Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site rlgvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!rlgvax!jsg
From: jsg@rlgvax.UUCP (Jeff Grunewald)
Newsgroups: net.flame
Subject: ERA Support?
Message-ID: <161@rlgvax.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 2-Oct-84 07:08:10 EDT
Article-I.D.: rlgvax.161
Posted: Tue Oct  2 07:08:10 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 4-Oct-84 04:49:08 EDT
References: <214@boulder.UUCP> <36200156@uiucdcs.UUCP>
Organization: CCI Office Systems Group, Reston, VA
Lines: 28

> ....  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)

You're right, Ken, silly example.  If you remember correctly, I
said that ERA is a dead issue, I said nothing about the priciples
involved.

ERA stands for Equal Rights Ammendment, folks.  A person can
support equal rights for all people, without neccessarily being
in favor of the ERA.  Some people feel that you can not legislate
equality, morality, etc. which is what the ERA would do.  There
are plenty of laws on the books governing equlaity and descrimination,
all we have to do now, is enforce them.


	Jeff Grunewald
	[seismo,ihnp4,allegra]!rlgvax!jsg

---------------------
The opinions stated above are my own and not neccessarily
those of my employer, Computer Consoles Inc., or my associates.