Melinda, I respect that until fifty or so years ago, women really were (at best) second-class citizens in the eyes of law and society both. I respect that it took a great deal of effort and sacrifice to change this. I also respect that you personally -- and libertarian women in general -- have as a goal that every individual be judged on their own merits regardless of group affiliation: even when that affiliation is something as intrinsic as gender.

My point is that libertarian women (and libertarian men, for that matter) are an extraordinary minority. The overwhelming majority of women are disinterested in equality, but are instead concerned with maximizing benefit to themselves under the law.

Were all other points of law equal, I would whole-heartedly be interested in an ERA, assuming it did nothing more than explicitly guarantee Constitutional protection to all individuals. However, considering how the law presently stands, any changes to the Constitution could only result in further discrimination against men.

I mean let's face facts: most of the vocal supporters of the ERA aren't interested in equal rights: they're interested in more rights under the law.

Women don't need more rights under the present law to be equal to men. They need dramatically fewer rights.

While I agree that esoterically, as a human being, men and women have equal rights (i.e. the freedom to do anything they wish provided that it not initiate force against any other individual), the present system of law impoverishes men in favor of women.

In my opinion, it's always best to strike at the root of the problem, and the root in this case is quite simple: remove government entirely from the marriage business. Allow religious marriages to fall under the 1st Amendment -- in which case, government clearly has no business in it at all. Other marriages can be handled by personal contract not requiring government intervention except to ensure the terms of the contract are upheld by both parties.

In such a circumstance, I would be in favor of an ERA -- again, provided that it only state that Constitutional protection not exclude any gender. Under the present system, I simply can't back an ERA. It would only encourage more discrimination against men.

I don't mean to be condescending, Melinda, but I suspect that your gender may blind you to just how bad it is for men (and their children), particularly in divorce. I certainly wouldn't have believed it had I not been through a divorce myself. Since then, I've done a lot of comparing of notes with other divorced men and discovered that my experience is by no means unique -- and furthermore, I have the testimony of three attornies who stated outright that the law explicitly discriminates against men, so I better get used to it.

The present system is horribly discriminatory. Until that's changed, any additional legislation at any level -- including an ERA -- will simply be used as an opportunity for further discrimination.

Want me to support an ERA? Fine: get rid of the current discrimination and I'll be happy to.