The recent Supreme Court decision, the one in which five judges let Wal-Mart get away with discriminating against women, has revived interest in the Equal Rights Amendment.

A photo showing the judges who voted to back Wal-Mart versus the judges who voted to back the women employees is striking.
All men on the Wal-Mart side, three women and one man on the employee side. Ruth Bader Ginsberg, please don't die anytime soon. (Some websites are posting photos of Ginsberg, altered with Photoshop to give her horns and other Satanic accountrements -- a sure sign that she's one of the good guys.)

Wendell Ashton, Mormon Church Spokesman in 1977, is being shown in historical footage making asinine remarks. [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show/#43571482 ]

We've come a not very long way, baby, since the mormon church is still preaching dogma that restricts the rights of women.

Phyllis Schafley is resurrected, spouting her great fear that women will be forced to use unisex bathrooms, our morals will go down the drain, and the nation will implode if the ERA amendment is passed.

Time for the mormon church to excommunicate some more women who favor equal rights?

Whoops, I spelled Phyllis Schlafly's name wrong in my previous post.

Viewing the old speeches of Phyllis Schlafly is like watching a caricature of an evil woman.

As for the mormon spokeman, he said then what the Church still says now:

"For the good of the women as well as the families, and the total fabric of our society in America, it [the ERA amendment] would be a deterrent to progress in America, particularly in the strength of the family."

See, it's for your own good, women of America.

He's a full on mysogynistic nutcase.

Considering all the fights engendered by the Equal Rights Amendment, you would think that it must contain a lot of provisions offensive to many, and/or provisions giving women rights over men.

Not so. ERA is very simple:

THE EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT

Section 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.

Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.

OH NO! The government making laws to enforce this!

I want to sign up!

With women present in every niche of the workplace, including in combat, there doesn't seem to be much argument against the ERA anymore. Only when it concerns pay and advancement.

It only concerns government and laws.

Here's one of the places where you can go to support the Equal Rights Amendment.

http://www.4era.org/

They also have a petition you can sign.

More here:
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/civil-rights/167879-its-past-time-to-support-the-equal-rights-amendment

Another quote from Mormon doofus, Wendell Ashton, speaking about the ERA amendment in 1977:

"The most important activity that a woman can engage in is that in the home, rearing children, our citizens for tomorrow."

I object, Wendell. The most important activity for any adult human being is to fulfill their potential as completely as possible. This is true for both men and women, and it sets a fine example for children. If a woman has children, they are part of her life, and not the whole of it.

An excerpt from "The Family: A Proclamation to the World":

"The family is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. ... By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners."

I like the way they put in the bit about "equal partners" immediately following the "divine design" that has fathers presiding over their families.

Women are supposed to feel they are equal after being told they are equal, which is just words. In real life, in action, the husband "presides" over them by divine right.

She didn't come off looking any better than Wendell Ashton or Phyllis Schafly.

It's a measure of how much money and time mormons put into fighting the Equal Rights amendment that mormon church lady, Barbara Smith, Relief Society President in 1977, is also being quoted again:

"I think that families would, generation after generation, deteriorate. I think that there would be homosexuals who would expect preferential treatment. And I think that our society would decay. I think we would find ourselves in the same situation that ancient Greece found themselves in, the Romans. I think we can see that civilizations have declined when these kinds of things have taken place. And I'm afraid the Equal Rights amendment might lead to that."

that those arguments had any truck to begin with. I heard the whole Greek/Romans homophobia thing repeated every other week at church growing up. I wonder if it's still being used?

Or better yet, maybe she'll get sick and die. So homosexuals are causing decay in the society? Even if their children are raised in loving gay homes and taught not to discriminate?

Granted, I would prefer not to use them but I'm unclear as to why it would be a dreadful thing...

Alan Ashton is the co-founder of WordPerfect/Corel and gave $1 million to Yes on 8. The other co-founder gave $1 million to No on 8 (he came out as gay and left the LDS Church). Alan's wife (?Karen?) is on the YW General Board.

Does anyone know what Wendell Ashton's position/job was back then? Was he a PR person like Scott Trotter? Or a Seventy?

Barbara Smith, RS Pres, is in that footage too, echoing Ashton from the mormon woman's perspective. Nice beehive, Barb!

Ron

Personally, id love to see the ERA read this way:

Equality of rights under the law shall not be abridged on account of sex, sexual orientation or gender identity.

+1

quoted from up-thread post: "I heard the whole Greek/Romans homophobia thing repeated every other week at church growing up. I wonder if it's still being used?"

I don't know if it is official LDS Church teaching to point to civilizations like those of Greece and Rome as examples of the deadly effects of allowing homosexuality, but I do know that it is common for mormons and evangelicals to use the slippery slope argument against gay rights.

Give them an inch and they'll destroy your civilization.

Here's an example from Pat Robertson:

"...Sodom was destroyed by God Almighty and the thing that they practiced was homosexual activity and even they tried to rape angels who came down there, so that’s the kind of people they were....

"We’re heading that way as a nation. In history there’s never been a civilization ever in history that has embraced homosexuality and turned away from traditional fidelity, traditional marriage, traditional child-rearing, and has survived. There isn’t one single civilization that has survived that openly embraced homosexuality. So you say, ‘what’s going to happen to America?” Well if history is any guide, the same thing’s going to happen to us."

Gayle Ruzicka is fond of the slippery slope argument. She thinks Gay/Straight Student Alliances are gay recruiting tools.

Although I feel it is important to keep religious and political beliefs seperate, and I am a supporter for same sex unions politically, there is really no good argument I have heard to that quote. No nation that openly embraced homosexuality has endured. Thanks for sharing that. I may reconsider my thoughts on this issue.

what the hell is so scary about unisex bathrooms? the bathrooms in my home are unisex and it's no biggie. at Target we (DH, DD, DS & me) use the unisex Family restrooms all the time & it's no biggie.

the average person does NOT want to see the average person with their pants down...

i could care less about sharing a bathroom with a man.

Is it possible that TSCC was/is afraid that if the ERA passed, they would be forced to give women the "priesthood"? Seems to me like a much more compelling and real motive, rather than all the bs they made up about what would happen if it passed.

I just signed the petition. I really don't get why that stupid Phyllis woman would campaign against her own basic rights! Is it just brain-washing? Self-loathing? Or does just want all other women to be as miserable as she is? She can't die soon enough.