My skepticism is activated when an ERA supporter omits the second clause and represents the first clause as the entire amendment. I generally assume, unless demonstrated otherwise, that clause two was omitted intentionally for the purpose of misleading readers. My skepticism is further activated when the author makes the unwarranted assumption that the nation “trembles to validate” the first clause without considering the possibility that an opponent may object to the second clause.

I tend to be skeptical of any amendment that requires the Federal Government to pass laws, as clause two does, rather than restricing them from doing so as clause one of the ERA and the first ten amendments do.

It is either the 14th or 15th that extends the bill of rights to state governments (I can’t remember which and I don’t feel like looking it up). The ERA would be effective without the second clause. It would restrict Federal and State governments from making laws that deny or abridge rights on the basis of sex. If such laws were passed, they would be struck down by the courts.

As far as I am aware, there are no existing federal or state laws that deny or abridge rights on the basis of sex, with the possible exception of draft registration.

“The section you refer is not carte blanche but specific to this amendment.”

I realize that.

As I stated, I have a more favorable view of amendments that restrict federal authority than I have of those that impose authoritative obligations upon it. In the case of the ERA however, I oppose it entirely. My opposition is based on what I consider to be its likely interpretation. Given the current common understanding that women are collectively and categorically “opressed” and men are collectively and categorically “privileged,” coupled with the fact that the above concept is a principle of Feminist ideology, it is likely that the amendment would be interpreted within the framework of that ideology.

The ERA could, for example, be used as a pretext to dictate the distribution of so-called “emotional labor” which would interfere with individuals’ personal decisions.

It could be also be used as a pretext to restrict behavior that is deemed by Feminists to constitute so-called “toxic masculinity.”

The likelyhood that the ERA would be interpreted within the framework of Feminist ideology leads me to oppose it entirely.