And we invite them as well to undertake, in addition, a campaign of broader scope which would be of direct concern to women: one which would seek, for example, a national program for child care centers, an end to the exploitation of household workers, repeal or reform of abortion laws, the opening up of higher-paying and skilled trades jobs for women, a $2.50 national minimum wage law covering all workers, amendment of the Fair Labor Standards Act to provide coverage under minimum wage without exception for every worker within the reach of federal authority, equal pay for comparable work under the Equal Pay Act, and extension of the provisions of that Act to all workers without exception. We are convinced that the opponents of the Equal Rights Amendment, who are seeking to vitiate it through a substitute resolution, are against it not because it would threaten positions women have already gained, but because it would focus state and national attention on the inadequacy and discriminatory nature of the laws that are supposed to protect women, and thus set in motion a process of critical review and overhaul of such legislation whose effects would be felt not only in the form of better legislative protection for women and men alike, but in a new awareness among women of the realities of their situation, and a new and greater degree of involvement by women in the political process. In short, there is a move to "get" the ERA not because it would cause chaos but because it would create ferment. It would strengthen the position of women and women's organizations, including unions. It appears, to put it bluntly, that the opponents of the Equal Rights Amendment are disturbed not because it would threaten any valid proection women now enjoy, but because it would threaten the status quo in State capitals, among employers, and ultimately in the Congress. Yet from the standpoint of women and most men, the status quo is the mess we are in, and since lately we have not fared too well under the present dispensation, most men and women together have reason to favor the Equal Rights Amendment, toward the end of enabling and stimulating American women, 50 years after they were granted the vote, to work more actively with men in turning this country around and moving it forward toward a genuine democracy of rights and opportunities. TESTIMONY BY MRS. ELAINE HOMRIGHOUSE, COCHAIRMAN, THE UNITED Mr. Chairman, distinguished Senators, I am Elaine Homrighouse of Westhampton Beach, New York. I am married to a Presbyterian minister serving a local church, and I am the mother of three children. I have been an active church woman many years, and as a person of deep religious beliefs I am convinced of the dignity and equality of all persons, including women. As lawyers testified on the legalities and labor officials on the working conditions which would be affected by the Equal Rights Amendment, I would like to focus on the religious situation, the womens movement within the churches, and our reasons for supporting the amendment. Religious beliefs influence a great deal of our national life. They were fundamental to the original colonists, and they helped to frame the principles of our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution. Our beliefs about God and His plan of creation continue to influence how we structure our society and how we deal with one another as people. Unfortunately, the church has a very poor record on the woman question. It is responsible for a great deal of the theory behind discrimination against women in our western civilization. For instead of using Christ's mandate as a model, that he had "come to set at liberty those who are oppressed," Protestant and Roman Catholic churches have sanctioned and condoned the oppression of women. Religion has furnished a whole assortment of prejudice against women which are still in use today. There are two ways the church has degraded women: by misuse of the Bible, and by exclusion of women from church leadership. Theological statements and Biblical preaching about women depends heavily on a misuse of the Bible regarding the order of creation and ethical guidelines for building a humane society. For instance, it is significant that there are two stories of creation in Genesis, the first book of the Bible. How often have we heard that Eve was created from Adam's rib as a companion to the man who is to rule the world. Eve is also held responsible for tempting Adam, and for man's fall from God's grace. Many social and religious customs and laws which oppress women are justified by these few verses. However, the second story of creation, which we hear much less often, serves as a far better model for church life and social order. In this story men and women are created together by God and made in His image. They are given dominion over the earth, and they are blessed by God. This view understands that men and women are copartners who together will function in the world. This is a more appropriate model for our society, but much less used by church preachers. When we turn to the New Testament, it is worth noting the high regard Jesus showed for the women among his followers, contrary to the custom of the time. For instance, Jesus refused to condemn women who were caught in the double sex standard of a male dominated society. His company included former prostitutes, and he freed an adultrous woman when none of the accusing males could claim to be sinless themselves. And it was with a Samaritan woman, doubly scorned by religious leaders because she was both a Samaritan and a woman, that Jesus discussed one of his most advanced theological ideas, that God is a spirit. Even Paul, whose strictures against women speaking in the church are often quoted, had a different vision of the church about which we hear too little: that there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female in the sight of God. This should be the model for the Christian community. But church authorities, usually entirely male, have misused the Bible to reenforce their prejudice against women. Women, however, are rediscovering their Biblical past which in the Old Testament includes women like Deborah (prophet and judge), Miriam (prophet and musician), and Queen Esther (who saved the Jews); and in the New Testament, Anna (prophet), Mary (courageous mother of Jesus), Mary and Martha (especially valued by Jesus), and Lydia (a businesswoman who founded an early house church). These women are part of an honorable tradition of feminine involvement in religious life which we must reclaim. The second method of oppression of women used by the church is to exclude them from leadership. Even though the Bible and early church life demonstrated that women contribute to the religious community, men have barred women from church leadership since the early centuries of the Christian era. Men alone have claimed the right of ordination to priesthood and leadership functions of church life. Even today large Protestant and Roman Catholic church structures still exclude women from their priesthoods and from voting in church councils. The churches continue to be one of the most oppressive institutions toward women in our society. But times are changing even in the churches. The passage of the suffrage amendment 50 years ago encouraged women to organize for their equality in the church. Progress has been slow indeed. Let me use my own church-reputed to be liberal on the status of women-as an example. While women could vote as Americans in 1920, in the United Presbyterian Church they were allowed lay leadership positions only in 1930. Women finally were ordained to clergy status in 1957 (37 years after their political suffrage). We are still working to secure equal leadership opportunities in local churches and on national boards. Women have yet to get equal pay for equal work as church employees, and equal opportunities for placement and advancement. Across our nation church women are organizing. The Unitarian-Universalist Church, the United Methodist Church, and the United Presbyterian Church have official commissions working to improve the opportunities of women within the church. Church Women United, a group of Protestant and Catholic women, is launching programs for the equality of women. Roman Catholic nuns also are asking for the right of Catholic women to be ordained to the priesthood. Most churches are encountering women who petition and demand wider participation and opportunities. The United Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. with over 3 million members is one example of the effect of the womens movement in the churches. Last year this denomination established a Task Force on Women to review the status of women and to suggest measures for securing their equality both in the church and in society. The Task Force found that 57% of United Presbyterians are women, but that they face marked discrimination against their full participation today. On the recommendation of the Task Force, the General Assembly, our highest legislative body, approved these measures in May, 1970: 1. The equality of women shall be one of the goals of the church for the 70's. 2. All levels of United Presbyterian church life should eliminate discrimination against the full participation of women. 3. The equality of women shall not be compromised in ecumenical discussions looking toward merger with other churches. 4. The approval of the Equal Rights Amendment by Congress is advocated by the United Presbyterian Church. This July the United Presbyterian Women, an official organization representing 480,000 women, also recommended passage of the Equal Rights Amendment. So there is growing support for the full equality of women within many churches. It is important to recognize that church women are concerned not only about the discrimination we face within churches, but also with the oppression of women in our society. No woman should ignore the social and economic prejudice which affects her sisters, her daughters and herself. Women are learning a few of the facts of life they faced together. Discrimination against women knows no class barrier: job training programs restrict the admission of girls and women; women are routinely hired for sex segregated jobs which are poorly paid; they receive less pay than men for equal work done in factories, in offices and in the professions. Women and girls also face discrimination in higher education because of their sex: They experience limited quotas of admission, limited awards of scholarship funds, limited admission to teaching positions on faculties, and limited promotion and professional recognition. Women of minority groups and in poverty face double discrimination because of their sex; for example, black women suffer more because of their sex than because of their race, and poor women are always found at the bottom of the economic ladder because as women they have difficulty finding well-paid jobs. As church women realize how much their sex marks them as marginal and unequal workers and citizens, they begin to work for legal reform. We believe the Equal Rights Amendment is an important and necessary tool for improving the status of American women across the country. As now interpreted, the Constitution guarantees American women only the right to vote. In all other areas of life governed by law, American women must turn to their fifty states for definitions of their legal status. There are fifty complicated codes of law regarding women, some progressive but many medievel. This situation has led to confusion and variation from state to state regarding women's property rights, working conditions, and family responsibilities, and so on. Should an Illinois woman differ in her basic legal rights from a woman in Arkansas, New York or California as an American citizen? Women across the country would say, "No!" We believe our rights to full equality should be established for all time under the Constitution. The passage of the amendment will do this. There are three major arguments opponents raise to this amendment which I would like to answer briefly. First, they fear that constitutional equality of men and women will leave working women unprotected from the economic greed of American business. The labor movement, Congress and the States have already secured protection from sweat shop conditions which oppressed women 60 years ago. Yet we must be on guard against ways in which paternalism masquerades as protection. And we need to look closely at chivalry which springs from the best of conscious motives but serves to degrade women and leads to their exploitation. If protective legislation in the labor field is eroded by this amendment, and if the establishment of constitutional equality of men and women results in renewed exploitation of women workers by forced 72 hour work weeks and persecution in job placement, both the labor unions and Congress should immediately move to correct this exploitation as they have done before in our history. Because Congress can always help in the adjustment period, the so-called protective legislation should not be allowed to bar the way to full equality for women. Another argument against the enactment is advanced by some law professors and senators who fear an ensuing chaos in state laws and constitutional interpretation. They imagine that the constitutional equality of everyone irrespective of sex would set our ship of state on a perilous voyage over unchartered seas. However, the proposed amendment will merely correct our ship's course and raise the crew's morale. Fortunately our founding fathers had greater courage as they launched our constitution than these opponents. Their lack of vision does not represent that of the American people who have consistently moved to expand our democratic vision. Finally, there is the argument that equality for men and women under the Constitution will seriously damage our family patterns and upset relations between the sexes. Questions concerning the relation between the sexes have always been charged with emotional undercurrents which make it difficult to Ideal objectively with these matters. Instead of reasoned discussion we have name-calling such as "bra-burners" and "bubbleheads." Men are more affected by moves to liberate women than they care to admit. It is the conviction of the United Presbyterian Task Force on Women, composed of both men and women, that in freeing women to be full persons, men also release themselves from traditional roles of bondage. Family patterns are already changing rapidly: a reduced birthrate in the face of a population explosion, increased numbers of working wives and mothers, and the great longevity of mothers who may spend over 30 years without children in the home, show that while many women continue to choose marriage and motherhood, these responsibilities require far less of their time and effort. The move to liberate women is an effort to give women many more choices in their life styles. We oppose the Ervin revision to the Equal Right Amendment for two reasons. First, it continues to allow a legal umbrella to cover all the devices which have restricted and "protected" women by exploiting them as a class. In addition, by specifically defining women's duties as homemaker and mother, the Ervin revision would attempt to constitutionalize for all time a too narrow stereotype of the valuable work which women can contribute to our nation. Men do not have their duties as husbands and fathers defining their equality under the Constitution. Women do not want or need this kind of equality written into the Constitution either. As our nation plans for the bi-centennial birthday of our democracy in 1976, the significance of the womens movement to secure full equality for women under the Constitution should be stressed. Our constitution was based in English common law which denied women status as legal persons, so that both women and slaves were excluded from the colonial democrary which we will honor. For almost 200 years women have been chipping away at this denial of their legal personhood. If Congress and the States approve establishing equal rights for both men and women under the Constitution, as we hope they will, over one-half of our population will have a new legal status to celebrate in 1976. American women will make this birthday party the greatest in our nation's history. The United Presbyterian Task Force on Women believes that the Equal Rights Amendment should pass without revision as soon as possible. Since both the Democratic and Republican party platforms approve its passage, and 80 Senators have co-sponsored the amendment, it should pass quickly and easily. We are concerned that crippling revisions be voted down. We also hope that objective and reasoned discussion will prevail instead of emotional debate which polarizes people on this basic issue. If however, the amendment should be weakened or fail to pass this session of the Senate, the responsibility for such defeat will be quite clear. Women will question the Senate's belief in full democracy. They will resent the attempt at political deception practiced by the parties and Senators which allowed the defeat of a basic constitutional improvement they reputedly supported. Such a defeat would encourage the radicalization and increased militance of many women's groups, including those of church women. As church women, we know from history how hard it is to achieve full freedom. The apostle Paul wrote in the first century that distinctions between Jew and gentile, slave and free, male and female do not exist in the sight of God. After almost 19 centuries we all know the first two of these distinctions are wrong. Now we are working on the last great barrier: the one based on sex alone. We call on the Senate to help us achieve a fully free society under God by passing the Equal Rights Amendment. [Passed by UUA* General Assembly, Seattle, Wash., July 4, 1970-one vote against] EQUAL RIGHTS AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR WOMEN Recognizing that women have minority status in terms of employment opportunities, legal rights, the educational system, political power, and positions of influence in religious bodies; Aware that women tend to react to their cultural image by limiting their aspirations and by forming low evaluations of their own capacities; Unitarian Universalist Association-A continental organization of 1,111 churches and fellowships in the United States and Canada, with headquarters at 25 Beacon St., Boston, Mass. 02108. Observing that profound changes are occurring in our society affecting the role of women and men, including trends toward smaller families, increased education for women, and the growing number of women in employment; Believing that critical social problems require the full use of educated, trained womanpower in responsible positions; Be it resolved: That the 1970 General Assembly 1. Urges special concern for improving the image, aspirations, and opportunities of women so that they may work together with men toward creating a morè fully human society for both; and to that end changes are called for in the education and counseling of girls and boys; 2. Asks for greater efforts to prevent discrimination against women in employment and to encourage the utilization of women in significant levels in business, education, and government; 3. Calls upon states of the U. S. and provinces of Canada to enact fair employment legislation prohibiting discrimination on account of sex where such laws do not now exist. 4. Requests that a special effort be made in the Unitarian Universalist Association, its churches and fellowships, to place greater numbers of qualified young and mature women in policy making positions, and to secure equal opportunities and pay for women in the ministry, religious education, and administration; 5. Calls upon the United States Congress to pass the Equal Rights Amendment without delay and supports its ratification by the states. STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL WOMAN'S PARTY Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, To identify myself I am Margery C. Leonard, an attorney from Boston and a Vice Chairman of the National Woman's Party. In 1963, the Senate printed, as Document 164, a pamphlet entitled "Equal Rights Amendment-Questions and Answers" which was edited by me. The question is frequently asked: Why do we need the Equal Rights Amendment? I shall attempt to answer that question. The purpose of the Amendment is to lift the women of the United States out of the state of inferiority imposed by the English common law and the French and Spanish civil law brought here by the Colonists. It would complete the Equal Suffrage Amendment by giving constitutional equality in the fields not covered by the Nineteenth Amendment. It would place the principle of the equality of the sexes at the basis of our legal system. For more than three centuries have women labored for equality-patiently and without violence. The Supreme Court has always held that the Constitution created no new rights; it merely guaranteed those already in existence when the Constitution was adopted in 1789. What were the rights of women at the time of the adoption of the Constitution? The best statement of the rights of women is found in Blackstone's Commentaries of the Laws of England printed in 1756. Blackstone stated that when a man and woman married, they became one and HE was the one. Upon marriage, all her property including furniture, clothes, jewelry and even her hair became HIS property. She had nothing to say about her children; in fact, the husband could take them away from her. She could not vote nor hold office. Neither could she serve on a jury. She could not contract nor make a will. She could not even control her own earnings. Blackstone went on to say that the husband had the right to beat his wife for her protection! This appears to be the first use of the phrase "protection of women." She was a chattel, and her husband's servant. The husband could even sue for the loss of her services, resulting from the act of a third person. This is a very sketchy outline of the basic law of our Country in respect to women as it was in 1789. Some opponents of the Equal Rights Amendment maintain that there is no reason for the adoption of the Equal Rights Amendment because the principle of the equality of the sexes is already guaranteed by the Constitution through the Fourteenth Amendment. However, the Supreme Court has not taken this point of view. Many years ago, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said that the rights of women are what the courts say they are. When the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted, the word "male" was inserted three times in Section 2, thereby showing the intent of the drafters of the Fourteenth Amendment in the Congress not |