The Equal Rights Amendments and Its Possible Meanings

In the 1970s, the proposed Equal Rights Amendment passed both houses of Congress with the requisite two thirds supermajority and then went to the states for ratification.  The proposed Amendment then quickly secured numerous ratifications (ultimately securing 35 of the requisite 38 state ratifications) and looked sure to pass.  But then the momentum for the Amendment stopped and it never secured the necessary ratifications.

A big part of the arguments against the proposed Amendment were that it would lead to certain consequences, which were generally regarded at the time as extremely unattractive.  While opponents of the Amendment argued it might or would have these consequences, proponents generally denied it.  This is a common phenomenon, which has occurred many times during debates about proposed constitutional provisions.  (After the provision passes, the sides often switch.)

Perhaps the most common of these controversial consequences were that the Amendment would require same sex marriage, women in combat, and unisex bathrooms.  At the time, these were extremely unpopular and significantly contributed to the failure of the proposed Amendment.  It is interesting to note that today these issues are thought of quite differently.

Let’s start with same sex marriage.  Obviously, this has been a politically controversial matter, which the Supreme Court recently took out of the political realm to decide on constitutional grounds.  If same sex marriage is required by the Equal Protection Clause, it would certainly have been required by the Equal Rights Amendment.  Thus, something that seemed quite unrealistic when raised as an objection to the Equal Rights Amendment, turned out to be required by the Constitution and accepted by significant percentage of the nation.

Now consider women in combat.  The history of this area is usefully summarized by this recent Congress Research Service report:

Over the past two decades of conflict, women have served with valor and continue to serve on combat aircraft, naval vessels, and in support of ground combat operations. The expansion of roles for women in the Armed Forces has evolved since the early days of the military when women were restricted by law and policy from serving in certain occupations and units. Women are not precluded by law from serving in any military unit or occupational specialty. However, a 1994 Department of Defense (DOD) policy prevented women from being assigned to units below brigade level where the unit’s primary mission was to engage directly in ground combat. This policy barred women from serving in infantry, artillery, armor, combat engineers, and special operations units of battalion size or smaller. On January 24, 2013, then-Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta rescinded the rule that restricted women from serving in combat units and directed the military departments to review their occupational standards and assignment policies for implementation no later than January 1, 2016. On December 3, 2015, Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter ordered the military to open all combat jobs to women with no exceptions.

We have been moving over time towards women in combat and it seems that we are now taking the last few steps in that direction.  Unlike same sex marriage, this was not required by constitutional law, but instead through policy (implemented largely by Democratic administrations).

Finally, there is unisex bathrooms.  While such bathrooms do not exist in most places, except some college dorms, the related question of bathrooms for transgendered individuals is now a matter of hot controversy.  So far this has not involved constitutional law, but state laws such as North Carolina’s or court decisions interpreting Title IX.  If a transgendered person who identifies with one gender, but has the sex organs of another, is allowed to use the bathrooms, locker rooms, and showers of the sex that person identifies with, that will be a significant step towards such unisex bathrooms (although it will obviously not result in full unisex bathrooms).  Depending on how many transgendered people there are, this will no doubt lead to different norms and facilities in bathrooms, locker rooms, and showers.

Forty years later, the world has changed.  What were once regarded as fringe positions are now controversial but mainstream positions.

Reader Discussion

Law & Liberty welcomes civil and lively discussion of its articles. Abusive comments will not be tolerated. We reserve the right to delete comments - or ban users - without notification or explanation.

on April 26, 2016 at 09:07:16 am

I have three reactions: (1) Phyllis Schlafly was right about the ERA; (2) Americans were more sensible in the 1970s; and (3) the failure of the states to ratify the ERA shows the superiority of the Art. V amendment process to judicial activism a la Obergefell.

read full comment
Image of Mark Pulliam
Mark Pulliam
on April 26, 2016 at 10:37:19 am

The Equal Rights Amendment failed because a minority of people – predominantly working-class whites in the South – were in a moral panic about gender roles. Concerns about the legal rights of mothers, wives, and daughters had to be subordinated to the need to defend the sanctity of the bathroom.

I reflected on this as we hear about people’s panic about trans people in bathrooms.

I also reflected on this as I’ve been re-watching The West Wing, a TV series which originally aired 1999-2006. I’d say that the show has aged well – except that it has barely aged. Given that every episode is between 10-17 years old, the show is appallingly contemporary, with two exceptions. First, candidates express surprise that the internet might be relevant to campaigns. Second, the politicians and their handlers treat the issue of homosexuality as if it were a bomb, requiring the most ginger handling.

(Ok, there’s one more difference: People speak about free trade as if everybody favored it. I suspect this view still prevails in the current White House, but I expect people are more circumspect in acknowledging this view.)

The more things change, the more they stay the same – mostly.

read full comment
Image of nobody.really
on April 26, 2016 at 13:19:48 pm

"Concerns about the legal rights of mothers, wives, and daughters had to be subordinated to the need to defend the sanctity of the bathroom."

A bit of an overstatement, perhaps?

Somewhat different than my recollection. Of course, I don't watch the West Wing. I get my wings from Ancient Aliens. Just a tad bit more believable, I would say.

As for free trade: It was just as much hogwash then as it is now with *free*trade being nothing more than another tool at the disposal of our Proggie friends to enforce "climate change" dictums and social justice (the latter of course being preempted when it concerns American workers).

Oh well, I see from my cable guide there is an Ancient Alien MARATHON coming up. Now for a healthy dose of reality based TV!!!!

read full comment
Image of gabe
on April 27, 2016 at 12:31:55 pm

The sovereign people refused to pass an equal rights amendment. That should suggest that they did not add to the constitution the very things that the majority of the Court now says it requires--especially because, as you note, the things the Court is imposing were the reasons for rejecting it.

In addition, if, (I fear when), we have another major war, we will see how our military is doing. Is it too pc to be as effective a fighting force as it needs to be? is the push to add women to all military roles inseparable from a softening of military culture?

read full comment
Image of Richard S
Richard S
on May 08, 2016 at 23:39:07 pm

The marital act, which is life affirming, and life sustaining, can only be consummated between a man and woman, united in marriage as husband and wife.

When serving the general public, including those persons who desire to promote and condone the equality of consensual sexual acts and sexual relationships, no person can be coerced into engaging in or condoning any act, including any sexual act, that would violate a tenet of their Faith or morals.To serve another person in any capacity that would condone or promote acts that violate a tenet of one's Religious Faith, is a violation of Religious Liberty.

Although our Constitution serves to secure and protect our inherent Right to Religious Liberty, it does not serve to secure and promote the equality of sexual acts and sexual relationships.

read full comment
Image of Nancy D.
Nancy D.
on February 28, 2020 at 06:07:04 am

[…] Equal Rights Amendment, a topic I’ve previously discussed in the form of a retrospective on Phyllis Schlafly, is back in […]

read full comment
Image of The ERA Is Back?
The ERA Is Back?

Law & Liberty welcomes civil and lively discussion of its articles. Abusive comments will not be tolerated. We reserve the right to delete comments - or ban users - without notification or explanation.