re: #17 lawhawk

Looks like they’re referring to the version that has been under consideration for 80+ years.

As originally enacted by Congress, it had a ratification deadline date, which expired before 38 states could approve (35 did). It’s since been reintroduced in Congress at each session, but Congress would have to first enact it as law before it can go to the states for ratification. Under this version, there would be no ratification date limitation - it would remain awaiting ratification until it got to 38.

Well, that’s what I was wondering about. I know there has been a bit of a movement to try and ratify the original ERA from 1972, hence my legal concerns over trying that.

As for going with the same language as the 1972 version, I just cannot sign on. If something is going to be an Equal Rights Amendment, it needs to be a broad one. Granted, I know that has no chance right now for several reason. The 1972 ERA has had enough trouble as it is. Imagine the difficulty with an ERA that would include protections for sexual orientation, which would without question result in any bans on same-sex marriage being ruled unconstitutional.