Search the Community

As I understand, the Utah Constitution Article IV, Section 1 includes an equal rights clause pertaining to males and females. “The rights of citizens of the State of Utah to vote and hold office shall not be denied or abridged on account of sex. Both male and female citizens of this State shall enjoy equally all civil, political and religious rights and privileges.” The proposed Equal Rights Amendment states, “Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.” Utah’s Constitution clause appears to be more specific than the text of the proposed ERA. Is this difference in specificity what makes the proposed ERA so dangerous in its opponents' view? The matter is unclear to me because both include the phrases “shall not be denied or abridged” and “on account of sex.” An obvious difference is that Utah’s Constitution is binding only in Utah; and the proposed U.S. amendment is binding upon all states—is it simply a states’ rights issue? What’s so significant about saying that male and female citizens shall enjoy (civil, political, and religious) rights and privileges equally and saying saying equality of rights under the law? If proponents would reword the ERA to mirror Utah’s clause would it motivate opponents to agree with it?