Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site pixadv.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!hou3c!hocda!houxm!ihnp4!zehntel!hplabs!hao!seismo!harvard!wjh12!pixel!pixadv!cmm
From: cmm@pixadv.UUCP (cmm)
Newsgroups: net.women,net.politics
Subject: Re: ERA
Message-ID: <4@pixadv.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 24-Sep-84 14:20:09 EDT
Article-I.D.: pixadv.4
Posted: Mon Sep 24 14:20:09 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 27-Sep-84 04:19:20 EDT
References: <319@hou2g.UUCP> <349@ihu1h.UUCP>
Organization: Pixel Computer Inc., Wilmington, Mass.
Lines: 32

>I, for one, fit that category. I think the ERA is vague at best and does
>not do the need justice. Too many "what ifs" arise from a vague document
>especially one which will be used in court. Being a bit more specific and
>to the point will do the ERA and the women it should protect the most good.
>					Jay Mitchell
>					ihnp4!ihu1h!ajaym

I disagree.  The constitution and bill of rights are vague, and therein lies
their strength and longevity.  By leaving the law imprecise, it can be 
interpretted based on the values and conditions of the future.  Of course, I
am favoring vagueness that maximizes the legal basis for challenging
discriminatory behavior.  Even though the current social context may be so
restrictive as to define women as being only slightly equal, over time, with
the increased oppurtunities derived from even that small decrease in
discrimination pressure, women will have more impact, become more visible, and
eventually everyone will "of course" know that women are totally equal.  Then,
the most sweeping interpretation of the ERA will be possible, and it will also
be least needed.

E-veryone's
R-ights
A-crue



-- 
____________________________________________________________________________
cmm   (carl m mikkelsen)    | (617)657-8720x2310
Pixel Computer Incorporated |
260 Fordham Road	    | {allegra|ihnp4|cbosgd|ima|genrad|amd|harvard}\
Wilmington, Ma.  01887	    |     !wjh12!pixel!pixadv!cmm