Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: $Revision: 1.6.2.16 $; site uiucdcs.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!hou3c!hocda!houxm!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!kaufman From: kaufman@uiucdcs.UUCP Newsgroups: net.flame Subject: Re: Defeating Reagan matters most - (nf) Message-ID: <36200156@uiucdcs.UUCP> Date: Fri, 28-Sep-84 12:54:00 EDT Article-I.D.: uiucdcs.36200156 Posted: Fri Sep 28 12:54:00 1984 Date-Received: Sun, 30-Sep-84 00:55:41 EDT References: <214@boulder.UUCP> Lines: 21 Nf-ID: #R:boulder:-21400:uiucdcs:36200156:000:897 Nf-From: uiucdcs!kaufman Sep 28 11:54:00 1984 #R:boulder:-21400:uiucdcs:36200156:000:897 uiucdcs!kaufman Sep 28 11:54:00 1984 /* Written 6:10 pm Sep 27, 1984 by jsg@rlgvax in uiucdcs:net.flame */ ERA is a dead issue. It was proposed as a constitutional amendment and not ratified, even though it was given more than ample time. While the president may not support the ERA, I would say he supports women about as much as the next guy. ------- What kind of attitude is that, not supporting ERA because it wasn't ratified? If there was a proposed constitutional amendment banning mass-murder (silly example, I know) which wasn't ratified, would that make the support of (a) continued efforts to put it into the Constitution and (b) the principle itself not worthwhile? I think not, if you believed in the validity of (a) and (b) previously. Moral issues are never dead! One's feelings about ERA should be what they would be, were it still up for ratification. Ken Kaufman (uiucdcs!kaufman)