Civil Rights Assignment
A. All Key Terms
B. What if….. Illegal Immigrants were granted citizenship? 146
C. Understanding American Slavery: Graphic Organizer, Outline, PowerPoint, etc
D. Diagram: Civil Rights Acts (1866, 1870, 1872, 1875, 1883, 1896)
E. Voting Barriers: Graphic Organizer—White Primary, Grandfather Clause, Poll Tax,
Literacy Test, etc)
F. Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka: Graphic Organizer
Issues, Results, Reactions, etc.
G. Busing: PROS/CONS
H. Civil Rights Movement Annotated Webchart
I. Swann Case
J. Graphic Organizers:
Civil Rights Act of 1964
Voting Rights Act of 1965
Civil Rights Act of 1968 (and Housing Reform Legislation)
Consequences of Civil Rights Legislation
K. Plessy v. Ferguson 1896
L. Women’s Struggle for Equal Rights
Annotated Timeline, Diagram, or Outline
M. Issues in the Workplace
Graphic Organizer, Diagram, or Outline
N. Immigration—The Hispanic Issues
Graphic Organizer, Diagram, or Outline
O. A Controversial Issue: Affirmative Action
Definition, Assessment/Analysis, PROS/CONS
P. An Aging America: Graphic Organizer, Diagram, or Outline
Q. Disabled Americans and the Government: Graphic Organizer, Diagram, or Outline
R. The Gay and Lesbian Issues concerning the Government
Graphic Organizer, Diagram, or Outline
S. Young People: Juveniles and the Government-- Graphic Organizer, Diagram, or Outline
T. READ—Zero-Tolerance and Dealing with Discrimination
Reaction Paragraphs (2)
LEARNING OBJECTIVES



























Define civil rights and explain the difference between civil rights and civil liberties.
Describe the attempts to grant civil rights to African Americans following the abolition of
slavery, including the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments, and the Civil
Rights Acts of 1865-1877.
Explain how these initial attempts were frustrated by the courts.
Describe the obstacles to political participation by African Americans.
Explain the impact of the Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of Education of
Topeka.
Explain the difference between de facto segregation and de jure segregation.
Indicate the role of violence in the struggle for African American civil rights.
Describe King’s philosophy of nonviolence and define civil disobedience.
Describe the key provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Describe the impact of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
Describe the goals and tactics of the women’s suffrage movement.
Describe the creation of the modern women’s movement.
Describe the attempt to win the ERA.
Describe other major modern feminist issues.
Explain what Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 provides.
Define sexual harassment, wage discrimination, and the glass ceiling.
Explain the impact of Hispanic immigration
Describe governmental attempts to deal with the issue of illegal immigration
Define affirmative action and explain why it was originally established.
Describe the limits the Supreme Court has placed on affirmative action.
Provide the most important provisions of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of
1967.
Give the most important provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and some
of its limits.
Provide the circumstances under which the modern gay and lesbian rights movement began.
Define sodomy laws and explain how they were upheld in Bowers v. Hardwick and rejected
in Lawrence v. Texas.
Explain “don’t ask, don’t tell.”
Give the current state of the same-sex marriage controversy (the Defense of Marriage Act of
1996, the proposed constitutional amendment, civil unions in Vermont, and same-sex
marriage in Massachusetts).
Explain the legal status of juveniles, especially with regard to civil rights and criminal rights.
TOPICS FOR DISCUSSION
Given the time it took for so many of the provisions of the Civil War Amendments to become a
reality, do you regard their addition to the Constitution as empty promises?
Why were the reconstruction-era Civil Rights acts ineffective?
Why was the Voting Rights Act necessary?
Would there have been a difference in the civil rights movement of the 1960s if it had not been
based on the philosophy of nonviolence? Who had the better perspective: King or Malcolm
X?
Can the modern women’s movement be characterized as a success?
To what extent should illegal immigration be regarded as a significant problem in our country?
How should we treat those who are illegally in this country?
Should affirmative action exist? If you do not favor affirmative action, how should society
address the economic gap between men and women and whites and African Americans?
How can the gap in funding between programs that benefit older Americans and those that benefit
children be addressed? Do these two policy areas constitute a zero-sum game?
Without the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act would the private sector have been as
likely to take action to eliminate policies that had the effect of discrimination toward
individuals with disabilities?
How could the issue of gays in the military be resolved?
Should same-sex couples be able to marry and receive all of the privileges and benefits associated
with marriage?
Should juveniles charged with serious crimes such as murder be treated as adults? Can children
have intent?
Why are juveniles legally different from adults? What should the age of majority be? Why?
Should the government have the power to take a child away from a parent? Under what
conditions? Who should make such decisions?
BEYOND THE BOOK
Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution states, “The Migration or Importation of such Persons as
any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the
Congress prior to the Year of thousand eight hundred and eight . . .” The phrase “such
Persons” refers to slaves. The only other reference to slavery in the original Constitution is
Article I, Section 2, which mentions “other persons.” Why did the founders choose to not
directly address the issue of slavery? One of the major reasons concerned the adoption of the
Constitution by the states. If slavery had been directly mentioned within the Constitution,
some northern states might have been reluctant to ratify it. By not addressing this issue in the
Constitution, the national government was allowed time to become a powerful political force.
Not all of the reasons for the reconstruction-era constitutional amendments and civil rights laws
were altruistic. Republicans wanted African Americans to vote because they expected them to
vote Republican. In those days, the two major parties were relatively evenly balanced.
African Americans were not always the only target of laws designed to limit voting. Take the
example of the literacy test, a particularly devilish scheme in that it allowed literacy examiners
to fail prospective voters on a purely subjective basis. While African Americans in the South
were the primary target of this scheme, it was used elsewhere. For example, as late as the
1950s the remnants of the “Tammany Hall” political machine on the West Side of Manhattan
made a regular practice of flunking Columbia University professors on the reasonable ground
that these voters were almost sure to support the anti-machine, “reform” cause.
Technology had an important role in the integration of society. Television contrasted the violent
opposition to civil rights and integration and nonviolent civil rights actions. Also, television
brought the problems of racial inequality into the living rooms of Americans on the nightly
news. As racial barriers fell, national institutions such as baseball, movies, television, and the
music industry began to offer major roles for African Americans. A new generation became
admirers of athletes like Jackie Robinson (baseball), actors like Sidney Poitier (movies) and
Bill Cosby (television) and recording artists like Diana Ross and James Brown. To what extent
have these popular stars helped to eliminate racial prejudice by becoming role models for
young people of all races? Are we seeing a similar phenomenon occurring with gays in
television shows like Will and Grace and Queer Eye for the Straight Guy?
There actually were a few steps taken by Congress to support civil rights before 1964. In 1957,
Congress established a Civil Rights Commission to investigate claims of racial bias. Because
many southern states were denying African Americans the right to vote, Congress passed the
Civil Rights Act of 1960, which was intended to stop this type of action by state governments.
Both of these laws, however, were ineffectual. Why might Congress pass an ineffectual law?
What gave Congress the power to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964? The Supreme Court ruled in
the 1880s that Congress did not have the power to end discrimination that was not created by
the government. In 1964, there were attempts to get the Supreme Court to declare the 1964
Civil Rights Act unconstitutional. However, this time the Supreme Court ruled that the Civil
Rights Act was constitutional because private acts of discrimination were having an adverse
impact on interstate commerce, an area covered by an enumerated power of Congress. Cases:
Heart of Atlanta Motel, v. U.S. (1964) and Katzenback v. McClung (1964). Did Congress
push its power to regulate interstate commerce too far? Did the Supreme Court ignore its
responsibility to check the power of Congress because it approved of the intention of Congress
to address discrimination?
What rights individuals have in the area of sexual preference will continue to vary from city to
city and state to state, as long as the federal courts do not establish national standards. Does
the Fourteenth Amendment provide for the equal protection of individuals based on sexual
orientation? If the majority of the people in a state are opposed to same sex marriages should
they have the power to deny such marriages? What would James Madison, the author of
Federalist #10, have to say on this issue?
CHAPTER OUTLINE
Civil Rights refer to those things that the government must do to provide equal protection and
freedom from discrimination for all citizens. Traditionally, we think of civil rights as those rights
rooted in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. While the term “civil rights” goes back
in history, early attempts at true protection were unsuccessful because the Supreme Court
believed that it was not within its purview to stop non-governmental discrimination. Since the
1950s, the Supreme Court has held the opposite view, thus enabling the government to offer
broader protections to citizens’ equality in social and economic life.
I. African Americans and the Consequences of Slavery in the United States
A. Ending Servitude. With the passage of the Civil War amendments, slavery and some of
the problems slavery had created were abolished. 1) The Thirteenth Amendment
(1865) prohibits slavery within the United States. 2) The Fourteenth Amendment
(1868) established that all persons born in the United States are citizens and no state
shall deprive citizens of their rights under the Constitution. 3) The Fifteenth
Amendment (1870) established the right of citizens to vote.
B. The Civil Rights Acts of 1865 to 1875. After passing the Civil War Amendments,
Congress enacted the Civil Rights Acts of 1865–1875, which were aimed at the
southern states. These laws attempted to prevent states from passing laws that would
circumvent the amendments.
C. The Ineffectiveness of the Civil Rights Laws.
1. The Civil Rights Cases. The United States Supreme Court invalidated much of the
civil rights legislation in the Civil Rights cases (1883). Enforcement of the
Fourteenth Amendment was limited to correcting official acts by states. This
would mean that private citizens could practice discrimination without interference
from the national government.
2. Plessy v. Ferguson: Separate but Equal. The Supreme Court went further in this
direction in 1892 in the case of Plessy v. Ferguson, where the Court held that
“separate but equal” treatment of people of different races by state governments
was not a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.
3. Voting Barriers. The Fifteenth Amendment attempted to establish voting rights for
all citizens, except females and some Native Americans. However, some state
governments enacted laws that circumvented the right to vote (the white primary,
the grandfather clause, poll taxes, literacy tests). The effect of these laws virtually
prohibited African American males from voting in many southern states.
4. Extralegal Methods of Enforcing White Supremacy. Lynching in the South, and in
the North, riots against the employment of African Americans.
D. The End of the Separate-but-Equal Doctrine.
1. Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka. Plessy v. Ferguson was eventually
overturned by the Supreme Court in 1954. In the case of Brown v. Board of
Education of Topeka, the separate but equal doctrine was reversed.
2. “With All Deliberate Speed.” States were ordered to eliminate segregation policies
with all deliberate speed.
E. Reactions to School Integration. States that mandated segregation were outraged at
interference in state issues by the national government. Serious riots against
desegregation took place in a number of localities.
F. An Integrationist Attempt at a Cure: Busing.
Key concepts: De facto segregation—racial segregation that occurs because of past
social and economic conditions and residential racial patterns. De jure segregation—
racial segregation that occurs because of laws or administrative decisions by public
agencies.
1. Court-Ordered Busing. A solution to both forms of segregation, it involved busing
black students to predominantly white schools and vice versa. It was very
unpopular among whites and not very popular among African Americans, either. It
is not common today.
2. The End of Integration? By the 1990s the Court was willing in many cases to say
that local schools had done enough to desegregate, and no further actions were
necessary, despite the continued existence of de facto segregation.
3. The Resurgence of Minority Schools. Many African Americans and members of
other minority groups now seek to improve the performance of their local schools
rather than make them more balanced racially.
II. The Civil Rights Movement
The elimination of segregationist policies and racial intolerance would not have occurred
without a strong civil rights movement. This movement began in the South and grew to a
national scale. Although this movement included thousands and had many leaders, the
most famous leader was the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
A. King’s Philosophy of Nonviolence. One of the major reasons Dr. King was so
successful was his philosophy of non-violent civil disobedience, a nonviolent, public
refusal to obey allegedly unjust laws.
1. Nonviolent Demonstrations. Peaceful civil disobedience became the hallmark of
the civil rights movement.
2. Marches and Demonstrations. This approach gained the support and respect of
millions of Americans. What began as a small movement in the South quickly
became a national mission.
B. Another Approach: Black Power. Leaders such as Malcolm X advocated a more
forceful approach than King. His followers also resisted the impulse to cultural
assimilation that was implied by the integrationist philosophy.
III. The Climax of the Civil Rights Movement.
A. Civil Rights Legislation.
1. The Civil Rights Act of 1964. In response to public demands for action, Congress
passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This law prohibited discrimination in the
areas of: 1) voter registration, 2) public accommodations, 3) public schools, and 4)
employment. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which
was established by this law, was assigned the task of ending racial discrimination
in the work place.
2. The Voting Rights Act of 1965. The enactment of the Twenty-Fourth Amendment
in 1964, which eliminated any tax for the purpose of voting, was a modern
beginning of the end to racial discrimination at the ballot box. The Voting Rights
Act of 1965 made state laws restricting political participation by minorities illegal.
3. Urban Riots. Even as the civil rights movement was winning victories, a series of
intense civil insurrections spread through African American urban districts. The
riots cost the movement considerable good will.
4. The Civil Rights Act of 1968 and Other Housing Reform Legislation. One of the
major omissions of the 1964 act was discrimination in housing. In 1968, days after
the assassination of Dr. King, the Civil Rights Act of 1968 became law. Part of this
legislation prohibited racial discrimination in the area of housing.
B. Consequences of Civil Rights Legislation.
1. Political Participation by African Americans. There are now thousands of African
American elected officials.
2. Political Participation by Other Minorities. Other groups, such as Hispanics, have
also increased the number of elected officials at all levels of government.
3. Lingering Social and Economic Disparities. Poverty persists, and is most prevalent
among minority group members. How to address this fact is a major unresolved
issue.
IV. Women’s Struggle for Equal Rights
A. Early Women’s Political Movements. Activism for women’s rights began with the
Seneca Falls convention in 1948.
B. Women’s Suffrage Associations. The early struggle for equal rights for women
focused on the right to vote. This struggle would continue for more than 70 years until
the ratification of the 19th Amendment to the Constitution that states, “The right of
citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United
States or by any state on account of sex.”
C. The Modern Women’s Movement. The modern women’s movement started in the
1960s, inspired in part by the civil rights movement. The publication of Betty
Friedan’s The Feminine Mystique and the formation of the National Organization for
Women were significant early developments.
1. The Equal Rights Amendment. A major initial goal of the modern women’s
movement was the ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment, which states,
“Equality of rights under law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States
or by any state on account of sex.” The ERA was sent to the state legislatures for
ratification on March 22, 1972. It failed to win the approval of the necessary 38
states in the traditional seven-year limit. The Congress extended the time limit, but
the states again failed to support the ratification of the ERA. Part of the opposition
to the ERA came from an anti-feminist backlash. This conservative line of
argument asserted that the passage of the ERA would significantly alter social
relations in the United States, and men and women would be the “same” under
law, rather than equal.
2. Additional Women’s Issues. Issues advanced by the women’s movement included
domestic violence, abortion rights, and pornography, an issue tending to divide the
movement rather than unite it.
3. Challenging Gender Discrimination in the Courts. With the failure of the ERA, the
women’s movement changed focus to challenge gender discrimination in the
courts and through legislation. These efforts met with considerable success.
4. Expanding Women’s Political Activities. Organizations have been formed to
promote greater representation of women in government.
D.
Women in Politics Today.
1. Women in Congress. There exist a substantially larger number of women in
Congress than ever before.
2. Women in Congress after the 2006 Election.
3. Women in the Executive and Judicial Branches. It is now normal for the
president’s cabinet and the Supreme Court to contain a number of women.
4. Continuing Disproportionate Leadership. Men continue to be overrepresented in
positions of power, however.
V. Gender-Based Discrimination in the Workplace
A. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This legislation prohibits gender
discrimination in employment. This has been used to protect women from workplace
discrimination. In 1978, Title VII was amended to include the condition of pregnancy.
B. Sexual Harassment. The Supreme Court also has held that Title VII includes
prohibitions on sexual harassment. Some problems with addressing sexual harassment
complaints are how to define a “hostile environment.” The Court has attempted to
clarify the issue.
C. Wage Discrimination. In the year 2010, women will comprise a majority of the U.S.
workforce. Yet women, in spite of Title VII and legislation such as the Equal Pay Act,
on average, continue to earn less than men. In 2002, a woman earns 76 cents for every
dollar made by a man.
1. The Equal Pay Act of 1963. Employers cannot establish separate pay scales for
men and women performing the same work.
2. The Glass Ceiling. This term refers to hard-to-identify but very real barriers to the
promotion of women into positions of authority.
VI. Immigration, Hispanics, and Civil Rights
1. The Continued Influx of Immigrants. Today immigration rates are the highest they
have been since their peak in the early twentieth century. Since 1977, more than 80
percent of immigrants have come from Latin America or Asia.
2. Illegal Immigration. The majority of people entering the United States illegally come
from Mexico in search of work. In addition to the argument that they are taking jobs
from American citizens, another controversial aspect of their presence involves the
demand that illegal aliens and their families place on social and medical services.
1. Citizenship. Lawmakers are dramatically split over the issue of how to treat those
in the country illegally, with some calling for amnesty, others creating a schedule
by which they could become citizens and still other lawmakers demanding that
they be returned to their home countries.
2. Border Crime. Those who seek to enter the country illegally find themselves the
victim of a wide variety of crime. In addition, drug use is prevalent on the border.
3. Bilingual Education. Another problem concerns the education of those who are in this
country with little or no English skills.
1. Accommodating Diversity with Bilingual Education. Both Congress and the
Supreme Court in the past have supported the rights of those who require bilingual
education.
2. Controversy Over Bilingual Education. In recent years, however, resentment and
resistance have grown over the issue of bilingual education. California residents
passed a ballot initiative measure that would end bilingual education in the state.
VII. Affirmative Action
Affirmative action describes those policies that give special preferences in educational
admissions and employment decisions to groups that have been discriminated against in
the past. As originally intended, affirmative action policies were an attempt by the federal
government to “level the playing field” for women and African Americans in particular.
Affirmative action remains a controversial issue for several reasons. Some people argue
that racial and gender-based discrimination in employment and school admissions
decisions is now so infrequent that affirmative action is no longer warranted. Others argue
that the “backlash” created hurts race relations. Some women and African Americans argue
that the presence of affirmative action diminishes and undermines their achievements. On
the other side of the argument are the economic realities. There is no doubt that women and
African Americans lack economic parity in the U.S. Affirmative action represents one
attempt to remedy this. Popular support of affirmative action programs seems to be based
somewhat on racial identity, with majorities of African Americans and Hispanics
supportive of affirmative action, and whites widely divided on the issue.
A. The Bakke Case. In Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978) the
Supreme Court ruled that quota systems that only consider the race of an applicant
were unconstitutional. The court’s decision applied only to situations where race was
the sole factor being used. However, the Court ruled that race could be one of many
factors considered in making admissions decisions.
B. Further Limits on Affirmative Action. In Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Peña, the U.S.
Supreme Court ruled that when governments use affirmative action programs, they
must do so under the “strict scrutiny” rule. This means that governments typically
cannot use quota systems, and once a program has been deemed successful, it must be
eliminated. In two cases in 2003 involving the admissions policies of the University of
Michigan, the Court indicated that “diversity” was a legitimate goal in college
admissions, but could not be achieved by automatically assigning “points” to minority
applicants.
C. State Ballot Initiatives. One form of backlash against affirmative action has been
California’s Proposition 209, which ended all state-sponsored affirmative action
programs. Similar ballot measures currently are under consideration in other states.
VIII. Special Protection for Older Americans
The number of people over the age of 65 is growing dramatically.
A. Age Discrimination in Employment. Age discrimination is potentially the most
widespread form of discrimination.
B. The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967. The Age Discrimination in
Employment Act of 1967 prohibits discrimination by age in all but a limited number of
occupations where age is considered relevant to the job. Also, many individuals do not
desire retirement when they reach the age set as the retirement age by a company or
government, and mandatory retirement has progressively been made illegal by laws
passed in 1978 and 1986.
IX. Securing Rights for Persons with Disabilities
A. The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. The most significant development for
the disabled to date was the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.
This legislation prohibits job discrimination against individuals with physical or
mental disabilities. Furthermore, it requires physical access to public buildings and
public services. In 1998, the Supreme Court ruled that persons infected with the HIV
virus are protected by the ADA. This means that such employees must be
accommodated.
B. Limiting the Scope and Applicability of the ADA. The Supreme Court has limited the
scope of the ADA. In 1999, the Court held that the ADA did not protect persons who
wear eyeglasses. In 2002, the Supreme Court ruled that carpal tunnel syndrome, a
repetitive stress injury, does not constitute a disability under the ADA. In most cases,
citizens cannot sue their state under the ADA.
X.
The Rights and Status of Gay Males and Lesbians
A. Growth in the Gay Male and Lesbian Rights Movement. The modern movement is
conventionally believed to have begun following the Stonewall incident, where gay
men rioted against a police raid on a bar frequented by gays.
XI.
B. State and Local Laws Targeting Gay Males and Lesbians. In the 1960s every state
except Illinois had laws that banned sodomy, various proscribed sexual practices
including homosexual practices. During the 1970s and early 1980s many states
repealed such laws. The repealing of such laws halted in 1986 with the case Bowers v.
Hardwick when the Supreme Court upheld a Georgia law that banned homosexual
conduct between adults. In Lawrence v. Texas (2003), however, the Court reversed
itself and effectively struck down all remaining sodomy laws across the country. In the
1996 case of Romer v. Evans, the Supreme Court ruled that a Colorado constitutional
amendment that invalidated state and local laws that protected gay males and lesbians
from discrimination violated the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
Since Romer, many states and cities have passed measures that afford protection to gay
men and lesbians in housing, employment, public accommodation and credit.
C. The Gay Community and Politics. Gay activists now play a role in both major parties.
Eleven open gay men or lesbians sit in the House.
D. Gay Men and Lesbians in the Military. The “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, a
compromise instituted under President Bill Clinton, purports to provide some
protection against dismissal to gays in the military, but in fact has been relatively
ineffective.
E. Same-Sex Marriages. In 1993, the Hawaii state Supreme Court raised the issue of
whether the state constitution protected the rights of same-sex individuals who sought
a marriage license. 1. Defense of Marriage Act. Congress responded to the Hawaii
court’s decision with the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996, which allowed states to
refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. In Vermont, the state
Supreme Court ruled that gay men and lesbians are entitled to the same benefits of
marriage that opposite-sex couples enjoy. The Vermont legislature has passed a law
permitting “civil unions” between same-sex couples.
2. State Recognition of Gay Marriages. In 2003 the Massachusetts high court ruled
that gays had a right to marry and that civil unions did not go far enough in protecting
this right. States continue to wrestle with this issue.
F. Child Custody and Adoption. While a majority of states no longer ban adoption,
visitation rights, or child custody based on sexual orientation, these practices continue
in some jurisdictions.
The Rights and Status of Juveniles
Children do have rights, but these rights are quite limited compared to adult rights. The
presumption is that children are protected by parents, who should have extensive leeway in
how they perform this function. Depending on the jurisdiction and the issue, children may
be defined as those under ages that vary from sixteen to twenty-one.
A. Voting Rights and the Young. The Twenty-Sixth Amendment lowered the voting age
to eighteen. This was done at a time when eighteen-year-olds could be drafted into the
military and sent to fight in Vietnam. The argument was “old enough to die, old
enough to vote.”
B. The Rights of Children in Civil and Criminal Proceedings. These rights are
significantly different from the rights of adults.
1. Civil Rights of Juveniles. If a person is a minor, that person is not usually held
responsible for contracts he or she may have entered into. Because of this, it is
difficult for minors to enter into a contract without an adult who is willing to cosign. Child custody has been an issue because the wishes of the minor are given
little weight.
2. Criminal Rights of Juveniles. Below a certain age, children are presumed to be
unable to form criminal intent. In the case of older children, minors do not always
have the right to trial by jury or to bail, but the Fourteenth Amendment does
provide certain rights for minors including the right to counsel.
3. Approaches to Dealing with Crime by Juveniles. Increasingly, minors who commit
acts such as murder have been tried as adults. Another approach is to hold parents
responsible for the crimes of their children.
XII. Features
A. What If . . . Illegal Immigrants Were Granted Citizenship? The granting of citizenship
to illegal immigrants would have an extraordinary impact on the political clout of the
Hispanic community, not only in terms of participation but also in the number of
Hispanic elected officials. In addition employers would no longer be able to exploit
these individuals based on their status.
B. Beyond Our Borders: The Struggle for Women’s Rights Around the World. Traditional
values in countries such as Iraq and India pose a serious problem for women’s equal
rights.
C. Which Side Are You On? Zero Tolerance Policies
Some contend that the rights of juveniles are being trampled by the implementation of
“zero tolerance” policies. Such policies became more common in the wake of school
shootings. Critics of these policies argue that they penalized violators without
considering the circumstances of the offense, and that sometimes students have good
reasons for violating the zero tolerance policies or that the infractions are so minor that
they do not warrant the proscribed punishment for the offense.
The American Gay Rights Movement: A Timeline
This timeline provides information about the gay rights movement in the United States from 1924 to the
present: including the Stonewall riots; the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy; the first civil unions; the
legalization of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts and Connecticut; and more.
1924
The Society for Human Rights in Chicago becomes the country's earliest known gay rights organization.
1948
Alfred Kinsey publishes Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, revealing to the public that homosexuality is
far more widespread than was commonly believed.
1951
The Mattachine Society, the first national gay rights organization, is formed by Harry Hay, considered by
many to be the founder of the gay rights movement.
1956
The Daughters of Bilitis, a pioneering national lesbian organization, is founded.
1962
Illinois becomes the first state in the U.S. to decriminalize homosexual acts between consenting adults in
private.
1969
The Stonewall riots transform the gay rights movement from one limited to a small number of activists into a
widespread protest for equal rights and acceptance. Patrons of a gay bar in New York's Greenwich Village,
the Stonewall Inn, fight back during a police raid on June 27, sparking three days of riots.
1973
The American Psychiatric Association removes homosexuality from its official list of mental disorders.
1982
Wisconsin becomes the first state to outlaw discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
1993
The “Don't Ask, Don't Tell” policy is instituted for the U.S. military, permitting gays to serve in the military
but banning homosexual activity. President Clinton's original intention to revoke the prohibition against gays
in the military was met with stiff opposition; this compromise, which has led to the discharge of thousands of
men and women in the armed forces, was the result.
1996
In Romer v. Evans, the Supreme Court strikes down Colorado's Amendment 2, which denied gays and
lesbians protections against discrimination, calling them “special rights.” According to Justice Anthony
Kennedy, “We find nothing special in the protections Amendment 2 withholds. These protections . . .
constitute ordinary civil life in a free society.”
2000
Vermont becomes the first state in the country to legally recognize civil unionsbetween gay or lesbian
couples. The law states that these “couples would be entitled to the same benefits, privileges, and
responsibilities as spouses.” It stops short of referring to same-sex unions as marriage, which the state defines
as heterosexual.
2003
The U.S. Supreme Court rules in Lawrence v. Texas that sodomy laws in the U.S. are unconstitutional.
Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote, “Liberty presumes an autonomy of self that includes freedom of thought,
belief, expression, and certain intimate conduct.”
In November, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that barring gays and lesbians from marrying
violates the state constitution. The Massachusetts Chief Justice concluded that to “deny the protections,
benefits, and obligations conferred by civil marriage” to gay couples was unconstitutional because it denied
“the dignity and equality of all individuals” and made them “second-class citizens.” Strong opposition
followed the ruling.
2004
On May 17, same-sex marriages become legal in Massachusetts.
2005
Civil unions become legal in Connecticut in Oct. 2005.
2006
Civil unions become legal in New Jersey in December.
2007
In November, the House of Representatives approves a bill ensuring equal rights in the workplace for gay
men, lesbians, and bisexuals.
2008
In February, a New York State appeals court unanimously votes that valid same-sex marriages performed in
other states must be recognized by employers in New York, granting same-sex couples the same rights as
other couples.
In February, the state of Oregon passes a law that allows same-sex couples to register as domestic partners
allowing them some spousal rights of married couples.
On May 15, 2008, the California Supreme Court rules that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to
marry. By November 3rd, more than 18,000 same-sex couples have married. On November 4th, California
voters approved a ban on same-sex marriage called Proposition 8. The attorney general of California, Jerry
Brown, asked the state's Supreme Court to review the constitutionality of Proposition 8. The ban throws into
question the validity of the more than 18,000 marriages already performed, but Attorney General Brown
reiterated in a news release that he believed the same-sex marriages performed in CA before November 4th
should remain valid.
November 4, 2008, voters in California, Arizona, and Florida approved the passage of measures that ban
same-sex marriage. Arkansas passed a measure intended to bar gay men and lesbians from adopting children.
On October 10, 2008 the Supreme Court of Connecticut rules that same-sex couples have the right to marry.
This makes Connecticut the second state, after Massachusetts, to legalize civil marriage for same-sex
couples. The court rules that the state cannot deny gay and lesbian couples the freedom to marry under
Connecticut's constitution, and that the state's civil union law does not provide same-sex couples with the
same rights as heterosexual couples.
On November 12, 2008 same-sex marriages begin to be officially performed in Connecticut.
California Proposition 8 (2008)
Proposition 8 is a statewide ballot proposition in California. On November 4, 2008,
voters approved the measure and made same-sex marriage illegal in California. The
campaign over Proposition 8 was fiercely contested. In the aftermath of the vote, an
intense focus on Proposition 8 has continued, with those who support same-sex
marriage coming together every day since the election in rallies and protests. Three
lawsuits seeking to invalidate Proposition 8 have been filed. It is not yet clear what
impact the ban will have on the approximately 18,000 same-sex couples in the
state.[1],[2]
Proposition 8 received 52.5% of the vote in the state's unofficial vote canvass; the
Secretary of State's office will not officially call the results of Prop 8 until December
13 after they have been able to count all absentee and provisional ballots.
Election results
California Proposition 8
Votes
Yes
No
Total votes
Percentage
5,782,670
52.2%
5,301,540
47.8%
11,084,210
100%
Results according to the California Secretary of State[3]
Proposition 8 adds a new amendment to the California Constitution which says, "only
marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California". Before it
passed, same-sex marriage was a constitutionally-protected right in California; a
majority of the justices of the California Supreme Court affirmed this understanding
of the constitution in May 2008.
The ballot title of Proposition 8 was Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to
Marry.[4].
Background
California first explicitly defined marriage as a state between a man and woman in
1977.[5] That year, the California State Legislature passed a law that said that marriage
is a "personal relation arising out of a civil contract between a man and a woman".
While no previous California legislation contained explicit language regarding sex or
gender, California law prior to 1959 explicitly prohibited marriage between people of
different races. Many other states prohibited interracial marriage until 1967, when the
United States Supreme Court ruled this unconstitutional, in the case Loving v.
Virginia. [6]
In 2000, voters passed ballot initiative Proposition 22 with a margin of 61%, which
changed California Family Code to formally define marriage in California between a
man and a woman. Prop. 22 was a statutory change via the initiative process, not a
constitutional change via the initiative process.
In 2004, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom performed same-sex marriages in his
city, which were subsequently judicially annulled. This case, and some others,
eventually led to a decision announced on May 15, 2008 of the California Supreme
Court, which by a 4-3 vote struck down Proposition 22.[7]
Prior to the May 2008 state supreme court decision, opponents of same-sex marriage
had already begun their efforts to qualify Prop. 8 for the ballot. Their reasoning at the
time was that since Prop. 22 was only a statute, it was subject to judicial review in a
way that an amendment to the constitution would not be.[8],[9],[10]
When supporters of Proposition 8 submitted their measure to the California Secretary
of State in 2007 for permission to circulate, the ballot title that was given to it was the
"California Marriage Protection Act." At that time, Proposition 22 was the governing
law in the state with regard to gay marriage and the term "marriage protection"
appears to have meant something like "adding additional protection to the idea of one
man-one woman marriage by enshrining it in the constitution, not just as a statute".
However, between the time that Prop. 8 got its original permission-to-circulate ballot
title, and the time they turned in their signatures and became ballot certified, Prop. 22
no longer had any governing force.[11] After the proposition was certified for the
ballot, the title and summary were revised by Attorney General Jerry Brown to more
"accurately reflect the measure." (See Lawsuits, California Proposition 8 (2008)).
After the election
Lawsuits
For main article, see Lawsuits, California Proposition 8 (2008).
Several lawsuits seeking to invalidate Proposition 8 have been filed since the
vote on November 4:
The American Civil Liberties Union, Lambda Legal and the National Center
for Lesbian Rights filed a lawsuit the basis of which is that Proposition 8 is
invalid because it represents a fundamental alteration of the California
Constitution; the suit says that fundamental alterations cannot be
accomplished through a popular vote on an initiative. This legal claim hinges
on Article 18 of the constitution which says that it, the constitution, can be
changed by amendment or by revision. "Amendments", according to Article
18, may be enacted by initiative with a majority vote, whereas "revisions" can
only be enacted through a procedure that starts with the California State
Legislature agreeing by a revision by a two-thirds vote in the legislature,
followed by a statewide vote of the electorate. The lawsuit says that Prop 8,
properly understood, is a "revision"; if the court agrees, then Prop 8 could be
nullifed.[12],[13]
The governments of San Francisco, Los Angeles and Santa Clara County filed
a petition to invalidate the amendment that argues, "Proposition 8 is invalid
under the California Constitution because the initiative power does not permit
voters to divest a politically unpopular group of rights conferred by the equal
protection clause."[14]
Rallies protesting Prop. 8
Subsequent to the vote on November 4, protests and rallies have been held in Los
Angeles, Long Beach, Oakland, Sacramento, San Diego, Palm Springs, and San
Francisco. Several different protests have taken place in front of the Mormon
temple in Los Angeles. On Sunday, about 1,000 people gathered in front of
Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, Orange County, whose pastor had announced
his support for Proposition 8 about two weeks before the election.[15]
Impact on married couples
Between June 15, 2008 and November 4, somewhere between 15,000-20,000
same-sex marriages took place in California. It is widely assumed--although not
by everyone-- that these marriages remain valid in the wake of the victory of
Proposition 8, because laws are generally not retroactive.[16]
One of the ballot arguments put forth by the "Yes on 8" campaign in the state's
official voter guide says that Prop 8 means that the state can only recognize
heterosexual marriages "regardless of when or where performed."
Stanford law Professor Jane Schacter believes the California Supreme Court--if it
were asked to invalidate a marriage--would not revoke the right to marry
retroactively. The reason for this is that the stable governments want people to be
able to rely on contracts they enter into and if contracts are retroactively revoked,
people lose their sense of the stability of laws, which is harmful. California's
newly-married same-sex couples, for example, might have made major decisions
such as adopting children, borrowing money or buying a home, relying on their
marriage contract as part of the reason they were prepared to make these
decisions.[17]
Expensive campaign
The campaign over Proposition 8 attracted very significant financial donations
on both sides; by the time of the vote, over $70 million had been spent on the
issue. Checks in the $1 million range were written to both campaigns from
wealthy backers, and the campaigns also each had many tens of thousands of
small donors. Of the 153 ballot measures on state ballots around the country,
Prop 8 was the most expensive. It is also more expensive by far than any
previous electoral contest over same-sex marriage.[18],[19],[20],[21],[22],[23],[24],[25]
Donors supporting Prop. 8
Some of the donors supporting Prop 8 were:
Knights of Columbus, $1,400,000.[26] [27]
Fieldstead & Company, $600,000.
Howard Ahmanson, $1,150,000.
American Family Association,
John Templeton, $900,000.
National Organization for Marriage,
$785,750.
[28]
$500,000
Focus on the Family, $411,000.
Doug Manchester, $125,000.[29]
Elsa Prince, $650,000.
One group that opposed Proposition 8 focused attention on the contributions to
the pro-Proposition 8 campaign from individuals who belong to the Mormon
church. Contributions from Mormons were said to amount to between 33%-40%
of the total amount raised in support of Proposition 8.[30]
Donors opposing Prop. 8
Some of the donors to the No on 8 campaign included:
Human Rights Campaign, $2,057,981.
Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E),
$250,000.[34]
Bruce Bastian gave $1,005,000 to
HRC.[31]
David Maltz, $1,100,000
California Teachers Association,
$1,300,000[32] [33]
Center Advocacy Project Issues PAC,
$234,000.
Los Angeles Gay & Lesbian Service
Center, $225,000.
National Gay & Lesbian Task Force,
about $215,200.
No on 8 - Equality California,
$1,250,000
Robert Wilson, $1,200,000.
GLAAD, $100,000.
Horizons Foundation, $100,000.[35],[36]
David Bohnett, $600,000.
Apple, $100,000[37]
Tim Gill, (Gill Action Fund), $350,000.
Google, $100,000[38][39]
James Hormel, $350,000.
Supporters of the amendment
Some teachers in Orange County are bucking the state-wide teacher's union
stance and endorsing Prop 8. [40]
Dennis Hollingsworth, Gail J. Knight, Martin F. Gutierrez, Hak-Shing William
Tam, and Mark A. Jansson filed the wording for the initiative with the Secretary
of State. The National Organization for Marriage and Focus on the Family are
national organizations that support the initiative and are helping to fund it.[41]
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the "Mormons") supported
efforts to pass the measure; in June, Mormon church leaders made an appeal to
members of the church by letter--asking them to support it with their time and
money. In October, through a private sattelite broadcast to church buildings,
members were encouraged, on their own time, to man phone banks, distribute
campaign materials, blog, sent text messages, and intensifie voter registration
efforts.[42],[43] The Mormon faithful, as has been widely noted, are credited with
donating millions of dollars as private citizens to the passage of Proposition 8,
but the church itself did not make any donations outside of some legally
reimbursable "in-kind" expenses amounting to $2,078.97[44].
The Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, the largest Orthodox
umbrella group nationally, said in late August it would support the passage of
Prop. 8.[45] Well-known evangelical minister Rick Warren endorsed Proposition
8 in late October.[46]
Arguments in favor of Prop. 8
Notable arguments in favor of Prop. 8 include:
It protects the free expression of religion, as supporters of Proposition 8 were
worried that Gay Rights advocates were not affording them the same
courtesy--to live and believe as they please--as the Gay and Lesbian
community was/is demanding.[47][48]
Supporters of Proposition 8 says that their support of Proposition 8 is not
based on an attack on the gay lifestyle, but is rather their effort to preserve
what they hold as core values surrounding a vision of traditional marriage.
"It overturns the decision of four activist Supreme Court judges in ruling
unconstitutional a ballot initiative previously approved by the people."
"It protects our children from being taught in public schools that “same-sex
marriage” is as legitimate as marriage between two people of opposite
genders."[49],[50]
"Proposition 8 will protect religious universities, adoption providers,
psychologists, doctors, and photographers from prosecution for denying
services to same-sex couples for any reason, including their religious
convictions." [51]
See California Proposition 8 videos
Opposition to Proposition 8
Eight different organizations have formally filed as opposition groups with the
California Secretary of State. [52],[53],[54],[55], [56],[57],[58],[59],[60],[61]
Notable opposition groups include Let California Ring, Equality for All, Equality
California, the Equality California Issues PAC and the Human Rights
Campaign,[62]. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger believes that the amendment is "a
waste of time." In an April 11 appearance before the Log Cabin Republicans,
Schwarzenegger said, "I think we need a constitutional amendment so that
foreign-born citizens can run for president, but not about gay marriage."[63]
Arguments against Prop. 8
Notable arguments against Prop. 8 include:
"Our California Constitution--the law of our land---should guarantee the same
freedoms and right to everyone. No one group should be singled out to be
treated differently."
"Equal protection under the law is the foundation of American society."
"Traditional Marriage" is a misleading term. Various marriage traditions, since
abolished, have included: only allowing members of the upper class or
nobility to marry; having marriages arranged by families without the couple's
consent; only allowing white people to marry; only allowing people of the
same race to marry; and allowing one man to marry multiple women.
Current statistics show roughly 50% of heterosexual marriages end in divorce.
So-called "traditional marriage" is doing more to degrade the institutional of
marriage than any expansion of marriage could ever do.
Voter initiatives to amend the constitutional should not be taken lightly; using
them to take away rights from one group could open the door to voter
initiatives to take away other rights, including religious freedoms and civil
rights.
The institution of marriage conveys dignity and respect to the lifetime
commitment that a couple makes. Proposition 8 would deny lesbian and gay
couples the opportunity to that same dignity and respect.
"The freedom to marry is fundamental to our society, just like the freedoms of
religion and speech."
When domestic partnerships are held out as an acceptable substitute for
marriage, this is misleading. Domestic partnerships are not a substitute for
marriage.[64] The doctrine of "separate but equal" has been failed throughout
American history.
See California Proposition 8 videos
Celebrities
Celebrities who are opposing Proposition 8 include:
Steven Spielberg
Bridget Fonda
Barbara Streisand
Kate Capshaw
Jason Tam
Melissa Etheridge
Brad Pitt[65]
Stephen Bing
Mary J. Blige
Ellen Degeneres[66]
Gus Van Sant
David Hyde Pierce
Molly Ringwald[67]
George Takei (of Star Trek)[68]
Rob Reiner[69]
Disputed impact on public education
Supporters of Prop. 8 say that unless it passes, gay marriage will be taught in
public schools. This is the theme of a television ad in heavy rotation on
California's airwaves, and the Associated Press is reporting on October 22 that
the issue has emerged as the leading focus of the campaign.[70],[71]
Frank Schubert, Prop. 8's campaign manager emphasized this argument in
September when a group of 1st grade students from the Creative Arts Charter
School in San Francisco went on an excursion to see their lesbian teacher marry
her partner in a wedding performed by Mayor Gavin Newsom, in an excursion
that was organized by the students' parents (not the teacher or the school). This
event energized the supporters of Prop. 8, with Mr. Schubert saying that the field
trip proves that their concern has been valididated that unless Prop 8 is passed,
gay marriage will be added to public school education. "We are already seeing
that happen", he says.
Opponents of Proposition 8 responded to this theme being raised in the campaign
by:
Saying there is no mention of schools or curriculum in the language of the
proposition; the proposition is about marriage rights, not public education.
Statements from public education officials that this outcome is unlikely.
Subsequently, supporters of Prop. 8 in speeches and press releases asserted that
what they believe will happen (and don't want to happen) is governed by
California's Education Code (EC) 51933. This code is said by them to specify
that while a school district is not required to provide comprehensive sexual
health education, if it chooses to do so, it is required to comply with all of the
code's requirements, one of which includes 'teach[ing] respect for marriage and
committed relationships.' Prop 8 supporters then argue that according to a
document, Sex Education in California Public Schools, 96 percent of California
school districts currently provide comprehensive sexual health education. As a
result, Prop. 8 supporters believe that 96 percent of the school districts will either
teach about gay marriage in schools, or stop teaching comprehensive sexual
health education. Prop. 8 supporters join to this their further assessment that
school districts are unlikely to stop teaching comprehensive sexual education. [72]
Massachusetts lawsuit
Same-sex couples have been married since 2004 in Massachusetts. Subsequent to
the decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Court in favor of same-sex marriage,
a teacher in Lexington, Massachusetts read a book, "King & King", to her
second-grade students that includes a story line about two princes marrying.[73]
The parents of one of the children in that second grade objected, and filed a
federal lawsuit against the school district which asserted, in part, that the
motivation of the teacher who read the book was "for the express purpose of
indoctrinating them into the concept that homosexuality and marriage between
same-sex partners is moral."
The federal lawsuit was dismissed and in October 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court
declined to hear an appeal of the lower court's dismissal.
Supporters of Prop. 8 are communicating about this Massachusetts case both to
their supporters and to undecided voters in a new television ad that features the
Massachusetts parents. Campaign materials indicate that they see the
Massachusetts event as validating their claim that unless gay marriage is
expressly forbidden in the California constitution, events similar to what
happened in Massachusetts will happen in California.[74] Opponents of Prop. 8
point out that unlike Massachusetts' education code, California's gives parents
the absolute right to opt their child out of any lessons related to family, health, or
sexual education. According to a recent survey about 40 percent of public
schools had "Improper parental notification policies." [75] Opponents argue that
the Massachusetts case is not really relevant, while proponents point out that
relevant or not, California courts have already ruled that parental rights "end at
the schoolhouse" and there is no guarantee that they, as parents, will be informed
about school policies.[76][77]
30-second ads not adequate
The Los Angeles Times argues that the truth about these questions "is slightly
more complicated than can be captured in the 30-second television
advertisements put out by both sides."
Reporter Jessica Garrison of that paper writes:
"There is nothing in the state education code that requires schools to teach
anything about marriage. Even the decision about whether to offer
comprehensive sex education is left up to individual school districts."
"What state law does require is that districts that offer sex education 'teach
respect for marriage and committed relationships.'"
Hilary McLean, press secretary for Jack O'Connell, head of the California
Department of Education, says that the Pro-8 ad is "unnecessarily and
irresponsibly alarmist."[78]
Role of Prop 8 in presidential race
Shortly after Prop. 8 qualified for the fall ballot, presidential candidates Barack
Obama and John McCain aligned themselves on opposite sides of the issue, with
Obama opposing and McCain supporting it. A reporter for the San Francisco
Chronicle described this as "a move that puts gay rights front and center in the
2008 presidential campaign".[79],[80]
Obama's statement on the matter said that he opposes "the divisive and
discriminatory efforts to amend the California Constitution", while McCain told
the group that worked to put the measure on the ballot that he agrees with their
idea of recognizing "marriage as a unique institution between a man and a
woman."
Does it matter?
A burst of punditry in late July speculated that getting Proposition 8 on the ballot
was part of an organized effort on the part of conservatives to give presidential
candidate John McCain a leg up in November voting. A ballot initiative on
which people have pronounced, strong opinions can have an effect on other races
on the ballot, it is said, because:
Some people who come to the polls to vote for a ballot initiative on which they
have a strong opinion, and who otherwise would not have bothered to come
out to vote, will stay and pull the lever in some other races.
Candidates can tap into public sentiment that coalesces around much-talked-of
ballot propositions in order to support their own campaign themes and
messages.
Supporters of a candidate who have maxed out on their legally-allowable
campaign contribution limits to a candidate committee can donate much
higher dollar amounts to ballot campaign committees, to the extent that they
think this will help their favored candidate for one of the above two reasons,
who would not otherwise particularly care about the ballot proposition
itself.[81],[82],[83],[84]
Catch-22?
Opponents of Proposition 8 told the New York Times in late September that
there is a concern that high voter turn-out among black voters who come to the
polls in California to vote for Obama could help the "Yes on 8" side if a
significant percentage of those black voters then go on to cast a down-ballot vote
in favor of Proposition 8.
This concern is based on the observation that higher percentages of black voters
may be "traditionally conservative on issues involving homosexuality".[85]
Supporters of 8 say they are, in fact, banking on a high turnout in the November
election among black and conservative Latino voters. Frank Shorter, cocampaign manager for the pro-8 effort, told the New York Times, "here’s no
question African-American and Latino voters are among our strongest
supporters. And to the extent that they are motivated to get to the polls, whether
by this issue or by Barack Obama, it helps us."
Anti-8 campaigners are responding to this situation--which Andrea Shorter calls
a "Catch-22"--by recruiting black gay couples as spokespeople and reaching out
to black pastors.[86]
Polling information
See also Polls, 2008 ballot measures.
The Public Policy Institute of California released a new poll late on October
22 based on a survey of 1,186 likely voters who were contacted between
October 12-19.[87]
Month of Poll
Polling company
In Favor Opposed
Undecided
May 2008
Field
40 percent 54 percent 6 percent
July 2008
Field
42 percent 51 percent 7 percent[88],[89]
August 2008
PPIC
40 percent 54 percent 6 percent[90]
Sept. 2008
Field
38 percent 55 percent 7 percent[91],[92]
Sept. 2008
SurveyUSA
44 percent 49 percent 7 percent[93]
Sept. 2008
PPIC
41 percent 55 percent 4 percent[94]
Oct. 2008
Internal polling, "No on 8" 47 percent 42 percent 11 percent[95]
Oct 4-5, 2008
CBS News/SurveyUSA
47 percent 42 percent 11 percent[96]
Oct 15-16, 2008 SurveyUSA
48 percent 45 percent 7 percent[97]
October 12-19
44 percent 52 percent 6 percent[98]
PPIC
October 18-28
Field
44 percent 49 percent 7 percent[99]
Nov. 1-2
SurveyUSA
47 percent 50 percent 3 percent[100]
Theories for poll movement
What explains late September polls showing a gain in support for
Proposition 8? The main theory for this is the possible impact of an
advertising push by the National Organization for Marriage that shows
footage of San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsome saying same-sex marriage
is here "whether you like it or not." Another ad refers to "activist judges"
with regard to the 4-3 decision in May 2008 of the California Supreme
Court in In re Marriage Cases which nullified Proposition 22.[101]
National pundit Andrew Sullivan has dubbed this the Newsom Effect.[102]
Asian-American sentiment
A poll done by the National Asian American Survey and released on
October 15 found that 57% of likely Asian-American voters in the state are
opposed to Proposition 8, 32% support it and 11% are undecided. Asian
Americans represent approximately 14% of California's population.[103]
Demographics
Although overall polling for Proposition 8 shows a close race, within
subgroups there are some large differences in sentiment, based on a poll
conducted between October 18-28 by the Field Poll.[104]
Group
% Yes % No
Obama voters
21
73
McCain voters
84
13
Identify as non-partisan 31
60
Female voters
42
51
Male voters
46
47
Voters over 65
62
32
Identify as conservative 87
10
Identify as liberal
10
86
Identify as moderate
40
51
Live in coastal counties 39
54
Live in inland counties 57
37
White non-Hispanic
44
50
Latino
46
48
African-American
49
43
Asian-American
41
51
High school education
62
27
Post-graduate education 33
61
Protestants
33
60
Catholics
44
48
Kristina Wilfore of the liberal Ballot Initiative Strategy Center told a
reporter for TIME magazine that age demographics may help Prop 8 pass,
since older voters are proportionally more in favor of it than younger voters.
Wilfore told the reporter, "A lot of people are going to have to die" before
those supporting gay marriage will have any easy time of it at the polls.[105]
Title IX
Title IX of the Educational Amendments of 1972 is the landmark legislation that bans
sex discrimination in schools, whether it be in academics or athletics. Title IX states:
"No person in the U.S. shall, on the basis of sex be excluded from participation in,
or denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any educational
program or activity receiving federal aid."
Athletics has created the most controversy regarding Title IX, but its gains in education
and academics are notable. Before Title IX, many schools refused to admit women or
enforced strict limits. Some statistics highlighting the advancements follow:



In 1994, women received 38% of medical degrees, compared with 9% in 1972.
In 1994, women earned 43% of law degrees, compared with 7% in 1972.
In 1994, 44% of all doctoral degrees to U.S. citizens went to women, up from
25% in 1977.
Intercollegiate Athletics
Title IX governs the overall equity of treatment and opportunity in athletics while giving
schools the flexibility to choose sports based on student body interest, geographic
influence, budget restraints, and gender ratio. In other words, it is not a matter of women
being able to participate in wrestling or that exactly the same amount of money is spent
per women's and men's basketball player. Instead, the focus is on the necessity for
women to have equal opportunities as men on a whole, not on an individual basis.
In regard to intercollegiate athletics, there are three primary areas that determine if an
institution is in compliance:
1. athletic financial assistance
2. accommodation of athletic interests & abilities
3. other program areas
Appraisal of compliance is on a program-wide basis, not on a sport-by-sport basis.
While many resources have been written specific for intercollegiate sports, the general
components of Title IX apply to interscholastic sport as well.
I. Financial Aid
First, financial assistance must be awarded based on the number of male and female
athletes. The test is financial proportionality. The total amounts of athletics aid must be
substantially proportionate to the ratio of male and female athletes.
II. Accommodation of Interests & Abilities
Second, the selection of sports and the level of competition must effectively
accommodate the students' interests and abilities. There are 3 factors that are looked at
consecutively.
1. Whether the intercollegiate level participation opportunities for male and female
students are provided in numbers substantially proportionate to their respective
enrollments.
2. Where the members of one sex have been and are underrepresented among
intercollegiate athletes, whether the institution can show a history and continuing
practice of program expansion which is demonstrably responsive to the
developing interests and abilities of that sex.
3. Where the members of one sex are underrepresented among intercollegiate
athletes and the institution cannot show a continuing practice of program
expansion, whether it can be demonstrated that the interests and abilities of the
members of that sex have been fully and effectively accommodated by the present
program.
III. Other Areas
Third, all other benefits, opportunities, and treatments afforded sports participants are to
be equivalent, but not necessarily identical. Title IX specifically looks at the following
program components:
1. Equipment & Supplies: quality, suitability, quantity, availability,
maintenance, & replacement.
2. Scheduling of Games & Practice Time: number of competitive events
per sport, number and length of practice opportunities, time of day
competitive events and practice opportunities are scheduled, opportunities
to engage in available pre-season and post-season competition, the season
a sport is scheduled, & the length of season.
3. Travel & Per Diem Allowances: modes of transportation, housing
furnished during travel, length of stay before and after competitive events,
per diem allowances, & dining arrangements.
4. Opportunity to Receive Academic Tutoring: availability of tutoring,
tutor qualifications and experience, rates of pay, & employment
conditions.
5. Opportunity to Receive Coaching, Assignment, & Compensation:
availability, assignment, & compensation of full-time coaches, assistants,
graduate assistants, or restricted earnings coaches.
6. Locker Rooms, Practice, & Competitive Facilities: quality, availability,
exclusivity of use, maintenance and preparation of facilities.
7. Medical & Training Facilities and Services: quality and availability of
medical personnel; athletic trainers; weight and conditioning facilities;
training facilities; & health, accident, and injury insurance coverage.
8. Housing & Dining Facilities and Services: housing and dining benefits
available during the regular year, the provision of pre-game and post-game
meals, & housing and dining services provided when classes are not in
session.
9. Publicity: availability and quality of sports information personnel, access
to publicity resources, & quantity and quality of publications and other
promotional devices.
10. Support Services: administrative support, clerical and secretarial support,
office space, equipment and supplies, & availability of other support staff.
11. Recruitment of Student-Athletes: opportunities for coaches or other
personnel to recruit, whether financial and other resources are equivalently
adequate, & treatment of prospective student-athletes.
Equal Rights Amendment
(From: Smathers, Bruce A., Papers, 1970-1974, (Collection M75-93)/ Governor's
Commission on the Status of Women, Records, 1974-1985, Series S 79)
Page 1 | Page 2 | Page 3 | Page 4
Feminists have long supported an Equal Rights Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would provide
equality under the law to both men and women. Calls for such an amendment were first made by the
National Women's Party in 1923, and became more insistent during the late 1960s from groups like the
National Organization for Women.
An Equal Rights Amendment, stating that "Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged
by the United States or any State on account of sex," passed the House of Representatives in 1971 and the
Senate the following year by the required two-thirds majority.
Though thirty states quickly ratified the amendment, its momentum gradually slowed, as anti-feminists
such as Phyllis Schafly mounted a grassroots movement to defeat the measure. Thirty-five states ultimately
ratified the ERA, but despite a controversial extension of time granted by the congress for ratification, the
measure fell three states short of the required three-fourth's majority. One of the ERA battleground states
was Florida, which had not yet ratified the amendment. The amendment was introduced or voted on in
every legislative session from 1972 until 1982. Though it passed the Florida House of Representatives on
several occasions, it never passed the Senate.
The final vote in 1982, the last session before the time period for ratification expired, was 60-58 in favor of
ratification in the House, and 22-16 against ratification in the Senate. Reproduced here are four examples of
the thousands of letters received by Florida politicians either in support or opposition of the ERA. Three of
these items were received by Florida Senator Bruce A. Smathers, and one by Florida Governor Reubin
Askew.
A text version of this constituent letter in favor of the Equal Rights Amendment is included below the
graphic image.
Document 12 M75-93, Box 16, "ERA/Pro: 1974 Session" Folder Bruce A. Smathers Papers, 1970-1974
Constituent Letter In Favor of Equal Rights Amendment, 1974
Jacksonville Coalition for the era
Equal Rights Amendment
P.O. Box 11072
Jacksonville, Florida 32211
Rachelle Aides-Golieb
Coordinator
(904) 743-1201
February 6, 1974
Dear Senator Smathers:
Opposition to the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) is a blow to all Americans who believe that an
individual's rights and responsibilities should not be dependent upon sex or marital status.
Why is it that men and women are not equally treated in awarding of child custody? Why is it that men
and women are not considered equally in promotions? Please help change these inequities. Vote for,
speak for, encourage support of the Equal Rights Amendment.
Sincerely,
Luann Bennett
More ERA Info
A Short History of E.R.A.






The Debates About ERA
The Houston Debacle
ERA Referenda
ERA Time Extension
ERA Tries in Congress Again
The Effort for State ERAs
A Short History of E.R.A.
The Equal Rights Amendment, a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution, was born in the era of the women's
suffrage amendment and first introduced into Congress in 1923. For nearly 50 years, all those Congresses had the good
judgment to leave ERA buried in Committee. Almost no one of importance or prominence in either political party supported it.
During most of those years, ERA had attached to it the Hayden Clause which read: "Nothing in this Amendment will be
construed to deprive persons of the female sex of any of the rights, benefits, and exemptions now conferred by law on persons
of the female sex." Then, as now, the advocates were unwilling to compromise for anything less than a doctrinaire equality, and
so ERA went nowhere.
In 1971, when feminism first rushed onto the scene in the United States, a little band of women stormed the corridors of
Congress and demanded the discharge from committee of the long-dormant Equal Rights Amendment. The House passed ERA
on October 12, 1971, after rejecting the Wiggins Amendment which would have exempted women from "compulsory military
service" and which also would have preserved other laws "which reasonably promote the health and safety of the people." Only
23 Congressmen voted no, of whom one was the senior female member, Representative Leonor Sullivan (D-MO), who made a
strong speech opposing ERA because it would harm the family.
In the Senate, Senator Sam J. Ervin, Jr., (D-NC) proposed nine separate amendments to ERA to protect the traditional rights of
women. Every one was defeated on a roll-call vote on March 21 and 22, 1972. These nine amendments established the
legislative history that ERA was intended to do exactly what the Ervin Amendments would have prevented ERA from doing.
The Ervin amendments would have exempted women from compulsory military service and from combat duty; they would
have protected the traditional rights of wives, mothers and widows, and preserved the responsibility of fathers to support their
children; they would have preserved laws that secure privacy to males and females; they would have continued the laws that
make sexual offenses punishable as crimes. All these modifying clauses were defeated. When ERA was passed in strict,
absolute language, only nine Senators voted "no."
Congress sent ERA out to the states on March 22, 1972. Within twelve months, 30 states had ratified ERA. Then the
disillusionment set in. In the next six years, only five more states ratified ERA, but five of the 30 states rescinded their previous
ratifications of ERA, leaving a net score of zero for six years of lobbying for ERA. The five states that rescinded their previous
ratifications were:
Nebraska
Tennessee
Idaho
Kentucky
South Dakota
3/15/73
4/23/74
2/08/77
3/16/78
3/01/79
The following 15 states never ratified ERA:
Alabama
Arizona
Arkansas
Florida
Georgia
Illinois
Louisiana
Mississippi
Missouri
Nevada
North Carolina
Oklahoma
South Carolina
Utah
Virginia
Most of the 15 states which never ratified ERA were forced by the ERA advocates to vote on ERA again and again. The Illinois
Legislature voted on ERA every year from 1972 through 1982, the Florida Legislature nearly every year, the North Carolina
and Oklahoma Legislatures every two years. Most of these votes were highly controversial, intensely debated, with much media
coverage and many spectators present.
During the ratification period, ERA was enthusiastically supported by 99 percent of the media, the Gerald Ford and Jimmy
Carter Administrations, most public officials at every level of government, and many wealthy national organizations. ERA
enjoyed the political momentum of what appeared to be inevitable victory.
A small group of women in 1972, under the name "Stop ERA," took on what seemed to be an impossible task. In 1975, they
founded "Eagle Forum" - the genesis of the pro-family movement, a coming together of believers of all faiths who, for the first
time, worked together toward a shared political goal. Eagle Forum volunteers persevered through the years and led the
movement to final victory over ERA.
The last state to ratify ERA was Indiana in January 1977. There have been perhaps 25 different votes on ERA since that time
(in legislatures, committees, referenda, and Congress), but Indiana was ERA's last success.
The Debates About ERA
The Equal Rights Amendment was presented to the American public as something that would benefit women, "put women in
the U.S. Constitution," and lift women out of their so-called "second-class citizenship." However, in thousands of debates, the
ERA advocates were unable to show any way that ERA would benefit women or end any discrimination against them. The fact
is that women already enjoy every constitutional right that men enjoy and have enjoyed equal employment opportunity since
1964.
In the short term, clever advertising and packaging can sell a worthless product; but, in the long term, the American people
cannot be fooled. ERA's biggest defect was that it had nothing to offer American women.
The opponents of ERA, on the other hand, were able to show many harms that ERA would cause.
1.
2.
ERA would take away legal rights that women possessed - not confer any new rights on women.
A. ERA would take away women's traditional exemption from military conscription and also from military
combat duty. The classic "sex discriminatory" laws are those which say that "male citizens of age 18" must
register for the draft and those which exempt women from military combat assignment. The ERAers tried to
get around this argument by asking the Supreme Court to hold that the 14th Amendment already requires
women to be drafted, but they lost in 1981 in Rostker v. Goldberg when the Supreme Court upheld the
traditional exemption of women from the draft under our present Constitution.
B. ERA would take away the traditional benefits in the law for wives, widows and mothers. ERA would make
unconstitutional the laws, which then existed in every state, that impose on a husband the obligation to
support his wife.
ERA would take away important rights and powers of the states and confer these on other branches of government
which are farther removed from the people.
A. ERA would give enormous power to the Federal courts to decide the definitions of the words in ERA, "sex"
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
and "equality of rights." It is irresponsible to leave it to the courts to decide such sensitive, emotional and
important issues as whether or not the language applies to abortion or homosexual rights.
Section II of ERA would give enormous new powers to the Federal Government that now belong to the states. ERA
would give Congress the power to legislate on all those areas of law which include traditional differences of treatment
on account of sex: marriage, property laws, divorce and alimony, child custody, adoptions, abortion, homosexual laws,
sex crimes, private and public schools, prison regulations, and insurance. ERA would thus result in the massive
redistribution of powers in our Federal system.
ERA's impact on education would take away rights from women students, upset many customs and practices, and
bring government intrusion into private schools.
A. ERA would force all schools and colleges, and all the programs and athletics they conduct, to be fully
coeducational and sex-integrated. ERA would make unconstitutional all the current exceptions in Title IX
which allow for single- sex schools and colleges and for separate treatment of the sexes for certain activities.
ERA would mean the end of single-sex colleges. ERA would force the sex integration of fraternities,
sororities, Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, YMCA, YWCA, Boys State and Girls State conducted by the American
Legion, and mother-daughter and father-son school events.
B. ERA would risk the income tax exemption of all private schools and colleges that make any difference of
treatment between males and females, even though no public monies are involved. ERA is a statement of
public policy that would apply the same rules to sex that we now observe on race, and it is clear that no
school that makes any racial distinctions may enjoy tax exemption.
ERA would put abortion rights into the U.S. Constitution, and make abortion funding a new constitutional right. Roe v.
Wade in 1973 legalized abortion, but the fight to make abortion funding a constitutional right was lost in Harris v.
McRae in 1980. The abortionists then looked to ERA to force taxpayer funding. The American Civil Liberties Union
filed briefs in abortion cases in Hawaii, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania and Connecticut arguing that, since abortion is a
medical procedure performed only on women, it is "sex discrimination" within the meaning of the state's ERA to deny
tax funding for abortions. In the most recent decision, the Connecticut Superior Court ruled on April 19, 1986 that the
state ERA requires abortion funding. Those who oppose tax funding of abortions demand that ERA be amended to
prevent this effect, but ERA advocates want ERA only so long as it includes abortion funding.
ERA would put "gay rights" into the U.S. Constitution, because the word in the Amendment is "sex" not women.
Eminent authorities have stated that ERA would legalize the granting of marriage licenses to homosexuals and
generally implement the "gay rights" and lesbian agenda. These authorities include the Yale Law Journal, the leading
textbook on sex discrimination used in U.S. law schools, Harvard Law Professor Paul Freund, and Senator Sam J.
Ervin, Jr. Other lawyers have disputed this effect, but no one can guarantee that the courts would not define the word
"sex" to include "orientation" just as they have defined "sex" 'to include pregnancy.
In the final years of the ERA battle, two new arguments appeared. Both were advanced by the ERA advocates, but
they quickly became arguments in the hands of the ERA opponents.
A. ERA would require "unisex insurance," that is, would prohibit insurance companies from charging lower
rates for women, even though actuarial data clearly show that women, as a group, are entitled to lower rates
both for automobile accident insurance and life insurance. This is because women drivers have fewer
accidents and women live longer than men. Most people found it a peculiar argument that "women's rights"
should include the "right" to pay higher insurance rates.
B. ERA would eliminate veterans' preference. This rests on the same type of legal argument as the abortion
funding argument: since most veterans are men, it is claimed that it is "sex discriminatory" to give them
benefits. Naturally, this argument was not acceptable to the veterans, and their national organizations lobbied
hard against ERA.
The Houston Debacle
Realizing that the seven-year time period allowed for ratification was running out, the ERA advocates in 1977 persuaded
Congress to give them $5 million, supposedly to celebrate International Women's Year. An IWY conference was held in each
of the 50 states, culminating with a national convention in Houston in November 1977. Every feminist of any fame was a
participant in this Conference, including Gloria Steinem, Betty Friedan, Eleanor Smeal, and Bella Abzug, who was the
chairman.
The conferences were all run as forums promoting ERA and the feminist agenda. Only pro-ERA speakers were permitted on
the platforms of the 50 state conferences and the Houston national conference. The media coverage was immense, and the
Houston platform was graced by three First Ladies: Rosalynn Carter, Betty Ford, and Ladybird Johnson.
At the IWY event in Houston, the ERAers, the abortionists, and the lesbians made the decision to march in unison for their
common goals. The conference enthusiastically passed what the media called the "hot button" issues: ERA, abortion and
abortion funding, and lesbian and gay rights. The IWY Conference doomed ERA because it showed the television audience that
ERA and the feminist movement were outside the mainstream of America. ERA never passed anywhere in the post-IWY
period.
ERA Referenda
The ERA advocates tried to blame the defeat of,ERA on a few men in several state legislatures. But when ERA was submitted
to a vote of the people it nearly always lost. The voters in the following seven states rejected ERA in statewide referenda.
(Nevada was an advisory referendum on the Federal ERA; the others were State ERA referenda.)
Wisconsin
New York
New Jersey
Nevada
Florida
Iowa
Maine
Vermont
Iowa
11/73
11/75
11/75
11/78
11/78
11/80
11/84
11/86
11/92
(60,000 majority against)
(420,000 majority against)
(52% against)
(66% against)
(60% against)
(55% against)
(64% against)
(51% against)
(51% against)
ERA Time Extension
The original ERA resolution which passed Congress on March 22, 1972 included the following preamble preceding the three
sections of the text of ERA:
"Resolved by the Senate and House of representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of
each House concurring therein), that the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United
States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of threefourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission by the Congress."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 "
When the end of the seven years approached and it became clear that three-fourths of the states (38 states) would not ratify
ERA, Congress passed an ERA Time Extension resolution to change "within seven years" to 10 years, 3 months, 8 days, 7
hours and 35 minutes, so that the time limit was extended to June 30, 1982 (instead of expiring on March 22, 1979).
In an additional piece of chicanery, Congress passed the ERA Time Extension by only a simple majority vote instead of by the
two-thirds majority vote required by Article V of the U.S. Constitution for all constitutional amendments.
The ERA advocates' strategy of a Time Extension was to lock in all those states which had ratified in 1972 and 1973, while
money and media were concentrated on ratification efforts in the non-ratified states where they thought ERA had the best
chance (in this order): Illinois, Florida, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Georgia, and Virginia. This ratification effort was assisted
by a boycott of all states that had not ratified ERA, designed particularly to cause economic harm to the convention cities in the
unratified states.
The American people were so turned off by the unfairness of the Time Extension - and the refusal of the ERA proponents to
recognize the legality of the rescissions - that not a single state ratified ERA after the Time Extension was passed by Congress
in 1978.
After a two-and-a-half-year lawsuit, the U.S. District Court ruled on December 23, 1981 in Idaho v. Freeman that the ERA
Time Extension voted by Congress was unconstitutional and that the rescissions of ERA were constitutional. The U.S. Supreme
Court did not decide the appeal of this case until after the expiration of ERA on June 30, 1982, at which time the Supreme
Court ruled that the case was moot and no longer needed to be decided.
Despite the Time Extension, the ERA opponents held a big dinner in Washington, D.C., called "The End of an ERA," on March
22, 1979, to celebrate the constitutional termination of ERA. This was the end of the seven-year time limit set by Congress
when ERA was sent to the states in 1972.
As a practical matter, March 22, 1979 was not the end of ERA - since the unfair Time Extension forced three more years of
emotional battles in many state legislatures. But March 22, 1979 was truly "the end of an era" - the end of the era of
conservative defeats.
Up until that time, conservatives had lost so many battles that they had a defeatist attitude. The proclaimed victory over ERA
showed the conservatives and pro-family activists that they could win an important political battle - despite overwhelming odds
and the opposition of nearly all the media and most elected officials at every level of government. Since 1979, the conservatives
and pro-family movement have had a tremendous series of victories, highlighted by the election and landslide reelection of
Ronald Reagan.
On June 30, 1982, the ERA opponents held a second "burial" of the ERA at a large dinner in Washington called "The Rainbow
Dinner." On that day, no one could deny the fact that the proposed federal ERA was truly dead.
ERA Tries in Congress Again
In January 1983, the ERA advocates re-introduced ERA into the U.S. Congress with the full support of Speaker Tip O'Neill.
After a year of intensive lobbying, ERA came to a vote in the House on November 15, 1983, and 147 Congressmen voted no.
That put ERAers six votes short of the two-thirds majority required to send ERA out to the states again.
What killed ERA in 1983 was the House Judiciary "markup" on November 9, an all-day session with 5-1/2 hours of calm and
rational debate. No television lights were on, so no one was posturing for the media. Nine amendments to ERA were offered in
that Committee. Although all nine were defeated, each of the nine amendments received 12 or 13 "yes" votes. It is well known
in Washington that the Judiciary Committee is so liberal that any motion which gets a dozen "yes" votes there is sure to win on
the House floor.
Rep. James Sensenbrenner's (R-WI) amendment would have made ERA abortion-neutral. On October 20, 1983, the
Congressional Research Service had issued "a legal analysis of the potential impact of ERA on abortion" and concluded on
page 61 that "ERA would reach abortion and abortion-funding situations." That would mean that ERA would invalidate the
Hyde Amendment and mandate taxpayer-funding of abortions. The ERA advocates could not deny this effect, but they were
unwilling to separate the ERA and abortion questions by voting for the Sensenbrenner amendment.
Rep. Sam Hall's (D-TX) amendment would have prevented ERA from drafting women. The opponents of the Hall amendment
admitted that ERA would draft women just like men, but argued that women want this kind of equality.
Rep. Clay Shaw (R-FL) offered an amendment to prevent ERA from requiring women to serve in military combat just like
men. Rep. Patricia Schroeder (D-CO) argued that women deserve their career opportunities to serve in combat just like men.
Rep. George Gekas (R-PA) offered an amendment to prevent ERA from wiping out veterans' preference. At the House
Judiciary Committee hearing on September 14, 1983, League of Women Voters president Dorothy S. Ridings had testified that
ERA would outlaw veterans' preference by overturning the 1979 Supreme Court case of Massachusetts v. Feeney. Both the
Veterans of Foreign Wars and the American Legion objected to this effect.
Rep. Harold Sawyer (R-MI) offered an amendment to prevent ERA from wiping out the ability of insurance companies to
charge lower insurance rates to women for automobile accident and life insurance policies. The ERA advocates admit that one
of their goals is to force all insurance to be "unisex" regardless of accident and actuarial tables.
Rep. Tom Kindness (R-OH) offered an amendment to put the seven-year time limit on ERA in the text of the Amendment
instead of in the preamble (in order to prevent another constitutional dispute about a time extension). Then he offered another
amendment to give the states concurrent enforcement power, as well as the Federal Government. The ERA advocates opposed
both purposes.
The biggest surprise of the day was the amendment offered by Rep. Dan Lungren (R-CA) to exempt religious schools from the
effect of ERA. This amendment was made necessary by the 1983 Supreme Court decision in Bob Jones University v. United
States, which ruled that the Internal Revenue Service can withdraw tax exemption from any school operated by a church which
has any regulation contrary to public policy.
If ERA means anything at all, it means a "public policy" against sex discrimination. So, if the ruling of the Bob Jones case were
applied under ERA, the result almost certainly would be that all religious schools run by churches and synagogues that do not
ordain women, or which treat men and women differently, would lose their tax exemption. Thus, ERA would put at risk the tax
exemption of thousands of Catholic, Protestant, and Jewish schools all over the country. Most Congressmen are not willing to
tell their constituents that religious schools will lose their tax exemption.
At the end of the day, the diehard ERAers went crying to Speaker O'Neill, imploring him to devise a way to prevent these nine
amendments from being offered on the House floor.
So, Speaker O'Neill brought ERA to a vote of the House on November 15,1983 under a procedure called "suspension of the
rules." This meant that no amendments of any kind could be offered. In a dramatic roll call, ERA lost by a six-vote margin.
This vote made it clear that Congress will never pass ERA. Politically, it is as dead as the Prohibition Amendment.
The Effort for State ERAs
At the same time that the ERA advocates were trying again in Congress in 1983, they sought to rebuild their momentum
through a series of state ERAS.
In Wisconsin, the state legislators tried to assist this project by adding to the text of the proposed state ERA some additional
language that would prevent it from being used to mandate abortion funding or gay rights. To the amazement of those
legislators, the leading ERA advocates (including the National Organization for Women, the League of Women Voters, and the
American Civil Liberties Union) publicly opposed ERA in this form, and so the Wisconsin ERA died. This experience makes it
clear that the ERA advocates want ERA primarily, and perhaps solely, to achieve abortion funding and gay rights.
A similar scenario took place in Minnesota. After a state ERA was proposed in the spring of 1983, a committee added a section
to make it abortion-neutral. The next day the ERA sponsor withdrew ERA. The ERA advocates obviously do not want ERA
unless it includes their hidden agenda.
ERA advocates then chose Maine as the most advantageous state to "start the ball rolling" for ERA again. They had the full
support of the media, all public officials of both parties, and a cooperative legislature which passed ERA without the
encumbrance of any additional language. The referendum to add a state ERA to Maine's constitution took place on November
6, 1984. When the votes were counted, 64 percent of the people had voted no. ERA advocates tried again with a referendum for
a state ERA in Vermont in 1986 and a second referendum in Iowa in 1992, but they lost both times.