Eagle Forum of Sacramento

The California State Supreme Court, lead by Chief Justice Ron George, repealed California law stating that marriage is between a man and a woman as set forth by both the Legislature and the people through the passage of Prop. 22.< ?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

The Court’s ruling is breathtaking for its overreach. Using words like “dignity” (23 times), “liberty” (34 times), and “privacy” (37 times) to describe same-sex partners full right to marry, the Court overturned millennia of experience and more than 150 years of state law precedence. (For the ruling, see: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S147999.PDF.) In so doing, their strained justifications threw the door wide open to polygamous and incestuous marriage. How? By using the flawed logic that marriage is none of the government’s business insofar as marriage should be afforded to all to afford people privacy, liberty and dignity. The same weak logic can be applied to the “plural” marriages of the Fundamentalist LDS cult in Texas or to a devout Muslim citizen of Saudi Arabia who wishes to emigrate to California with his four wives. In fact, due to the equal protection provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment, both a Fundamentalist LDS cult member and a devout Muslim could argue that their First Amendment right to free exercise of religion are being violated by any restriction on polygamy “after all, their ‘dignity,’ ‘liberty,’ and ‘privacy’” would be violated otherwise.

Allow me to close my comments with two political observations.

First, the Court’s sweeping ruling is likely to ignite support for the California Marriage Protection Act, a constitutional ballot initiative that would overrule the Court’s decision that should appear on the ballot this November. (See: http://www.protectmarriage.com/.) This, in turn, may have an impact on other California races, from the President on down to the legislative races. In this, liberal Democrats should be wary of what they wish for!

Second, I find it ironic to see commentators describe the Court as conservative since the majority of its members were appointed by Republican governors. Lest we forget, there is a simmering divide in the Republican Party over whether the label “conservative” includes social policy, or only tax and fiscal policy. Chief Judge Ron George was first appointed by Gov. Deukmejian, then appointed chief justice by Gov. Wilson. Justice Ron George has had a long history of very liberal rulings long before the same sex marriage ruling. In fact, back in 1997, I drafted a resolution opposing Justice Ron George for his election in 1998. It passed the Orange County Republican Party Central Committee, then stalled when it hit the California Republican Party. It was argued that Justice George was a Republican, so the Party should support him. The reason for my opposition to Judge George in 1997 was his ruling in American Academy of Pediatrics v. Lungren which overturned a California law requiring parental consent for minors to obtain abortions (“privacy” of the minor girl was the reason cited in that case too). Other bad rulings already made by Justice George at that time included: a pro-criminal decision in People v. Superior Court (Romero), three anti-private property rights decisions in Ehrlich v. Culver City, Smith v. Fair Employment and Housing Commission, and Alcarez v. Vece, a pro-public union decision in Loder v. City of Glendale, and an anti-business decision in Stevenson v. Superior Court.

Of course, there is the remote possibility that Judge George’s terrible ruling really is a Republican plot in the vast right wing conspiracy to boost conservative turnout so much that McCain wins California and is elected President in 2008, stranger things have happened in the world of politics.

Just for old time’s sake, I’ve reprinted below the 1997 resolution that passed the OC Republican Party Central Committee only to fail at the California Republican Party convention. It was authored by me and my long time friend, Fred Whitaker, a respected Orange attorney who should someday be on the California Supreme Court.

*************************************
A Resolution Calling to Oppose Confirmation of Certain California Supreme Court Judges.

WHEREAS, The California Supreme Court overturned a 1987 law requiring parental consent for minors to obtain abortions.

WHEREAS, The law in question was a carefully written to meet the U.S. Supreme Court’s strict guidelines for valid parental consent legislation.

WHEREAS, Chief Justice George, Justice Chin, Justice Kennard, and Justice Werdegar ruled that the parental consent law violated the “autonomy privacy rights” of minor girls. Further that a minor girl’s uninhibited right to an abortion “is so central to the preservation of her ability to define and adhere to her ultimate values regarding the meaning of human existence and life, “we conclude that a minor who is pregnant has a protected privacy interest under the California Constitution in making the decision whether to continue or to terminate her own pregnancy.” Yet, almost a year earlier, the court ruled that the same law was valid.

WHEREAS, Lower courts in California blocked enforcement soon after its passage in 1987, claiming that girls as young as 13 or 14 possess the necessary maturity and rationality to make informed decisions about abortion. Yet, under the law do not have maturity and rationality for ear piercing and medical treatment without parental consent until age 18.

WHEREAS, These arguments, aside from ignoring common sense and human experience, are irrelevant to the issue of constitutionality which is supposed to be the only reason for the court to overturn legislation.

WHEREAS, A parent’s right to direct his or her child’s upbringing is among the most basic of human rights.

WHEREAS, Justice Mosk, in dissent, pointed out that according to the ruling, the privacy rights for minor girls would reach to those who were as young as nine years old.

WHEREAS, Justice Brown, noted in her dissent that the California Constitution protects “a parent’s interest in directing his child’s upbringing” and that the “liberty interest of a minor is qualitatively different than that of an adult, being subject both to reasonable regulation by the state and to an extent not permissible with adults.”

WHEREAS, It is illogical and inconsistent to require that minors obtain parental permission for aspirin at school, tattoos, tanning salons, body piercing, drivers’ licenses, etc., but not for a dangerous and invasive procedure like an abortion.

WHEREAS, This Court’s judicial activism is reminiscent of the Rose Bird Court when, the rule of law in California succumbed to the whim of four justices occupying seats on its highest court.

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the California Republican Party joins the Republican Party of Orange County in calling upon itself and all those of good will to actively oppose confirmation for any California State Supreme Court Justice who voted to overturn the 1987 law requiring parental consent for minor girls to obtain abortions.

Cosponsors:
Fred M. Whitaker, Member
Chuck DeVore, Member

Chuck DeVore
California State Assemblyman, 70th District
www.ChuckDeVore.com

April 30, 2008 by Phyllis Schlafly
It’s a good thing that British Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s U.S. visit was upstaged by the dramatic reception Americans gave Pope Benedict XVI. Brown might have been booed if he hadn’t delivered what aides called his “signature” speech within the cloistered walls of Harvard’s Kennedy Center. Brown’s tedious, hour-long speech impudently demanded that we issue a “Declaration of Interdependence” in order to submit to global governance. That’s another way of calling on us to repeal our Declaration of Independence. No thanks for the advice, Mr. Brown. Brave Americans rose up and rejected Britain’s royalist rule in 1776, and we’ve gotten along mighty well without transatlantic interference in our government for more than two centuries. We certainly don’t want to reinstate any foreign supervision today. The redundancy of Brown’s outrageous semantics was
oppressive. His speech used the word global 69 times, globalization 7 times, and interdependence 13 times. He referred to Kennedy 19 times, lavishing fulsome praise on John F. (“his influence abides everywhere”), Robert (he sent forth “ripples of hope”), and Ted (“one of the greatest Senators in more than two centuries”). Brown rejected the traditional concept of national sovereignty, which means an independent nation not subservient to any outside control, telling us to replace it with “responsible sovereignty,” which he defined as accepting what he calls our global “obligations.” Hold on to your pocketbook. Brown admitted that his “main argument” is that we must accept “new global rules,” “new global institutions,” and “global networks.” Brown’s global rules include massive U.S. cash handouts and opening U.S. borders to the world. Brown’s use of well-known American political phrases was tacky. He tried to morph FDR’s New Deal into a “New Global Deal,” and JFK’s New
Frontier into “the New Frontier is that there is no frontier.” Brown even slipped in an attempt at thought control: “Americans must learn to think inter-continentally.” He declaimed, “We are all internationalists now.” Using the rhetorical device of inevitability, Brown warned us that his vision of the globalist future is “irreversible transformation.” He wants to “transcend states” and “transcend borders” as he builds the “architecture of a global society.” Brown peddled the nonsense that the peoples of the world “subscribe to similar ideals.” He tried to tell us that all religions (Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs and Buddhists) have “common values” and “similar ideals.” No, they certainly do not. Brown wants to increase the power of the United Nations to become the source of “an international stand-by capacity of trained civilian experts, ready to go anywhere at any time,” and even be able to exercise “military force.” Americans do not intend to cede
such authority to the corrupt UN. The silliest part of Brown’s ponderous speech was his claim that “a global society” is “advancing democracy widely across the world.” In fact, he doesn’t even practice democracy in his own country. Brown refused to allow the British people to vote on whether or not they want to accept the European Union (EU) constitution. He acquiesced in the plot of the constitution’s author, Valery Giscard d’Estaing, to put the EU constitution into effect by calling it a treaty so it did not have to be voted on by the people. Brown was chicken about the treaty subterfuge and did not permit a photographic record of his participation. He sent his Foreign Secretary to perform the official treaty signing in front of cameras. The EU constitution, now called the Treaty of Lisbon, requires all signers to surrender their sovereignty and democracy to unelected bureaucrats in Brussels and judges in Strasbourg. The EU constitution takes away England’s right
to pass its own laws, forces England to surrender more than 60 UK vetoes of EU decisions, and gives the EU bureaucracy and tribunals total control over England’s immigration policy. Instead of a self-governing nation whose democratic system was developed over centuries, England is now ruled by what Margaret Thatcher called “the paper pushers in Brussels.” Brown made his globalism speech emphatic by repeatedly invoking the words “New World Order.” The New World Order Brown tries to con the United States into accepting would mean taxing Americans for foreign handouts so immense they would make the Marshall Plan look puny, global warming rules to drastically reduce our standard of living, and putting American workers in a common labor pool with the world’s billions who subsist on less than $2 a day. Gordon Brown invited us to march forward to globalism “where there is no path.” He’s correct that there is no path on which we can expect globalism to lead us to a better
world; in fact every path toward global government is a surrender of our liberty and our prosperity. Gordon Brown should go back home and study up on how Americans refused to accept orders from King George III.

March 31, 2008
Dr. Ignatius Piazza
Founder and Director

http://www.frontsight.com/free-gun.asp

Get Civilized! Get a Gun and Training…

As the Supreme Court hears arguments for and against the
Washington DC Gun Ban, I offer you another stellar example
of a letter (written by a Marine) that places the proper
perspective on what a gun means to a civilized society.

Read this eloquent and profound letter and pay close
attention to the last paragraph of the letter…

If you want be a true, civilized individual, then get your
gun and training at: http://www.frontsight.com/free-gun.asp

The Gun is Civilization by Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another:
reason and force. If you want me to do something for you,
you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or
force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every
human interaction falls into one of those two categories,
without exception. Reason or force, that’s it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively
interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid
method of social interaction, and the only thing that
removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as
paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You
have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have
a way to negate your threat or employment of force.

The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound
woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year
old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang
banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a
carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes
the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers
between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the
source of bad force equations. These are the people who
think that we’d be more civilized if all guns were removed
from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a
[armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only
true if the mugger’s potential victims are mostly disarmed
either by choice or by legislative fiat–it has no
validity when most of a mugger’s potential marks are
armed.

People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic
rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that’s
the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even
an armed one, can only make a successful living in a
society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there’s the argument that the gun makes
confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in
injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways.
Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the
physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury
on the loser.

People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don’t
constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people
take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at
worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier
works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the
stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.

The gun is the only weapon that’s as lethal in the hands
of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight
lifter. It simply wouldn’t work as well as a force
equalizer if it wasn’t both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for
a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun
at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded.
I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because it
enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of
those who would interact with me through reason, only the
actions of those who would do so by force. It removes
force from the equation…and that’s why carrying a gun is
a civilized act.

By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)

Alabama 1901, Preamble We the people of the State of Alabama , invoking t he favor and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish the following Constitution.

Alaska 1956, Preamble We, the people of Alaska , grateful to God and to those who founded our nation and pioneered this great land.

Arizona 1911, Preamble We, the people of the State of Arizona , grateful to Almighty God for our liberties, do ordain this Constitution…

Arkansas 1874, Preamble We, the people of the State of Arkansas , grateful to Almighty God for the privilege of choosing our own form of government…

California 1879, Preamble We, the People of the State of California , grateful to Almighty God for our freedom…

Colorado 1876, Preamble We, the people of Colorado , with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of Universe…

Connecticut 1818, Preamble. The People of Connecticut, acknow ledging with gratitude the good Providence of God in permitting them to enjoy.

Delaware 1897, Preamble Through Divine Goodness all men have, by nature, the rights of worshipping and serving their Creator according to the dictates of their consciences.

Florida 1885, Preamble We, the people of the State of Florida , grateful to Almighty God for our constitutional liberty, establish this Constitution…

Georgia 1777, Preamble We, the people of Georgia , relying upon protection and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish this Constitution…

Hawaii 1959, Preamble We , the people of Hawaii , Grateful for Divine Guidance … Establish this Constitution.

Idaho 1889, Preamble We, the people of the State of Idaho , grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings.

Illinois 1870, Preamble We, the people of the State of Illinois, grateful to Almighty God for the civil , political and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy and looking to Him for a blessing on our endeavors.

Indiana 1851, Preamble We, the People of the State of Indiana , grateful to Almighty God for the free exercise of the right to choose our form of government.

Iowa 1857, Preamble We, the People of the State of Iowa , grateful to the Supreme Being for the blessings hitherto enj oyed, and feeling our dependence on Him for a continuation of these blessings, establish this Constitution.

Kansas 1859, Preamble We, the people of Kansas , grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious privileges establish this Constitution.
< FONT face=Georgia color=black size=5>
Kentucky 1891, Preamble. We, the people of the Commonwealth are grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberties…

Louisiana 1921, Preamble We, the people of the State of Louisiana , grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberties we enjoy.

Maine 1820, Preamble We the People of Maine acknowledging with grateful hearts the goodness of the Sovereign Ruler of the Universe in affording us an opportunity .. And imploring His aid and direction.

Maryland 1776, Preamble We, the people of the state of Maryland , grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious liberty…

Massachusetts 1780, Preamble We…the people of Massachusetts, acknowledging with grateful hearts, the goodness of the Great Legislator of the Universe In the course of H is Providence, an opportunity and devoutly imploring His direction .

Michigan 1908, Preamble le. We, the people of the State of Michigan , grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of freedom establish this Constitution.

Minnesota, 1857, Preamble We, the people of the State of Minnesota, grateful to God for our civil and religious liberty, and desiring to perpetuate its blessings:

Mississippi 1890, Preamble We, the people of Mississippi in convention assembled, grateful to Al mighty God, and invoking His blessing on our work.

Missouri 1845, Preamble We, the people of Missouri , with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of the Universe, and grateful for His goodness . Establish this Constitution…

Montana 1889, Preamble. We, the people of Montana , grateful to Almighty God for theblessings of liberty establish this Constitution .

Nebraska 1875, Preamble We, the people, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom . Establish this Constitution.

Nevada 1864, Preamble We the people of the State of Ne vada , grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, establish this Constitution…

New Hampshire 1792, Part I. Art. I. Sec. V Every individual has a natural and unalienable right to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience.

New Jersey 1844, Preamble We, the people of the State of New Jersey, grateful to Almighty God for civil and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing on our endeavors.

New Mexico 1911, Preamble We, the People of New Mexico, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of liberty..

New York 1846, Preamble We, the people of the State of New York , grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure its blessings.

North Carolina 1868, Preamble We the people of the State of North Carolina, grateful to Almighty God, the Sovereign Ruler of Nations, for our civil, political, and religious liberties, and acknowledging our dependence upon Him for the continuance of those…

North Dakota 1889, Preamble We , the people of North Dakota , grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, do ordain…

Ohio 1852, Preamble We the people of the state of Ohio , grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings and to promote our common…

Oklahoma 1907, Preamble Invoking the guidance of Almighty God, in order to secure and perpetuate the blessings of liberty, e stablish this

Oregon 1857, Bill of Rights, Article I Section 2. All men shall be secure in the Natural right, to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their consciences

Pennsylvania 1776, Preamble We, the people of Pennsylvania , grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, and humbly invoking His guidance…

Rhode Island 1842, Preamble. We the People of the State of Rhode Island grateful to Almighty God for the civil and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing…

South Carolina, 1778, Preamble We, the people of he State of South Carolina gratefu l to God for our liberties, do ordain and establish this Constitution.

South Dakota 1889, Preamble We, the people of South Dakota , grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious liberties .

Tennessee 1796, Art. XI.III. That all men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their conscience…

Texas 1845, Preamble We the People of the Republic of Texas , acknowledging, with gratitude, the grace and beneficence of God.

Utah 1896, Preamble Grateful to Almighty God for life and liberty, we establish this Constitution.

Vermont 1777, Preamble Whereas all government ought to enable the individuals who compose it to enjoy their natural rights, and other blessings which the Author of Existence has bestowed on man .

Virginia 1776, Bill of Rights, XVI Religion, or the Duty which we owe our Creator can be directed only by Reason and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian Forbearance, Love and Charity towards each other

Washington 1889, Preamble We the People of the State of Washington, grateful to the Supreme Ruler of the Universe for our liberties, do ordain this Constitution

West Virginia 1872, Preamble Since through Divine Providence we enjoy the blessings of civil, political and religious liberty, we, the people of West Virginia reaffirm our faith in and constant reliance upon God …

Wisconsin 1848, Preamble We, the people of Wisconsin , grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, domestic tranquility…

Wyoming 1890, Preamble We, the people of the State of Wyoming , grateful to God for our civil, political, and religious liberties, establish this Constitution..

After reviewing acknowledgments of God from all 50 state constitutions, one is faced with the prospect that maybe, the ACLU and the out -of-control federal courts are wrong! If you found this to be “Food for thought” copy and send to as many as you think will be enlightened as I hope you were.

(Please note that at no time is anyone told that they MUST worship God BUT YOU CAN PLEASE FEEL FREE TO DO SO.)

“Those people who will not be governed by God will be ruled by tyrants.” – William Penn

GOD BLESS AMERICA

Transcription of Phyllis Schlafly’s Testimony

Before Arkansas State Agency & Governmental Affairs House Committee 

on ERA Bill, (HJR1002)February 7, 2007

(In less than ten minutes)

Schlafly Bio:  Phyllis Schlafly was recently named one of the one hundred most important women of the twentieth century by the Ladies’ Home Journal.  She is a Constitutional lawyer and  president of  Eagle Forum which has chapters in every state.  Her syndicated column appears in one hundred newspapers, her radio commentaries are heard daily on 460 stations, and her radio talk show, "Phyllis Schlafly Live" is heard weekly on forty stations. Schlafly is the author of twenty books and has testified before more than fifty Congresisonal and State Legislative committees.  The mother of six children, Mrs.Schlafly was the 1992 Illinois Mother of the Year. Friends and foes of  Schlafly give her credit for galvanizing the grassroots movement that defeated ERA in its ten-year battle from 1972to 1982 when Presidents of both parties and the media had all endorsed it.    [And all these feats were accomplished without an Equal Rights Amendment]

Transcription of Testimony:

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee:  Thank you for allowing us to hear a non constituent.  I have a special place in my heart for Arkansas because my husband’s family owned the Mountain Valley Spring in Hot Springs from 1900 to 1987; and my husband brought me there on our honeymoon.  I still drink Moutain Valley water, now owned by Arkansas people, and it is the finest water in the world.  So thank you.

Now you have heard about an hour and half of advocacy for the Equal Rights Amendment; but I note that you didn’t hear about one single law, federal or state, that discriminates against women that this amendment will remedy.  I note that you didn’t hear a single benefit that women will get out of the Equal Rights Amendment.  This thing was debated for 10 years, from 1972 to 1982;  and it was rejected by fifteen states outright and five more that rescinded and changed their mind.

I think the main reason it was rescinded and rejected was that it is a fraud.  It pretends to help women, but it does nothing for women; and they are not able to show any benefit, any correction of law that the Equal Rights Amendment will do.  You know that the amendment does not put  women in the Constitution, and it does not put gender in the constitution.  It puts sex in the Constitution.  Now we are at the mercy of the judges. The Equal Rights Amendment does not say whether it is the sex you are or the sex you do.  We leave all those decisions up to the judges.

Now in looking for what the Equal Rights Amendment will do, I look to the best top authority on that subject.  And the leading lawyer in favor of the  Equal Rights Amendment  those years was Ruth Bader Ginsburg who is now on the United States  Supreme Court.  She wrote a book, a 230 page book, to tell exactly how the Equal Rights Amendment will affect federal law; and she is very explicit in it.  I think there probably  is no higher authority about what it will actually do. 

What it will do is make all our laws sex neutral.  Now we have the matter of the draft.  Now nobody denies that  if you have strict scrutiny you are going to have women not only subject to the draft, when and if there is a draft, but also subject to combat.  We know women are exempted from infantry combat and  submarines today.  Those differences are there.  Now a very powerful Democrat today, Congressman Charlie Rangel has got his bill to reinstate the draft; and, of course, it is sex neutral.  I am going to do everything I can to prevent his bill from passing.  But if it passed, there is no question about the effect of ERA.  It would treat women exactly the same as men, and women do not want to be treated the same as men in the military and in combat.

Now among other things that Ruth Bader Ginsburg says in this, and what she doesn’t say, is that it is going to have no effect on the Constitution itself because the Constitution  is already sex neutral.  The Constitution  does not say men are created equal.  That is in the Declaration of Independence. Fortunately you are not amending the Declaration of Independence.  We are talking about the Constitution. And the Constitution uses exclusively sex neutral terms, we the people, citizens, residents, inhabitants, president, ambassador, representative. Women have every Constitutional right that men have.

Also this book makes clear that it has nothing to do with employment.  It is not going to give women a raise or make them equal in the board rooms or in the legislatures because our employment laws are already sex neutral; and this book makes that clear.

However, there are some differences.  One of the differences is the effect it would  have on homemakers in this country.  One of the most offensive things that Ruth Bader Ginsburg says in this book is that the concept of  dependent wife must be eliminated from the code.  What does that mean?  The social security system rests on the concept of  the dependent wife.  I get my social security based on my husband’s income over the years, and I am sure that is true of many women here today.  Social security is a very pro-women institution because it gives the benefit to the dependent wife, the dependent wife  who is not, herself, in the workforce.  According to Ruth Bader Ginsburg, that is a concept that must be eliminated from the code under ERA.  This book was written to describe how ERA will affect federal laws.

And then she [Ruth Bader Ginsburg] goes into how it will change the words when  you say you can’t discriminate on account of sex.  She gives a whole list of words that will have to be changed.  And among the words that would have to be deleted from the federal code are husband and wife.  Now that is a direct attack on the Defense of Marriage Act, DOMA, which says that marriage is the union of a man and a woman as husband and wife.  Feminists don’t like that.  They want to put us into a sex neutral world, and it certainly  would have a direct effect on the Federal DOMA.

She [Ruth Bader Ginsburg]  makes very clear that the ERA would require treating sex like we treat race.  That is one of their arguments.  And it would require everything that is separated according to sex to be sex integrated.  Now,  she specifically says that this would include the Scouts.  It is discriminatory to have Girl Scouts and Boy  Scouts. They would have to be put together.   She says  fraternities and sororities would have to be combined.  She says even prisons would have to be sex integrated.

There are all kinds of mischief she [Ruth Bader Ginsburg] has in this book under her name, in a book published and paid for by the US government.  She makes arguments that I never dared to make, that it will wipe out the laws against prostitution and the laws against bigamy – that it would reduce the age of consent to 12;  She even goes after Mother’s Day because that would be sex discriminatory.

Of course, in the matter of marriage, it would open up the courts to all kinds of litigation by the gay rights movement which is working very hard on every type of  judge they can find to give them whatever they want to have.  Again, the Equal Rights Amendment  says you can’t discriminate on account of sex, and that is what you are talking about.  If you deny a marriage license to a man and a man, you have discriminated on account of sex. All of the highest legal authorities from Harvard and Yale have all said that the equal rights amendment would okay same sex marriage.

I was on the platform with the great Senator Sam Irvin, considered then the leading legal authority in the Senate, the great Watergate Senator, who said the only people who would profit by the Equal Rights Amendment would be the homosexuals; and you could have all kinds of litigation on that.

On the matter of abortion, we know that the New Mexico case is very clear.  The argument of the feminists is abortion is something that happens only to women;  therefore, if you deny any rights or any funding on abortion, you  have discriminated on account of sex within the meaning of the Equal Rights Amendment.   Now we do not have nineteen states with state ERA’s.  There are only six of the states that have ERA’s in the same language as the proposed federal ERA. One of those is New Mexico, and that is why New Mexico said that it is discrimination to deny funding for abortion in New Mexico. 

Another one of those states is Hawaii, which is where they okayed same sex marriage based on the state’s ERA.  Hawaii had to pass another Constitutional amendment saying in effect, "No, we didn’t mean that." 

So there are all kinds of problems that come along, and I think it would move the whole area of family law to the federal government because of Section II.  Section II says the Congress will have the power to enforce it by appropriate legislation and there are all kinds of family property laws, divorce, child custody, that would then become federal matters under the ERA.

This country wisely rejected it after long debate, and I think what it comes down to is how the judges interpret it.  And we have no confidence –  you asked for assurance of what the judges are going to do –  we don’t know what they are going to do.

But in any event, I think the country made a very good decision in voting it down in a ten-year battle that went on all across the country; and I hope that we a leave it decently buried.

Thank you Mr. Chairman, for listening.

Chairman – Thank you very much and without pausing said,   Seeing there are no questions (then goes to next witness)

The committee defeated the ERA bill by one vote, 10 to 10.  They needed 11 votes to get it out of committee.

This article can be read online at this link:  http://www.wpaag.org/ERA%20-%20Schlafly%20Testimony%20in%20AR%202-7-07.htm