The Unintended Consequences of the ERA

This Op-Ed by Ilya Somin in the Legal Times raises some interesting questions with regard to uninteded consequences of passing the recently resurrected constitutional amendment:

What is surprising, however, is how many of the ERA’s probable effects will come as an unpleasant surprise to the amendment’s predominantly liberal supporters. If enacted, the ERA will likely curtail governmental affirmative action for women and invalidate public school programs that provide targeted assistance to African-American boys, results that many liberals are likely to deplore.

Among the items that may surprise people would be the elimiatnion of affirmative action programs for women (including minority women), the eligibiity of women for the draft, that is mandatory selective serive registration for our young women as well as young men, and possible the legal recognition of same-sex marriage.

But what it won't do is elimiate the so called Pay Gap:

Many ERA advocates claim that the ERA will improve the economic status of women. For example, Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) claimed that the ERA might help change the fact that “women still get only 77 cents for every dollar that men are paid.”

In fact, studies by economists conclude that most of the pay gap between men and women is a result of differences in occupational choices, not discrimination.

But even if discrimination does play a major role, the ERA is unlikely to affect the pay gap. The amendment would ban discrimination only by government, not by private employers. Most sex discrimination in government employment is already forbidden by federal statutes and by the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the equal protection clause.

So, the ERA may pass, although ratification would be difficult at best. But in doing so, ERA supporters may be greatly upset by the results.