ncc

This user has not filled out their profile yet.

Do you approve or reject the Equal Rights amendment proposed above? (Poll Closed)

  • Approve
    43%
    144 votes

     
  • Reject
    57%
    188 votes

     

Posted 7 months ago.

9 Comments

  • joehgrier - 7 months ago

    in an amendment so encompassing like this one of necesssity would the basic definiition of a "right" Actually we have very few rights ,namely, though required by our very existence like food, water, life

  • Thomas Adkins - 7 months ago

    The 14th and 19th amendments already cover this, but perhaps it would be best to make this issue perfectly clear. The wording could be better, but I would support this.

  • Zachary Mecier - 7 months ago

    The 5th and 14th amendments already cover this. It is redundant. All people are already guaranteed "Equal protection under the law"

  • Men and Women are different and that's OK - 7 months ago

    So does this mean that men can now use the ladies room, women must register for selective service, boys can join the Girl Scouts, girls can try out for MLB, NBA, NFL, etc...?

  • Jeff - 7 months ago

    Courts have already ruled on "Equal Rights" those that trying to play the "discrimination" card want to be equal as the pigs were in George Orwell's Animal Farm All animals are created equal. it just that Pigs are More Equal. All men are created equal, has been established to mean all persons. if you are so full of self hatred that you can't stand the simple language uses of times past then you need more help then a new Amendment to the Constitution. Last word Lets limit all "American Right" to American Citizens.

  • Ted Stanfield - 7 months ago

    The proposed amendment is redundant. It implies that different genders are somehow not human and thus require special protection. It implies that there are more than two genders, which is incorrect - intersex and transgenderism are not different genders, but rather congenital defects which are medically remediable. It is an attempt to provide a Constitutional solution to a defect or disability, transgenderism, that affects a vanishingly small segment of the population already protected by the constitution by virtue of their status as human beings. The proposed amendment would encourage Constitutional remedies for the injustices that fate or genetics or biology has wrought on individuals with other genetic or congenital defects, such as dwarfism, congenital deafness, cerebral palsy seeking special protected status for each. The proposed amendment is unnecessary, counterproductive and dangerous.

  • prism - 7 months ago

    All Men Are Created Equal!KISS!

  • Equal rights are already guaranteed - 7 months ago

    Sexual deviants , child molesters, transvestites, and other assorted human garbage don't deserve " special " rights !

  • Brian Foulkrod - 7 months ago

    Why not "All Americans shall be accorded equal rights in every endeavor"? Amendments that single out a single group gets attacked. And it means more battles. Any who argue equal rights for all Americans (with no sub definition of any kind) are also easier to discredit. Change it to simply be for equal rights for all, and I'll change my negative view. The equal rights amendment of the 70's hit the wall of chauvinism, and will again. You'd have to do a separate one for gays that would hit the wall of gay bashers. And on, and on and on. The simple argument against somebody trying to stop a simply worded suggestion that all Americans are equal would be arguing against the Declaration of Independence, and Lincoln's Gettysburg address.

Leave a Comment

0/4000 chars


Submit Comment