June 30 marked the end of a ten–year-old battle to have an Equal Rights Amendment added to the Constitution of the United States. It was a hard–fought battle which pitted American women against each other. On the side of those pressing for the ratification of the Amendment were women’s groups such as the National Organization of Women (NOW) founded by Betty Friedan, Business and Professional Women, Women’s Political Caucus, and Gloria Steinem of Ms. magazine. Their support came from politicians such as Ted Kennedy and Bella Abzug, but also from the Carters and Fords in the White House, Lady Bird Johnson, and the Millikens of Michigan. Opposing the ERA were Eagle Forum headed by Phyllis Schlafly, and Concerned Women For America, led by Beverly LaHaye. On their side were politicians such as Senators Jesse Helms, Jeremiah Denton, Congressmen Philip Crane, Robert Dornan, Henry Hyde, and other well-known conservatives like James Buckley, Ed McAteer, Major General John K. Singlaub and Dr. Jerry Falwell.
Why was there such a hard-fought battle about the ERA? Both sides contended that the ERA would significantly alter the future of not only women, but of our whole society.
The proponents of the ERA contended that only a constitutional amendment would guarantee that women receive equal and fair treatment in a society which treats women unfairly. Although Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Acts of 1964 guarantees women equal rights in the area of employment, and the federal Equal Pay Act of 1974 requires employers to give both sexes equal pay for equal work, these statutes do not go far enough, they say. In many areas, such as insurance benefits, tax structures and social security laws, women are discriminated against, the amendment backers argue. Actual figures show that women do not receive equal pay for equal work, but earn only 59 cents of every dollar earned by men. Whereas the Fourteenth Amendment provides for “equal protection under the law” and is used by the Supreme Court to rule against racial discrimination, the ERA would provide the Supreme Court with a tool to end sexual discrimination. ERA supporters say women do not receive the same degree of protection from the Constitution as racial minorities. The ERA would in one fell swoop put an end to all discriminatory practices and eliminate the need for separate state and federal laws, which would be both time-consuming and piecemeal.
The proposed amendment reads as follows:
Section 1 – Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.
Section 2 – The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation the provisions of this article.
Section 3 – This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.
The ERA was passed by an overwhelming majority in Congress on March 22,1972. Three-quarters of the states—38 out of 50—needed to approve the ERA for it to become law. By 1973 some 30 states had ratified the ERA, but by 1978 only 5 more states approved it, while 5 states rescinded approval. When it became apparent that by the March 22, 1979 deadline the three–quarters majority of states would not have ratified the ERA, its proponents asked for and received a three-year extension, an unprecedented measure.
There were several reasons why the ERA became stalled in state legislatures and why some states rescinded approval. One was the vigorous and unrelenting opposition led by Phyllis Schlafly and other women. They were supported by congressmen, senators and housewives. Theirs was a grassroots movement which saw the implications of the seemingly innocuous amendment which ostensibly guaranteed women’s rights.
Upon closer examination, they observed that such a constitutional amendment could have a revolutionary impact on society and affect the traditional role of women as keepers of the home. Also, when it was realized who many of the people were who pushed for ratification of the amendment, many Americans took notice. In the forefront of the movement were militant feminists, Gay Rights and lesbian groups. It also became apparent that these radical ERA proponents were not afraid to use underhanded methods to try to force the issue. They used blackmail by calling for boycotts and blacklisting states in which the amendment had not been ratified. There was the noisy, outrageous display at the International Woman’s Year Conference in Houston in 1977, where news persons were told what to report, a lesbian motorcycle gang appeared and a fight broke out between feminists and male supremacists. And finally, in 1982 there were the screaming women who invaded the Illinois State House, chained themselves together and went on a hunger strike to influence the decision of the Illinois legislators.
Such action and behavior did nothing to dispel the fears of the opponents of the ERA who believed t hat the ERA would have unforeseen and undesirable effects. They warned that Section 1 of the ERA would make women subject to the military draft and combat duty just like men, eliminate the husband’s primary duty to support his wife and children, forbid all separation of girls and boys in schools, colleges, activities, sports, and public facilities. Section 2 would give total enforcement power to t he federal government over all areas in which traditionally a difference on account of sex has been recognized, including marriage, divorce, child custody, adoptions, homosexuality, private schools, and insurance rates. Section 2 would also give the federal courts the power to define “sex” equality in any way they choose (since ERA does not define “sex”). Many lawyers predicted the Courts could define “sex” equality to require tax funds for abortion, marriage licenses for homosexuals, government childcare centers for all children, and new Social Security taxes on homemakers who stay at home to work. Churches could be denied the freedom to exempt women from the offices and keep their tax exempt status. Schools and organizations could be forced to hire and accept known homosexuals and other perverts as members.
Enough has been said to show that the defeat of the ERA was a victory for those who stand for Christian values and morality, and who want to preserve women’s freedom to exercise her traditional role in the home, church and society. To celebrate this victory, a dinner was held on the evening of June 30 in Washington, D.C. It was my privilege to be seated with the 1,400 Eagle Forum members and pro-family leaders who had come to celebrate and honor those who fought courageously and honorably. At the head table were Phyllis Schlafly and her husband, and other leading Eagle Forum leaders, state legislators, religious leaders and journalists who fought to protect the traditional American values. Among the 110 head–table guests were Senators Jesse Helms, Jeremiah Denton, Secretary James Buckley, BrigadierGeneral Elizabeth Hoisington, Dr. Jerry Falwell, Congressmen Philip Crane and George Hansen, Secretary James Watt, Beverly and Tim LaHaye, and Jay and Betty Van Andel of Ada, Michigan. President Reagan senta message of congratulations. Entrance was through a metal detector. The room was securely guarded while each distinguished guest gave a two–minute speech upon receiving a certificate for his or her part in the battle.
At the Seminar the following day a large audience was urged to let their “voice be heard to build a strong America.” Senator Helms and Denton pledged their support for a “constitutionally and morally strong America.” Some of the speakers become very emotional when they pointed to what they saw as the suicidal course America was pursuing in these areas. Sen. Helms quoted from a personal conversation with Solzhenitsyn. “Do your people not understand, do your people not understand?” he had repeatedly asked Helms.
Another question the speakers asked the audience was “Where are the churches?” They should be giving leadership in the moral and spiritual crisis which America is experiencing. That all our problems were basically “spiritual” was a recurring theme with most of the speakers.
As the Seminar was being conducted, all over America ERA supporters put on demonstrations to vow to continue the battle to keep the women’s rights movement alive and prevail by other means.
Let us not think that the women’s rights movement is a faddish, isolated movement connected with feminist issues only, which will eventually peter out and die. I hope it will, but the feminist movement in America is part of a world–wide emancipation movement—an anti-Christian movement which seeks to remove Christian values and morals which our laws still sanction. It is a movement which puts man and his sinful desires at the center, rather than God. It seeks to remove all restrictions, so that man can “express his humanity,” which really means that man can sin without restraints.
The United Nations proclaimed 1975 International Women’s Year and sponsored a two-week World Conference in Mexico City which was attended by 1300 official delegates from 133 nations. Simultaneously but separately another group of some 3,000 women from many countries attended an informal Tribune. Both conferences called governments to guarantee women basic rights, such as equal access with men to education, adequate health care, an end to being bartered as child brides, and the right to fam ily planning and contraceptives. The conference, did not confine themselves to women’s issues, however. The statement of principle adopted by the U.N. Conference of Women declared that inequality of women and men is closely· linked to the poverty which imprisons most nations because of the “profoundly unjust world economic system.” At the Tribune conference 64 Third World nations signed a statement condemning zionism, apartheid and imperialism, calling for women’s equality, and a “new international economic order.”
Subsequent events, such as the National Women’s Conference held in Houston in 1977 “celebrating” the U.N. project, and the $3 million federally funded White House Conference on Families held in 1980, showed that much more than women’s rights were at stake. An elite group of leaders in government, education and the media were using the women’s movement as a vehicle to push their anti-Christian value system, such as “gay rights,” government taking a major role in child care, federal funding for abortion, and broad federal control over society. Testifying at the White House Conference on Families, NOW president Eleanor Smeal defined a family this way:
Families in the inclusive sense of people over time have established a lasting relationship involving living, loving and working together for their individual and mutual benefit sharing resources, responsibilities, values and goals . . . Lesbians and gay men and their families have a right to an end to custody judgments that deny gay parents and their children the continuation of a loving parent-child relationship; enactment of civil rights laws at the local, state and federal levels which would provide lesbians and gay men the same protections now provided to others including banning discrimination in housing . . .1
These government-supported and taxpayer–funded activities ended with President Reagan’s induction into office. He cancelled the planned, federally funded White House Conference on Children and Youth.
The ERA has been defeated. One battle has been won. When the Illinois legislature voted down the ERA, Eleanor Smeal said, “There was something very powerful against us and it wasn’t people.”2 The Lord has overturned the devices of those who meant to further erode the Christian values and morals upon which our nation was founded. The forces of evil have been given a temporary setback and God has given us a temporary reprieve in His longsuffering and goodness. That the ERA backers were inspired by the powers of the pit is undeniable. Mrs. Schlafly told of the tactics used to pressure legislators to vote for the ERA. She told stories of attempts to bribe them, buy them, pressure them from the White House and by movie stars; there were obscene calls, threats made to their families, businesses and careers, and some had their names written in blood by ERA supporters. She told of seeing grown men cave in with tears under the pressure. But there were enough who were not intimidated and could not be bought for any price. “America does still have public officials of strength and character,” she said. Even as she spoke there was a bomb threat. There was also the news media which with few exceptions was biased towards the ERA.
We also know the battle is not over. Already ERA supporters are reintroducing the measure in Congress. They have vowed to target candidates in the upcoming elections. Also, internationally the issue is very much alive. European women held rallies protesting the defeat of the ERA in America. An example of anti-discrimination legislation which endangers religious freedom is the Law for Equal Treatment introduced by the Dutch government, which exempts only churches from hiring or employing on the basis of sex or lifestyle.
Emancipation and anti-discrimination is in the air. Unless God intervenes, we can see that the “Christian West” is rapidly entering a post-Christian era where all God-given values and morals will disappear from public life. Certainly, Christians do not oppose laws which eliminate discrimination against women. But such legislation must allow for the God-given differences in the roles of men and women, and leave room for Christians to exercise freedom of religion. Neither will Christians want to support and live under laws which under the guise of “rights” and “freedom” really are documents which tolerate licentiousness and the desecration of God’s laws. “Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people” (Prov. 14:34).
What is the task of a Christian? I don’t think there is any room here for party spirit or fine points of theories. We should support those who stand for Christian values and morality in government and society. We therefore need to be informed.3 That means first of all, prayerfully to study the Scriptures so that we will know God’s will and not be led astray by the godless philosophies of our time and the temptations of Satan. In order to counteract the humanism of our age we must know God’s Word. And we must live by it. We must seek to adorn our profession with godliness (Cf. Titus 2). Wherever the Lord has placed us, we must act as salt and light (Matt. 5:13–16).
The Church also has a task regarding these matters. It must act as a watchman on the walls of Zion, pointing the Church, but also the world, to the good and right way. Repeatedly, at the Seminar, the speakers—elected representatives and other prominent leaders–asked “Where are the churches? Why don’t they speak out?” And, as one speaker said, “If there’s nothing else you can do, pray!” This is something believers and the Church can and must do (I Tim. 2:1, 2).
1. Rosemary Thomson, Withstanding Humanism’s Challenge to Families. (Box 112. Morton, IL 61550: Traditional Publications, 1981), p. 31.
2. Quoted by Phyllis Schlafly at the celebration dinner, June 90, 1982.
3. For informative literature, pamphlets and tapes, write to the following addresses: Eagle Forum, Box 618, Olton, IL 62002; Concerned Women for America, P.O. Box 20976, El Cajon, CA 92021; Church League of America, 422 North Prospect St., Wheaton, IL 60187; Moral Majority Report, 905 Sixth Street, Lynchburg, Va. 24502.
NOTE: Mrs. Pronk is the wife of the pastor of the Free Reformed Church at Grand Rapids, Michigan. The department editor is Mrs. T. Vanden Heuvel, 207 Kansas Ave., N. W., Orange City, Iowa 51041.