Virginia becomes the last state required to ratify the ERA

[proboardslol]

https://wtop.com/virginia/2019/01/virginia-senate-ratifies-equal-rights-amendment/

Virginia Senate ratifies Equal Rights Amendment

RICHMOND, Va. (AP) — Virginia has taken another step toward becoming the 38th state to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment.
The state Senate voted in favor of legislation Tuesday to approve the gender-equality amendment. The measure passed with bipartisan support.
The legislation still has to clear the House, where its chances for passage are unclear. The measure failed in the House last year.
The ERA’s passage would mean it has reached the threshold for ratification, but not by the 1982 deadline set by Congress.
There is debate over whether the ERA can be revived and experts say a legal battle would likely ensue if Virginia were to ratify the amendment.

[smurfy]

Would this be the first full legal test of whether ratification deadlines are valid?

[Geel]

The text of this amendment is extremely short and simple:

Section 1: Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.
Section 2: The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Section 3: This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.

I don't see anything wrong with it but I'm also kind of confused because I feel like this is already the case

[Vitalogy]

There are federal protections in place but nothing explicitly in the constitution. Federal legislation is easier to reverse and has narrower constraints whereas this would give the courts a broad and constitutionally enshrined scope for rulings.

[Somepotato]

i wonder if this would allow same sex marriages, because you wouldn't be able to deny marriage rights based on ones sex

[proboardslol]

The legal arguments against same sex marriage has nothing to do with ones right to marry. All those against same sex marriage believe that gay people are equally entitled to get married as straight people - they simply define marriage in such a narrow scope that means that marriage is between a man and a woman, not between the same sex.

Additionally, even if this were not the argument, the discrimination is not based on sex, but sexual preference, and there is not amendment for that.

[Vitalogy]

The other and much cooler alternative would be that men are held to the same standard as women for selective service and the entire concept is just scrapped.

[Geel]

This would be very legal and very cool.

Thanks, Vitalogy!

[Somepotato]

but the amendment practically voids having any legal differences between the genders; at least, that's the way the courts will see it.

and marriage is handled by state law

[Borealis]

Since there was a ratification deadline and several states retracted their ratifications, this'll probably go to a long court battle.