United States Constitution; ratifies Equal Rights Amendment. (SJ284)
Introduced By
Sen. Glen Sturtevant (R-Midlothian) with support from 27 copatrons, whose average partisan position is:
Those copatrons are Del. Hala Ayala (D-Woodbridge), Del. Jennifer Carroll Foy (D-Woodbridge), Del. Patrick Hope (D-Arlington), Del. Mike Mullin (D-Newport News), Del. Sam Rasoul (D-Roanoke), Del. Luke Torian (D-Woodbridge), Sen. George Barker (D-Alexandria), Sen. Roz Dance (D-Petersburg), Sen. Creigh Deeds (D-Bath), Sen. Bill DeSteph (R-Virginia Beach), Sen. Siobhan Dunnavant (R-Henrico), Sen. Adam Ebbin (D-Alexandria), Sen. John Edwards (D-Roanoke), Sen. Barbara Favola (D-Arlington), Sen. Emmett Hanger (R-Mount Solon), Sen. Janet Howell (D-Reston), Sen. Lynwood Lewis (D-Accomac), Sen. Mamie Locke (D-Hampton), Sen. Louise Lucas (D-Portsmouth), Sen. Dave Marsden (D-Burke), Sen. Monty Mason (D-Williamsburg), Sen. Jennifer McClellan (D-Richmond), Sen. Jeremy McPike (D-Dale City), Sen. Chap Petersen (D-Fairfax), Sen. Dick Saslaw (D-Springfield), Sen. Lionell Spruill (D-Chesapeake), Sen. Scott Surovell (D-Mount Vernon)
Progress
✓ |
Introduced |
✗ |
Passed Committee |
☐ |
Passed House |
✓ |
Passed Senate |
Description
Constitution of the United States; Equal Rights Amendment. Ratifies the Equal Rights Amendment to the Constitution of the United States that was proposed by Congress in 1972. The joint resolution advocates the position that the 1972 Equal Rights Amendment remains viable and may be ratified notwithstanding the expiration of the 10-year ratification period set out in the resolving clause, as amended, in the proposal adopted by Congress. Read the Bill »
Outcome
History
| Date | Action |
|---|---|
| 01/07/2019 | Prefiled and ordered printed; offered 01/09/19 19100228D |
| 01/07/2019 | Referred to Committee on Privileges and Elections |
| 01/09/2019 | Incorporates SJ270 |
| 01/09/2019 | Reported from Privileges and Elections with substitute (8-Y 6-N) (see vote tally) |
| 01/09/2019 | Committee substitute printed 19104385D-S1 |
| 01/09/2019 | Incorporates SJ270 (Saslaw) |
| 01/11/2019 | Read first time |
| 01/14/2019 | Read second time |
| 01/14/2019 | Reading of substitute waived |
| 01/14/2019 | Committee substitute agreed to 19104385D-S1 |
| 01/14/2019 | Engrossed by Senate - committee substitute SJ284S1 |
| 01/15/2019 | Read third time |
| 01/15/2019 | Agreed to by Senate (26-Y 14-N) (see vote tally) |
| 01/18/2019 | Placed on Calendar |
| 01/18/2019 | Referred to Committee on Privileges and Elections |
| 01/21/2019 | Assigned P & E sub: Subcommittee #1 |
| 01/22/2019 | Subcommittee recommends passing by indefinitely (4-Y 2-N) |
| 02/05/2019 | Left in Privileges and Elections |
Comments
Unless there is some legal reason why the wording cannot be changed from what other states have passed, this bill MUST be amended to REFLECT 2019 by adding to the definition of "sex", sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression. Why go through all this effort to get a bill passed reflecting 1972 standards. Times have changed! Change the language.
The 1972 Equal Rights Amendment died after close examination by all states of the union for a period of ten years. The ERA died because it was a very bad amendment designed to twist American society and law into a perversion endangering the family and Biblical morality in the United States of America. Any legislator who supports the ERA in 2019 deserves to be removed from office with all swiftness.
Yes, "equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex" definitely sounds like a perversion and twisting of American society and undermining Biblical morality and whatever that is definitely a real thing that is not just your weirdo misogynistic fever-dream.
The wording of a constitutional amendment cannot be changed once the amendment passes Congress and is sent to the states. I too wish the drafters of the bill had used the terminology we now favor, but I would rather see the ERA pass now than begin the process anew. It has taken my lifetime already - how many more genERAtions must live without the equal protection of the law?
The principle result of adopting the Equal Rights Amendment will be that discrimination based on sex, including gender identity and expression and sexual orientation, when taken to court will be judged by the same high standard as discrimination based on race or religion. Right now it is very hard to win a case of discrimination based on sex because the standard is lower.
As to why it did not pass forty years ago, compare the states that failed to ratify the 19th amendment with those that did not ratify the ERA, and you will be looking at a map of the Confederacy. It is time for the old South to understand that granting rights to other people does not diminish anyone's rights. Human rights are not a zero sum game.
I believe the amendment remains viable in spite of the time limit placed by Congress. Even if that position is not eventually upheld by the courts, VA's ratification will send a strong message for equality for all and may help push Congress to propose a new Equal Rights Amendment. Mr. Wyman, crawl back under your rock and go on misreading your Bible. The only perversion is your twisted view on equality.