Arizona Daily Sun from Flagstaff, Arizona • 57

The SUN, Flagstaff. Arizona, Sunday. May 13, 1979 Sec. B3 Panl Save FIR A Will the ERA Benefit Men? JL Cl JL M. JL JLj JL Xji.

The Equal Rights Amendment is not for women only. It is for all Americans. Som constitutional authorities sav that the Eoual Rights Amendment will heln men a The Equal Rights Amendment is not for women only. It is for all Americans. Some constitutional authorities say that the Equal Rights Amendment will help men as Works in 14 States much as women.

The most important change would be the increased availability of job options to men as well as to women. Although no one now is prohibited from many careers, societal pressures keep many from undertaking jobs identified as womans work or mans work. Men and families would benefit as much as women from reduced financial stress as women would finally receive equal pay for equal work. On certain jobs, women enjoy benefits that men do not share. Although many so-called protective labor laws protect no one, there are laws in the areas of health, safety and overtime pay that men need and deserve.

The Equal Rights Amendment would extend these protections to men. In some states, child custody is still being decided on the basis of the parents sex, rather than on the needs and welfare of the children. ERA would require child custody to be based on considerations more beneficial to the children. In some states, widows receive special tax exemptions that widowers do not enjoy. Under ERA, both widows and widowers would receive the same benefits.

Presently, some states assume that a husband should automatically carry the entire burden of alimony and child support just because he is a man. Under ERA, consideration would be given to each persons economic dependency and relative ability to provide for needs, regardless of sex. The Equal Rights Amendment will improve the quality of life for families. Men, as well as women, will gain under the Equal Rights Amendment, as real progress is made toward true human rights and dignity for both sexes. Congressional Intent Expresssed in April 1971 Yale Law Review usually had to present proof that they were reliant on her income.

In Texas, female university students gained the right to live in off-campus housing, and conversely, on-campus facilities were made available to male students. Since ERA, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has ruled that not only should the earning capabilities of each spouse be considered, but so should the economic value of the services being provided by the homemaker spouse. In Maryland and Pennsylvania, the courts abolished the common-law assumption that all household goods (including jewelry) belonged to the husband, based on his financial contribution alone. The Commission has called present constitutional guarantees inadequate, saying that the federal amendment will give women a clear route to seek redress against sex bias, provide impetus for the enforcement of existing anti-discrimination laws and the completion of legislative reform and give the courts a basis for dealing with sex-based discrimination. The 14 states with equal rights amendments in their state constitutions are Illinois, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Alaska, Hawaii, Maryland, Texas, Washington, Colorado, New Mexico, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Massachusetts and Montana.

Equal Rights Amendments are having a positive impact in the 14 states which have made them a part of their constitutions, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights says in a report released last December. The Commission, in its report, cites numerous public benefits in employment and education, as well as criminal and civil law, which have been realized in those states which have added Equal Rights Amendments to their state constitutions. The Commission stresses the need for a federal amendment, however: Although reform of the laws is possible on a state-by-state basis, such a route is both plodding and haphazard. At present, the federal proposal has been ratified by 35 states, three short of the three-quarters majority needed for it to become an amendment to the U.S.

Constitution. Experiences shared by the states with equal rights amendments indicate that ERA would not lead to coed bathrooms, force states to recognize homosexual marriages, pose a threat to religious institutions or require women to leave home and find jobs, the report says. Some ERA states have sex-neutralized the allocation of workers compensation benefits. Traditionally, these were awarded to survivors or dependents of a male worker, but survivors or dependents of a female worker The effect of the Equal Rights Amendment on sex-discriminatory laws has been a point of controversy over the past 50 years. In debate in one session after another, Congress could not reconcile the principle of equality with their desire to protect women and excuse them from some of the unpleasant duties of citizenship.

In April 1971, when the amendment was again being debated in the 91st Congress, a class of law students at the Yale Law School published an exhaustive study of womens legal status, alternative means of improving that status, and an analysis of current sex-discriminatory laws and how the Equal Rights Amendment would affect them. The report is titled, The Equal Rights Amendment: A Constitutional Basis for Equal Rights for Women. This legal review resolved so many questions and uncertainties that it quickly became a reference guide in Congressional debate. It was introduced into Congressional Record by Sen. Birch Bayh and copies were given to every member of the House of Representatives by Congresswoman Martha Griffiths.

It allowed Congress to reach a consensus and became their agreed-upon interpretation so that the principle of equality could finally be reconciled with practice. Because it reflects Congressional intent in passing the amendment, this article is being used by state legislatures as a guide in rewriting their sex-discriminatory laws and by courts when called upon to decide 3 questions of interpretation under state ERAs. Congressional intent, as stated in the Yale Law Review, is often overlooked by opponents of the amendment who recite authoritative opinions which conflict with the Yale article. But these conflicting views have no impact on legislative or judicial interpretation. The Yale article does.

The situation was described by Jill Ruckelshaus in a speech on Sept. 12, 1975: This isnt a question of one opinion about the ERA having equal standing with a contrary opinion. When the courts interpret the Equal Rights Amendment, they will not turn to a Stop-ERA pamphlet; rather, they will look to the one authentic piece of legislative history we have; the Senate Judiciary Committee Report on the amendment, which answers well many of the questions amendment opponents are raising. To balance a Stop-ERA opinion against the Senate Judiciary Report is to be off balance in objective, informed reporting. The two just arent equal, and to report them as such in the media is to give a misleading impression.

Copies of the review may be ordered from the Yale Law Journal, Yale Law School, New Haven, Conn. 06520 at $2.50 each. Request Vol. 80, No. 5, dated April, 1971.

in Phoenix on the Northern Arizonans demonstrate their support for the Equal Rights Amendment first day of legislative session this year..