislature and the old arguments against it are genuinely terrible.

ERA -- Colorado and Washington.
It's a shame that there are many states that don't consider the sexes equal under the law. States without an ERA can require a woman to take her husband's name and get a blood test for marriage, without requiring the same of the husband. Such laws are unconstitutional when there is an ERA.

I'm just saying that people wrongly assume the ERA would address pay inequity in the private sector. It won't. We already have Equal Opportunity Employment laws nationwide that prohibit discrimination (however, it's often difficult to prove).

I was a teenager in the 1970's, so I actually remember the Schlafly bullshit vividly. There is no reason there shouldn't be a federal ERA. The only argument they had was that women would be drafted. NOBODY should be drafted -- it's involuntary servitude and should not exist in this country.

Then yes, ERA can be relevant.

on what the ruling was referring to.
The Wal-Mart suit was a Class Action suit, and the ruling was that the class was too large (that perhaps not ALL women working at WalMart were discriminated against).
It has nothing to do with any "protected class". It's referring to the class in the class action.
Let's be accurate here.

Whenever a case comes up before the Scalia/Thomas/Roberts court, corporarions win, especially if the other side is composed of women and/or minorities. There are NO exceptions you can find on this one. None.

But I would have loved to have seen Wal-Mart get hit hard over this...

I'm not as naive about the processes as you are.

Think that didn't have any bearing on the SC's decision? If you don't think so, then I have a bridge I'd like to sell you...

this is not personal

Stating you are naive is being rude?

Wow. Are you new to the Internet by any chance?

but you certainly are fractious today

C'mon, it's always everyone else's fault but yours.

And for the record, you are exceedingly naive. You think you know how the world works, but you make me snicker most of the time.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/29/2011 07:06PM by helamonster.

or judging ANYONE.
Grow the hell up.

as always. Make no mistake about class action lawsuits. The people who win the money are the lawyers.
It's just a big game for them, and a way to get rich and stay rich.

however that does not impeded anyone from bringing their own lawsuit to trial!! the USSC just held that there will be no class action for this discrimination by wally world! thats all!

See discussion on the same subject, along with mormons being quoted, in this thread:

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,231312

coming back just fills me with glee. Too bad it won't go anywhere in Repub dominated house. Can you imagine it being stoked along with Mitt's run for the White House? Giving me serious wood it is.

Somewhere I think I still have the anti-ERA mailer LDSInc. sent me when I was a young woman. I remember a very patronizing tone to it, and no facts, just "ERA is bad! Trust us!"

Like a fool, I thought the church leaders had some secret inside knowledge of why ERA would "destroy families".

Since Prop 8, I know they are clinging tooth and nail to a authoritarian, 18th century concept of social order.

The thought of being on equal footing with blacks, women and minorities deeply disturbs these old fossils.

They deserve every bit of negetive blowback. I hope Sonia Johnson is smiling in the sunlight to see ERA live again, and the TSCC held accountable for their wretched treatment of her.

It's out of print now, but if you ever see a copy of "From Housewife to Heretic" it is worth reading. GBH is briefly mentioned, and of course he is a mealy-mouthed liar as always.

Stupid cult.

There are still many of us around that could contribute to it. At the time I left the church I swore I would get revenge on them for that--but then I went on and had a great life and forgot about it. Still . . . something to think about.

Or maybe there is already such a website. You know, the church could have a rational argument about the ERA, but instead they lied, lied, lied and broke the law with their sneaky fundraising.

I'm sure they don't do that anymore, do they?