Unbelievable

[kengr]

During a discussion on gay marriage on a mailing list I'm on, someone actually said that it had to be legal because of the ERA. Which they then quoted AND REFFERREED TO AS A "DONE DEAL"!!!

<sigh>

Given that the ERA *failed* to get ratified some 20 or more years ago, I can only shake my head at the ignorance of my fellow citizens.

And what made it really bad was that she was able to quote the text but wasn't aware that it'd failed.

Comments

[morgan-gw.livejournal.com]

To quote Monty Python, "It's not dead yet." :-)

The ERA is still alive, and only three states short of ratification. There is no deadline on how long states have, based on the "Madison Amendment" to the Constitution which was ratified in 1992, 203 years after its passage by Congress.

Current info on the ERA can be found at www.equalrightsamendment.org.

Morgan /|\
In favor of equal rights regardless of race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation

[morgan-gw.livejournal.com]

Point I missed: Of course, your friend was still mistaken, in that it's not a "done deal." But it's not a dead issue, either :-).

[kengr]

Nope, the Madison Amendment was able to get ratified because it hadn't included a deadline.

The ERA *did* have a deadline for ratification written into it. And it did fail to meet said deadline. The web site you pointed at even mentions this.

[morgan-gw.livejournal.com]

No, the original deadline was set by Congress (and later extended), it wasn't written into the amendment.

The ERA's time limit is open to change, as Congress demonstrated in extending its original deadline.
...
A bill in the 107th Congress (H.Res.98) stipulates that the House of Representatives shall take any necessary action to verify ratification of the ERA when an additional three states ratify.

Of course, that particular bill is moot now that we're into the 108th, but at least it shows that the ERA ain't dead yet :-).