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)