|
moral and social problems does not violate
equal protection. There was a state statute
which forbade women to act as bartenders.
There have been a number of other cases
which have gone to the Supreme Court
where the court has held likewise.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Mitchell,
were any of the cases that you have re-
ferred to arising under constitutional pro-
visions similar to that covered by this
amendment?
DELEGATE MITCHELL: No. They
were really arising under state laws.
THE CHAIRMAN: Very well.
Delegate Storm.
DELEGATE STORM: Mr. Chairman,
could I ask the Chairman of the Committee
a question?
THE CHAIRMAN: Certainly.
Delegate Kiefer, do you yield to a
question?
DELEGATE KIEFER: Yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Storm.
DELEGATE STORM: Chairman Kiefer,
in reading the Committee's memorandum,
I had the idea that the use of "no person"
at the beginning of this section really made
the section as originally written apply to
both male and female, and even those in
between.
Was this a proper interpretation?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Kiefer.
DELEGATE KIEFER: I think so.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Sturm.
DELEGATE STORM: Then, actually,
under the original committee recommenda-
tion, any unwise result from the use of "no
person" by eliminating any protection that
women have, would have resulted under the
original committee recommendation as well
as under my amendment, isn't that right?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Kiefer.
DELEGATE KIEFER: No, that is not
quite correct. What I said was, and what
the committee report says, was that "no
person shall be denied the equal protection
of the laws" applies to all persons.
Now, there have been concerted efforts
in Congress for a good many years to pro-
vide a separate amendment with respect to
sex, and I think the reason for it was to
|
particularly eliminate any probable con-
fusion.
These questions do not come up under
the equal protection clause. The language
that would be used, which has been offered
in this constitutional amendment, was
"equality of rights under law shall not be
denied on account of sex," and what that
exactly would mean I am not sure. But it
seems to have been the consensus of opin-
ion, at least in Congress, and as a matter
of fact in various other states that this
should be the subject of some special kind
of arrangement, not just thrown in by this
equal protection thing.
It is true I have said, no persons, means
all persons. However, I do believe this does
lead to some situations which are somewhat
distinct and different from the question of
race, and we have great doubt in that.
THE CHAIRMAN: Any delegate desire
to speak in favor of the amendment?
Delegate Bamberger?
DELEGATE BAMBERGER: Mr. Chair-
man, I would respectfully request Delegate
Storm to withdraw this amendment until
we have some opportunity to have ex-
plained to us more fully its effects.
I think, as the Chair has suggested, that
including this in the constitution would
raise some serious question about the va-
lidity of laws which establish different reg-
ulations regarding employment for women,
laws which allow alimony for female
spouses, and not male spouses, and several
other respects.
I do not know that it has ever been in-
cluded in any of the state constitutions. I
am sorry I cannot recite all of the prob-
lems it raises, but if you will take my as-
surance, that it raises some very serious
problems, I will get the authorities for you.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Storm.
DELEGATE STORM: Mr. Chairman, I
am perfectly willing to postpone action, if
someone wants to bring in information to
show that the original committee report
was very negligent in this respect. But I
had faith that "no person" meant "no per-
son" in that report, and that there would
be no harmful effects from it.
Now, I feel a little bit confused. I am
really glad I voted for that non-discrimina-
tory clause because evidently things were
not as I understood them.
Now, if you want to postpone it and if
that is in order, I am perfectly willing to
wait to have some authorities brought in.
|
