Differences Between the Utah Constitution Clause and the Proposed ERA

[Harrison]

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? 

 

Edited December 4, 2019 by Harrison

[anatess2]

40 minutes ago, Harrison said:

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 it’s 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? 

 

The BIG significance is that the ERA change does not work towards equality (because it is already addressed in Utah's Constitution) - it works towards SIMILARITY - removing the differentiation between Men and Women. 

[Guest Mores]

1 hour ago, Harrison said:

“The rights of citizens of the State of Utah to vote and hold office shall not be denied or abridged on account of sex.

1 hour ago, Harrison said:

“Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.”

See bolded.  Those few words speak volumes.  And Utah adds the next phrase.

1 hour ago, Harrison said:

Both male and female citizens of this State shall enjoy equally all civil, political and religious rights and privileges.”

When it was a big thing back in the 70s/80s the primary argument was that the ERA was so generic in its wording that it could easily be taken to mean that men could use women's bathrooms and vice versa and similar sex-specific "rights".  But it looks like they've already achieved that with the Trans movement.

[Harrison]

29 minutes ago, Mores said:

See bolded.  Those few words speak volumes.  And Utah adds the next phrase.

So, are you saying that Utah's clause would have prohibited denying or abridging (on account of sex) *only* the rights to vote and hold office, and therefore Utah included all civil, political and religious rights... almost so as if they thought, "well, alright let's include all other rights, too"? 

 

 

[Guest Mores]

1 minute ago, Harrison said:

So, are you saying that Utah's clause would have prohibited denying or abridging (on account of sex) *only* the rights to vote and hold office, and therefore Utah included all civil, political and religious rights... almost so as if they thought, "well, alright let's include all other rights, too"? 

Nope.  That's not what I said at all.  To understand what I said, please read this link.

[Harrison]

1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

The BIG significance is that the ERA change does not work towards equality (because it is already addressed in Utah's Constitution) - it works towards SIMILARITY - removing the differentiation between Men and Women. 

What do you mean by similar and by differentiation?

[Harrison]

1 minute ago, Mores said:

Nope.  That's not what I said at all.  To understand what I said, please read this link.

Thanks, I was only asking as an attempt to understand you. The link takes me back to your first post. I've re-read it multiple times. But it still isn't clear to me. 

[mordorbund]

35 minutes ago, Mores said:

When it was a big thing back in the 70s/80s the primary argument was that the ERA was so generic in its wording that it could easily be taken to mean that men could use women's bathrooms and vice versa and similar sex-specific "rights".  But it looks like they've already achieved that with the Trans movement.

For the Church's official back then, see here. For the legal arguments being made against it see the links here.

[anatess2]

1 hour ago, Harrison said:

What do you mean by similar and by differentiation?

Removing the distinction between Men and Women in the equality clause gives you...