Virginia Blend\u27s testimony to the Bill of Rights Committee regarding proposal number 10, providing for equal rights.https://scholarworks.umt.edu/montanaconstitution/1141/thumbnail.jp

Blend, Virginia H.

English

University of Montana

University of Montana ScholarWorks at University of Montana The Montana Constitution Collection 2-2-1972 Virginia Blend testimony regarding providing equal rights Virginia H. Blend Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umt.edu/montanaconstitution Let us know how access to this document benefits you. Recommended Citation Blend, Virginia H., "Virginia Blend testimony regarding providing equal rights" (1972). The Montana Constitution Collection. 116. https://scholarworks.umt.edu/montanaconstitution/116 This Committee Minutes and Testimony is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks at University of Montana. It has been accepted for inclusion in The Montana Constitution Collection by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks at University of Montana. For more information, please contact scholarworks@mso.umt.edu. ( \ \1'UTIO 0 0 ~ ~ ~ 2 0 . 1971 -1911- . Vice Chairman l(O)ffiff[~i~ ~lffii~1f ~1f ill]1f ~(O)l~l ~(O)I\V/[11f ~(O)I STATE CAPITOL • HELENA, MONTANA 59601 • TELEPHONE 406 / 449-37 50 VIRGINIA H. BLEND, DELEGATE, DISTRICT THIRTEEN ~ February Y, 1972 LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE Re: Proposal #10, providing for Equal Rights. ~ Member STYLING, DRAFTING & REVISION COMMITTEE To: :";~. Mll of Rights Committee My proposal reads 11 Equality of rights under the laws shall not be abridged by the state of Montana on account of sex. 11 I have underlined "under the laws 11 for this is the crux of the proposal. My proposal is an exact copy of the proposed amendment to the constitution of the U.S., with the words 11 state of Montana" inserted instead of 11 by any state". The proposed amendment has been passed by the U.S. House of representatives and is now in the Senate. It seems irrminent it will be passed and soon, for the time is now, after many years of discussion. For this reason I propose the same amendment be included in our state constitution now being revised. It would eliminate time spent by our state legislature on the subject when the amendment is passed by the Senate and presented for ratification. The U.S. Congress wi 11 accept any reasonable modif ication of a similar amendment necessarily presented .to the Montana Constitution if the word 11 sex 11 is not deleted. The amendment abd"mypproposail is for the purpose of creating a new basis for the U.S. Supreme Court, and of course, the entire judicial system to take a fresh approach to the interpretations which began when the U.S. Supreme Court organzed. In this era, I do not think we would but that 11 persons 11 mentioned so often in both federal and state constitutions Bills of Rights would include the knowledge that both sexes are 11 persons 11 and therefore eligible for the benefits and rights thereunder. Since women had no contractual rights at that time, but were governed by indentured persons in all matters by their husbands, the judicial interpretations implied and limited the application of the word 11 persons~• to males. So it is at this time. The crux of the Federal amendment and my amendment is that until specifically the Judiciary have a basis for considering all citizens of the U.S. as persons eligible for the rights guaranteed to them, its tenor will not change, but continue to be based on the accumulated renderings excluding women. The genera l effect on federal and state laws and offcial practices would not nullify all distinguishments on the basis of sex, but would require that the law treat men and women equally . . Equal treatment can be accomplished either by extending the law wh ich applies only to one sex to the other sex, or by rendering the law unconstitutional s9s denying equality of rights to one sex. · I am not sure that this premise is fully understood by all women involved in what is referred to as 11 Women 1 s Lib 11 , nor to men not involved in the practice of law or the dispensing of it. However, it is my opinion that freedom involves responsibility, and so that no one on this committee will be left in doubt as to the full effect of this ~ 2 C. proposal, I will appreciate your attention for a few minutes longer that I may explain it. In interpreting the amendment in the U.S. Supreme Court, the court will have to consider the intent of Congrees, and it follows the same would apply to the state supreme court. Alimony, child support and custody laws would not be invalidated but \,✓ 0uld apply equally according to ability to pay or support, not according to sex. It should be noted, most divorce arrangements are agreed to by parties without litigation. Dower rights would apply to both men and women. Special restrictions on property rights of married women \•1ould be invalidated. They could engage in business as freely as men and manage their separate property such as inheritances and earnings. This has not been a problem in Montana, but as late as two years ago a woman, single, dovorced or widowed, could not purchase an automobile, home or open a charge account unless she had a male to cosign. The status of homemaker would not change, but depend upon individual circumstances. It would give new dignity to these roles, and the status of traditional ~vomeri's occupations, would be enhanced, for these would become postions accepted by women as equals, not as roles imposed on them as inferiors. This is aproblem of social mores and tradition. State protective labor laws would apply not only to women. The weight lifting, working hours, night ivork, employment in particular occupations would be invalidated. Men v1oul d share in any advantages pro vi qed. The Equal Rights Amendment on the subject of employment would restrict only govern-ment actton, prohibiting discrimination by it as an employer in federal, state, county and city including school boards. Priviate employment would not be effected. It would require equal pay for equal v✓0rk only for employees of goverrnnent. In the area of educaton, it would prohibit public institutions from requiring higher standards for admission for women (or for men is such exist). The Federal Social Security Act would provide under the amendment and proposal an extension of benefits to widowers o covered women workers. Wid0wefi would be entitled to the same benefits for childern as widows. The man's formula for retirement at 62 would be the same as for the vvoman of that age. This particular inequity is now being considered in Congress, as a separate item. Th~ equal rights amendment would not effect private pension plans. Women would be subject to military service and jury service, the same as men, with deferments under the same conditions as men. Men are excused now who have children under their care. Being subject to military service vJOuld not necessarily mean they they \'tould have to serve in all assighments any more than all men serve in all assignments. Women volunteers would have to be admitted under the same standards as men; not higher standards as they do now. The present Administration is making a great effort to move to a volunteer service. the issue of the draft may be a moot question by the time the amendment or the proposal are enacted. The Proposa 1 would i nva l i date laws prescribing 1 anger prison terms for vmmen than for men for the same offense, or visa versa, if the same exists. In the U.S. and Montana we say we are one class of citizens. The Equal Rights proposal I urge you to include in the Bill. of Rights grants equality to both sexes which is what we think we now have, but do not. I urge this Committee to give its best consideration to my proposal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Virginia Blend testimony regarding providing equal rights

https://scholarworks.umt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1141&context=montanaconstitution

Virginia Blend testimony regarding providing equal rights

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

University of Montana