Justice Scalia is right. The Constitution doesn't protect women from discrimination.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

So, Progressives have nothing to do with progress? Thanks again for the clarification.

What is progress in your opinion?

The Progressive Era in the United States was a period of social activism and reform that flourished from the 1890s to the 1920s.^[1] The main goal of the Progressive movement was purification of government, as Progressives tried to expose and undercut political machines and bosses. Many (but not all) Progressives supported prohibition in order to destroy the political power of local bosses based in saloons.^[2] At the same time, women's suffrage was promoted to bring a "purer" female vote into the arena.^[3]

Many people led efforts to reform local government, education, medicine, finance, insurance, industry, railroads, churches, and many other areas. The national political leaders included Theodore Roosevelt, Robert M. La Follette, Sr., Charles Evans Hughes and Herbert Hoover on the Republican side, and William Jennings Bryan, Woodrow Wilson and Al Smith on the Democratic side.

Initially the movement operated chiefly at local levels; later it expanded to state and national levels. Progressives drew support from the middle class, and supporters included many lawyers, teachers, physicians, ministers and business people.^[4] The Progressives strongly supported scientific methods as applied to government, industry, finance, medicine, schooling, theology, education, and even the family. They closely followed advances underway at the time in Western Europe, and adopted numerous policies, such as the banking laws which became the Federal Reserve System in 1914. They felt that old-fashioned ways meant waste and inefficiency, and eagerly sought out the "one best system".^[5][6]

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Steven, you're taking refuge in your usual polemics and not answering the questions being posed.

1. As a general rule, do you believe the written word should be interpreted with the intent of the authors in mind?

Answer the questions, please.

I like to assume the author is a ghost, who has smoked some weed, done a line, and is now a 21st century man.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

He did? Or, do you have just the fictionalized accounts to support your premise?

So in your opinion, merely owning a slave is the more kinder, gentler aspect of that history? Also, do you think it would be possible to have consensual sex with one's slave?

Edited January 10, 2011 by 8TBVBN

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

So in your opinion, merely owning a slave is the more kinder, gentler aspect of that history? Also, do you think it would be possible to have consensual sex with one's slave?

You win. Goodnight Steven.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

You win. Goodnight Steven.

Yay! Thanks! That was a tough round. You held your own. Next time. Get your beauty rest and take your vitamins.

[luckytxn 2,264]

And the big problem for many has to do with the idea of the military drafting women! I personally think it would be a good idea, not that I want to see young mothers in combat, but that it might help prevent some of the fool-hardy military adventures we have gotten into, like Iraq, Vietnam, etc. And if it happened that we did need the draft, women could go in to all sorts of support fields, even here in the states. I personally think it might be a good idea if everyone was expected to give their country 2 years of service in some capacity, one option being military service.

That was just one of the things. Think of this idea........EVERYTHING. There can be no laws made ever that give woman anything that exclude men. This is hard to envision unless you really think about what this entails. Yes the military draft but we have no draft now. Can anyone think of other ways this may influence laws made, like protecting woman. How about when they make laws in congress setting up funds special to them for loans for school, homes. How about woman get a special preference in hiring and quotas in many things. Family acts. (Divorce, time off to have kids, etc.) In divorce court woman usually get preference with kids. There are many laws that are made yearly that are exclusive to woman only. They can never ever do that again. Is making any laws that has to do with pregnancy also unconstitutional now? The list is long. There are many laws that woman can take advantage of now but after those laws would be unconstitutional and have to be thrown out. All these are just the tip of the iceberg.

No one had thought about this before as the ERA sailed through the states until someone started questioning what will happen after and then it made woman think and they started to not really want this shoved so fast. When they thought about it is when the remaining states stopped and the amendment failed. But hey I am for it so lets get it done.

[mawilson 2,133]

Even the Constitution of Afghanistan ... grants more rights to women than our own Constitution.

Yeah, a lot of good it does them.