Return to the Hot Topics Forum | Post a Follow-Up

 o
New Yorkers are so smart

Posted by jillinnj (My Page) on
Thu, Mar 22, 12 at 20:29

As the only Republican Congressman at a rally for the Equal Rights Amendment on Thursday, Rep. Richard Hanna (R-N.Y.) gave women an unexpected piece of advice: Give your money to Democrats.

"I think these are very precarious times for women, it seems. So many of your rights are under assault," he told the crowd of mostly women. "I'll tell you this: Contribute your money to people who speak out on your behalf, because the other side -- my side -- has a lot of it. And you need to send your own message. You need to remind people that you vote, you matter, and that they can't succeed without your help."
...
Hanna, a pro-choice Republican and co-sponsor of the Equal Rights Amendment, acknowledged that women's continuing fight for equality is meeting some resistance among his Republican colleagues. He urged women to become more politically active on their own behalf.

"This is a dogfight, it's a fistfight, and you have all the cards," he said. "I can only tell you to get out there and use them. Tell the other women, the other 51 percent of the population, to kick in a few of their bucks. Make it matter, get out there, get on TV, advertise, talk about this. The fact that you want [the ERA] is evidence that you deserve it and you need it."

Good for him! Nice to know there is at least 1 republican willing to stand up for what is right.

Here is a link that might be useful: NY Republican


Follow-Up Postings:

 o
RE: New Yorkers are so smart

Oh poo, no good upstanding conservative woman would ever listen to the likes of *him*!

He's nothing but a big ole' stinking RINO who won't survive the next election due to this treasonous statement, you mark my words.


 o
RE: New Yorkers are so smart

We always suspected there were some reasonable republicans out there and this proves it.


 o
RE: New Yorkers are so smart

I hope elvis reads this.


 o
RE: New Yorkers are so smart

Why shouldn't there be an Equal Rights Amendment? Why would anyone be against women having equal rights under the Constitution?

An ERA has been introduced every year since it didn't get ratified in 1982, but never passed. Can anyone tell me the reasoning behind the failure to acknowledge women are entitled to equality? And, I'm not referring to the REAL reason - men afraid of losing control but the reason these men give.


 o
RE: New Yorkers are so smart

Everyone should be equal under the law... we shouldn't even need a special Amendment. It should already be part of our Constitution.


 o
RE: New Yorkers are so smart

When our Constitution was written women did not have the rights they have today, so the ERA definitely should be added to it to ensure women have equal protection under the Constitution. The proof that it needs to be added is all the BS going on today about trying to control women's reproductive rights.


 o
RE: New Yorkers are so smart

I was curious so I looked him up to see what part of NY he repped - Utica area. Found another interesting bit of info:

He is one of only six House Republicans in the 112th Congress who have not signed Grover Norquist's "Taxpayer Protection Pledge," with a spokesman explaining that "Rep. Hanna is focusing on the pledges he has made to his wife, the Constitution of the United States and the people of upstate New York."

One of 6 that did't make a pledge to one citizen of our country and hold to it above their constituents. Wow...


 o
RE: New Yorkers are so smart

But why do they need equal rights whats wrong with the rights? What don't they have now? Wasn't Lilly Ledbetter enough already next you'll be usurping the states rights by demanding special rights for Lesbians. Why can't they just stay hot fantasizes like they have always been rather than these well you know? Women who have to stir all these boycotts up & infringe on religious freedom. Why can't they just stop focusing on their vaginas for more than 2 minutes at a time?


 o
RE: New Yorkers are so smart

"And, I'm not referring to the REAL reason - men afraid of losing control but the reason these men give."

Men?

When I scanned the Wiki Article on ERA I get the impression that the opposition to its passage came from all sorts of people. But I have to say, too, that I got a little dizzy reading all that was going on with it over the years.

Unions, Democrats, Catholics,... the usual mess.

Someone sort it out for me. Who was really for it? Who was really against it?

Men? Really?

I haven't followed the issue at all, but, vaguely in the back of my mind, I thought that women and their supporters felt that we might be putting women alongside men in the foxholes..., that sort of thing.

Do women get special treatment that they'd be losing?

"The ERA was strongly opposed by the American Federation of Labor and other labor unions, who feared the amendment would invalidate protective labor legislation for women. ERA was also opposed by Eleanor Roosevelt and most New Dealers,"

Sounds like "progressives" to me.

Educate me.

Who really was against its passage?

Hay


 o
RE: New Yorkers are so smart

Eleanor Roosevelt?


 o
RE: New Yorkers are so smart

Rep. Hanna gets it. Kudos to him for speaking up!

I vividly remember that heinious Schlafly and her ilk, concerned uptight "women" blahlahwhatever back then.

But why do they need equal rights whats wrong with the rights? What don't they have now? Wasn't Lilly Ledbetter enough already next you'll be usurping the states rights by demanding special rights for Lesbians. Why can't they just stay hot fantasizes like they have always been rather than these well you know? Women who have to stir all these boycotts up & infringe on religious freedom. Why can't they just stop focusing on their vaginas for more than 2 minutes at a time?

You know, Joe, what's going on right now--that's what you have to put up with all the time. Floaters, all of them!


 o
RE: New Yorkers are so smart

Top o' the morning, Hay. Well...Phyllis Schlafly. But that's new thread fodder, and would be an absolute hoot~~

A real hoot. Might do it.


 o
RE: New Yorkers are so smart

I'm waiting for a Republican to stand up and say "If God intended for women to be equal to men, he would have made them men to start with."


 o
RE: New Yorkers are so smart

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.

Just think about it, Hay. It will preserve equal rights for men in case the discrimination against them that you are so worried about gets to be too much.


 o
RE: New Yorkers are so smart

  • Posted by sweeby Gulf Coast TX (My Page) on
    Fri, Mar 23, 12 at 13:00

we shouldn't even need a special Amendment. It should already be part of our Constitution.

That's the only opposition I've ever heard -- That we don't need it so we shouldn't have it... Same logic they give for not prohibiting discrimination based on LGBT basis -- we don't need it so we shouldn't have it.


 o
RE: New Yorkers are so smart

What I meant, Sweeby, is that this should have been included and passed decades ago... so that all these wars against everyone... women, minorities, same-sex marriage and adoption, etc... could not be divisive issues brought by the politically bigoted and followers.

You must know by now that I'm a liberal, atheist, all-inclusive, environmentally protective person... and now a very pissed off female.


 o
RE: New Yorkers are so smart

"...could not be divisive issues brought by the politically bigoted and followers..." - jodik

Jodik, you are presumably speaking about others, but you do realize you are also speaking about yourself?

Bigot: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to her own opinions and prejudices, especially one who exhibits intolerance and animosity toward members of a group. Bigotry may be directed towards those of a differing SEX or sexual orientation, race, ethnicity, nationality, region, language, RELIGIOUS OR SPIRITUAL BELIEF, POLITICAL ALIGNMENT, age, economic status or medical disability.

Emphasis added by way of capitalization.

Perhaps you want to avoid this word.


 o
RE: New Yorkers are so smart

Elvis, I think you make a good point.

Almost all of us on this forum could be considered a bigot regarding some specific issues or groups we have remarked upon. That's an idea which can't be denied.

It's an interesting thought.


 o
RE: New Yorkers are so smart

The main reason we need an ERA:

The Supreme Court has not held that sex is a "suspect class", under the "equal protection" clause of the 14th Amendment, which means that a state or governmental entity can discriminate against someone (usually a woman) because of his/her sex as long as the discrimination bears a rational relationship to the purpose of the law. However, when discrimination is alleged against a member of a "suspect class" of people (people who have immutable characteristics such as race, alienae or national origin) there must be a strict scrutiny of the reason(s) for the discrimination, and most often, a court will not be able to find a valid reason for the discrimination. The case where a majority of the U.S. Supreme Court decided to not extend the "suspect" class designation to sex was decided when the ERA was up for ratification and the Court felt that it should not usurp the constitutional process of adding the ERA.

Since the ERA did not pass, we cannot rely on courts to protect the rights of anyone on the basis of sex like the rights of others are protected on the basis of race, national origin, etc. Women are still second-class citizens when it comes to equal protection under the U.S. Constitution. It would be funny, if it wasn't so outrageous, to read the backflips some judges do to say why sex, an immutable characteristic, shouldn't be considered an immutable charateristic like race.

THAT is why we need an ERA. And, the fears that women would lose some of the "protective legislation" accorded them in the workplace are no longer operative. In the 60's and 70's, those laws were often used to keep women from working as many hours as men, thus lowering their incomes. And, women have advanced so far in holding different jobs, which were "protected" that I don't believe anyone would still try to "protect" them from those jobs that might require them to stand on their feet, work longer hours, lift heavy items, etc. Women are already doing that. Of, course, there will still be some people who have the "potty excuse." Anything to stay in control or remain controlled, for some people.

I quote from my law casebook (from 1974) on Sex and Discrimination (one of the authors was Justice Ginsburg):

"In sum, the (ERA) amendment would eliminate the historical impediments to unqualified judifical recognition of equal rights and responsibilities for men and women as constitutional principle; it would end legislative inertia that keeps discriminatory laws on the books despite the counsel of amendment opponents that removal or revision of these laws is "the way"; and it would serve as a clear statement of the nation's moral and legal commitment to a system in which women and men stand as full and equal individuals before the law."


 o
RE: New Yorkers are so smart

I'm beginning to suspect that there's a great big spoon just stirring and stirring...


 o
RE: New Yorkers are so smart

Thanks, ML. I'm surprised that as yet no one has gone ballistic because I pointed this out. There's bound to be some mighty interesting excuses for this behavior. Wonder what they are?


 o
RE: New Yorkers are so smart

That's what I was trying to say earlier, Dockside... there's no reason this should not be "a system in which women and men stand as full and equal individuals before the law". Though, I would probably add "regardless of..." and add a few things that are still points of prejudice/discrimination within our nation.


 o Post a Follow-Up

Please Note: Only registered members are able to post messages to this forum.

    If you are a member, please log in.

    If you aren't yet a member, join now!


Return to the Hot Topics Forum

Information about Posting

  • You must be logged in to post a message. Once you are logged in, a posting window will appear at the bottom of the messages. If you are not a member, please register for an account.
  • Please review our Rules of Play before posting.
  • Posting is a two-step process. Once you have composed your message, you will be taken to the preview page. You will then have a chance to review your post, make changes and upload photos.
  • After posting your message, you may need to refresh the forum page in order to see it.
  • Before posting copyrighted material, please read about Copyright and Fair Use.
  • We have a strict no-advertising policy!
  • If you would like to practice posting or uploading photos, please visit our Test forum.
  • If you need assistance, please Contact Us and we will be happy to help.


Learn more about in-text links on this page here