As Shakespeare’s Hamlet bemoaned, “Aye, there’s the rub.” Any new constitutional convention, called as allowed by Article V, would surely attract and include political activists with motives and goals diametrically different from those of Justice Scalia. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg then weighed in with the tiresome complaint of feminists. Her first choice for a constitutional change, she said, would be the addition of the Equal Rights Amendment.
The American people, the mainstream media, and state legislators spent ten years (1972 to 1982) considering the proposed Equal Rights Amendment. They then let it die after it failed to get the (38) states that are needed to ratify a new amendment. ERA was marketed as something that would give new rights to American women (whom the feminist falsely claim are oppressed by the patriarchy), but that phony sales talk failed. ERA calls for “equality of rights … on account of sex,” so it is now beyond dispute that ERA’s principal effect would be to make it unconstitutional to deny a marriage license “on account of sex.”
Listen to the radio commentary here: