Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

gratuitous

(82,849 posts)

9. Actually, that very subject came up in the 1970s

Reply to jmowreader (Original post)

Fri Jun 1, 2018, 08:53 AM

Jun 2018

It was used as an argument against the ERA, that the ambiguity of the language might extend the rights and protections of the law to homosexuals, as if they could be citizens in full like normal heterosexual people.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

12 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

The Equal Rights Amendment needs to be rewritten before it's ratified [View all] jmowreader Jun 2018 OP

any changes require approval by all the states already voting to approve nt msongs Jun 2018 #1

And by the Congress, which has to write the language spooky3 Jun 2018 #2

A good replacement might be... Tribalceltic Jun 2018 #3

A couple of things dsc Jun 2018 #4

That would mean starting over completely. No, thanks. pnwmom Jun 2018 #5

Don't throw away your work for good in the quest for perfect Lee-Lee Jun 2018 #6

We're not gonna get universal healthcare or basic income out of it, either. Orsino Jun 2018 #7

We should start a new one MuseRider Jun 2018 #8

Actually, that very subject came up in the 1970s gratuitous Jun 2018 #9

This isn't the 1970s jmowreader Jun 2018 #10

My point, and apparently I made it badly gratuitous Jun 2018 #12

That would require a separate constitutional amendment meow2u3 Jun 2018 #11