#28th Amendment to the Constitution

[dontmeantobepoliticalbut]

California Gov. Gavin Newsom proposed Thursday adding a 28th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which he said will address the country's gun violence crisis.

The amendment would raise the minimum age to purchase a gun from 18 to 21, mandate universal background checks, institute a reasonable waiting period for all gun purchases and bar civilians from purchasing assault weapons, according to a statement from the Governor's office.

"This will guarantee states as well the ability to enact common sense gun safety laws, while leaving the Second Amendment intact, and respecting America's gun owning tradition," Newsom said in a video statement. "The 28th Amendment locks in the common sense constitutional protections that Democrats, Republicans, Independents and gun owners overwhelmingly support and ensures NRA-owned politicians can never strip those protections away."

6 in 10 Americans, including 4 in 10 gun owners, said controlling gun violence is more important than protecting gun rights – the highest percentage in a decade – according to a national poll released last month.

Newsom told Politico and NBC the move was inspired in part by the rollback of gun safety measures by the courts.

The move comes amid speculation that Newsom may run for President, which grew after he won a second term as Governor, which ends in 2026, and dropped $10 million on a new political action committee. Newsom has denied planning to run in 2024 or 2028, saying he supports President Joe Biden and wants Vice President Kamala Harris, a fellow Californian, to be President.

PROPOSAL SPARKS CRITICISM FROM GUN GROUPS

The move has drawn opposition from gun-ownership groups. A spokesperson for The National Rifle Association said in a statement to USA TODAY that the majority of Americans reject Newsom's "California-style gun control.”

“Newsom’s latest publicly stunt once again shows that his unhinged contempt for the right to self-defense has no bounds," the statement said. "California is a beacon for violence because of Newsom’s embrace of policies that champion the criminal and penalize the law-abiding."

Erich Pratt, senior vice president of Gun Owners of America said "Newsom's proposals will fail miserably to control crime."

"It's a foreign concept to wealthy anti-gun political elites like Mr. Newsom that the common people have a right to possess arms for self-defense and repelling government tyranny, so it's no surprise to us that he hopes to butcher that right with a new Constitutional amendment," he said in a statement to USA TODAY.

ADDING CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT 'WON'T BE EASY'

Adding a constitutional amendment requires either a two-thirds majority vote by both houses of Congress or a constitutional convention convened by two-thirds of State legislatures, according to Thomas Donnelly, chief content officer at the National Constitution Center. None of the 27 amendments to the Constitution have been proposed by a convention and the last time the Constitution was amended was in 1992, he said.

Three-fourths of the states must ratify the proposed amendment in order for it to become part of the Constitution, Donnelly said. Donnelly declined to speculate on the likelihood of Newsom's success. But he said the process is "meant to be difficult."

"The Founders really wanted to limit new amendments to those that can actually secure the broad support of the American people, so for them, they would have said 'an idea that would transcend faction,'" he said. "Today, we would say it's often something that's going to transcend partisan politics."

Given the impact of the Supreme Court's landmark ruling on gun control last year, "something like a Constitutional amendment may seem absolutely necessary," according to Michael Waldman, president and CEO of the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law.

Waldman, author of "The Supermajority: How the Supreme Court Divided the Country," called Newsom's approach, which leaves the Second Amendment intact but allows for "common sense gun laws" that may be palatable to some gun rights supporters, creative and interesting. He said Newsom's amendment "is not likely to happen, but it's important to think about it."

"Constitutional amendments seem completely impossible to do until suddenly they seem doable, and that's how it's worked all throughout our history," Waldman said. "If the Court's doctrine is so misguided and the carnage on the streets is so undeniable, you might get a surprising outcome."

Newsom acknowledged how challenging the process would be, saying "this fight won't be easy, and it certainly won't be fast."

California State Sen. Aisha Wahab and Assemblymember Reggie Jones-Sawyer will introduce a joint resolution to make California the first state to call for a convention, also called an Article V Convention or amendatory convention, according to the Governor's statement.

Newsom will then work with "grassroots supporters, elected and civic leaders, and broad and diverse coalitions across the nation" to get similar resolutions passed in the 33 other states required to convene the convention, the statement said.

"California will be the first but that's just the beginning," Newsom said in a statement.

[whenweallvote]

“Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.”

Today in 1972, the U.S. Senate passed the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), sending the legislation to the states for ratification. For an amendment to officially become part of the U.S. Constitution, at least three-fourths of the states must vote to adopt it. 

In January 2020, Virginia became the 38th state to ratify the ERA — and members of the Congressional Caucus for the ERA are still working to officially recognize and publish it as the 28th Amendment.

🎨: Refinery29

[sgiandubh]

The 28th Amendment?

After a long silence, Sleeping Beauty's social media seems to be (somewhat) back to life, with this story:

This is part of a national public awareness and lobby campaign organized by a US NGO, Equal means Equal, aiming to promote the formal inclusion of a 28th Amendment (the Equal Rights Amendment) in the US Constitution.

This is the current state of play: what is needed, according to Equal means Equal, is a final push, in order to make something started in 1972 a reality. This state of play is unthinkable, to an European, by the way: gender equality became effective on our ravaged, postwar continent for many reasons, including the most practical you could think of. Those are usually related to voting rights, the acknowledgement of women's contribution to the war effort, the economic and social reconstruction process and even a faux-equalitarian ideology, like in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union (loudly promote gender equality, but at the same time, take away any legal guarantee and protection of private ownership of anything, from houses to shops to banks).

The final push for success is a public appeal to POTUS to act on it, launched as a side event at the New York FOCUS Art Fair, a contemporary art rendezvous' with a strong Gen Z flair:

C is a part to this event with a signed copy of Reserved, an independent media outlet with a clear progressive flair and all the bells and whistles of a Gen Z future icon:

I was particularly intrigued by this: 'Once a magazine, Reserved has evolved into an annual hardcover print edition collector’s item'. It immediately made me think of one of my favorite things in the art world, Franco Maria Ricci's FMR Magazine (https://www.francomariaricci.com/en). A mythical thing, the stuff of legend - to each generation its own, I suppose.

Time to make an important point, though: the Reserved copy up for silent auction was not donated by C herself, but by Jules Wood:

Meet Jules Wood, editor-in-chief of Reserved and fashion director of Ellen von Unwerth's VON Magazine :

Pretty much sure this is an old acquaintance, too.

In the couple of hours since I began writing this post, bidding started from 500 USD and has now risen to 2000 USD, thanks to a generous soul, who wishes to remain Anonymous:

You don't say. Anonymous, huh?

Cue in the Stans who will surely bitch it's 'just her US friends' (primarily BIF barking and/or Anon being dropped in Fascist inboxes in 3, 2, 1...) But hey, we have a different view, don't we?

And it's quite alright.

PS: Pics in that Reserved copy are taken from C's photoshoot for Ellen von Unwerth , sometime before June 2021:

[notbeingnoticed]

Almost a year later, no other blue state has taken up Newsom on his proposal.

[psychic-refugee]

Wenvier Bingo Bodyguard

President Sherry Thorpe had a meteoric rise in her political career. She started in the House, representing New York’s 26th Congressional District, hailing from Niagara. She was instantly popular and soon became a Senator for New York.

It was no surprise when she ran for the Presidency and became the United States first Outcast President in its history.

The only dark horse in her campaign was her son, Xavier. There was something off about him that no one could quite define. Some said it was simply his nature as an Outcast, but many did not care about his designation or his psychic powers. They insisted that whatever was weird about it, had nothing to do with being an Outcast.

Perhaps there was something about his intense green eyes, but whatever it was about Xavier, it scared off bodyguards left and right.

That was, until Wednesday.

She was distinguished amongst her cohort, scoring the highest on the written and physical exams. Although a background check was not technically a test, she managed to get the highest marks regardless.

Wednesday was also an Outcast, and something about Xavier made her shiver underneath her skin, and it wasn’t just because of how handsome he was.

It turned out President Sherry had been keeping a deep dark secret, one that could no longer be kept.

It was a re-election year, and Madam President and her closest advisors were brought into the Oval Office for an off the record secret meeting.

There was Vice President Larissa Weems, Chief of Staff Enid Sinclair, Secretary of Defense Donovan Galpin, and Secretary of State Morticia Addams.

Xavier was there as well, unsure of what the meeting was about. Wednesday his ever present shadow was off to the side, standing vigilant.

All but President Thorpe sat on the decorative couches, awaiting the life changing news.

Sherry sighed, she had always hoped her dark secret would die with her, and she went over to the alcohol tray and poured herself four fingers worth of bourbon.

She savored the smooth taste and enjoyed the slight burn.

“I am being blackmailed,” she started off.

It caused everyone to tense, but they were expecting something like it. They were in politics after all, and there was no such thing as a spotless politician.

“What is it? Hookers? Drugs?” Galpin wanted it over with, “Please do not tell me it’s war profiteering.”

“It’s worse,” she warned them and took another drink. They all braced themselves.

“It’s about Xavier,” she didn’t know why it was so hard to confess, but she couldn’t help but buy herself time. “He’s…Canadian.”

They all audibly gasped, Morticia had brought her hand to her mouth in horror.

“He’s…how?!” Larissa demanded to know, how could THE President of the United States keep such a secret and get away with it?

Enid was a bit more forgiving and thought that it explained a lot.

He has an unnatural love for hockey, he doesn’t like Dunkin or Krispy Kreme.

She shuddered at the thought of him liking Tim Horton’s, she couldn’t even look at him.

“I met his father on a diplomatic trip to Toronto, before peace talks totally broke down and they built the wall…he was in a band. They can be very charming and polite,” she tried to justify herself.

“Yeah, charming and polite until they chop you in half with a wood axe,” Donovan sneered, more familiar than most with how ruthless the Canucks could be.

“That’s enough,” Morticia warned him, “This is manageable.”

“Manageable?” Donovan couldn’t believe those words had come out of her mouth. “This is a goddamn constitutional crisis. The 28th Amendment, None of Canadian blood, or related thereof, shall hold the Office of President. Does that ring a bell?”

“Do not quote the Constitution to me, I was there at the start of the Maple Wars and when that Amendment was enacted,” Morticia snapped. "He's of her blood, she's not of his blood..." the argument failed on her tongue as the caselaw was iffy at best.

"Oh, because U.S. citizens are so good at thinking fairly and being level headed," he snorted in derision. "I'm sure they'll all politely agree, especially the ones who lost loved ones in the Great Maple Flood of '24, or the Beaver Massacre of '24, or losing North Montana to Saskatchwan," he rattled off Canadian war crimes and atrocities.

“Everyone quiet!” Larissa had enough, she turned to Xavier’s bodyguard. “Wednesday, find the blackmailers and kill them. Protocol Nevermore,” which not only gave Wednesday leave to kill, but to wipe all traces of their bloodline and evidence of Xavier’s dark secret.

Wednesday nodded her head and gave no indication of emotion, as she was typically wont to do, and immediately left.

They all turned to Larissa, bewildered,

“Oh, don’t be so naïve. Of course she doubles as an assassin. This is America. Who else could handle Xavier?” Larissa was not about to be judged for her decisive actions. “Combining the dark blood of Canadians and Outcasts, really Sherry?”

“If you heard his father sing, you’d understand,” the President shrugged, slightly drunk but glad the issue was being taken care of, she did have the best Cabinet.

Later that night, Xavier painted in the loft he owned in Georgetown. Wednesday had come, splatters of blood on her normally pristine suit.

“I’m sorry you had to do that,” he said softly as he stood before her, eyeing her up and down to make sure she was unhurt.

“I will always protect you,” she promised, pulling him down for a kiss.

“We never even got to tell them our own little secret,” he gently cupped her barely swelling belly, he knew his mother and her Cabinet would not be happy that he had been dating his bodyguard.

“One crisis at a time.”

Card under cut

[abwatt]

The American Bar Association's Resolution #601, which passed yesterday during their annual business meeting, says that their membership is of the opinion that the Equal Rights Amendment a) should now be certified as the 28th Amendment to the US Constitution, and b) that Congress and the states should now work to enforce this by appropriate legislation.

I wrote to my Congressman and my Senators today about this. I urged them to ask the National Archivist to certify the 28th Amendment (the ERA) and to make Congress and the states begin to enforce it by appropriate legislation.

[so-much-for-subtlety]

Impossible to know, but I often wonder what the founding fathers (FFs) would think about America today.

I think that The Constitution is a pretty amazing framework and has great ideas (the separation of powers thru the 3 branches) but it's not like the FFs thought that it was perfect: Thomas Jefferson and John Adams often referenced it as a bold experiment in self governance (which is where we get the popular idea of "the great American experiment").

The Constitution was drafted over just 4 months, and the FFs obviously knew it wasn't perfect because they built in the ability to make amendments.

Don't forget that the original constitution had some ideas that would seem pretty wacky today. Before the 12th amendment the VP was the runner up in the presidential election, so in 2016 we would have had a Trump/Clinton administration.

And the amendments themselves are not always great. Like the 18th amendment that prohibited the manufacturing or sale of alcohol which was repealed just 14 years later with the 21st amendment.

When the 2nd amendment was ratified in 1791, the types of weapons available were single-shot guns like muskets and pistols that would take a good 30 seconds to reload.

I suspect that the FFs were here today they would think we are all bananas for sticking to a 200+ year old text.

I think there should be a 28th amendment that codifies that on a regular basis (maybe every 100 years?) that a new constitutional convention is held and a new constitution is created, probably with some constraints (like that any new constitution must allow for amendments, and that new constitution has a lifespan of 100 years).

At the very least the language can be updated to be easily understandable by contemporary readers, and amendments can be rolled up into the constitution itself.

Obviously there's a lot of details there around who authors the constitution, and how it's ratified by the people, but I seriously think we need this. Do we seriously think that we'll still be referencing this text in another 100 years?

[blacksagenews]

The Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam Sue the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and the Simon Wiesenthal Center (SWC) for the Misuse of the Word “Anti-Semite”

IN THE NAME OF ALLAH, THE BENEFICENT, THE MERCIFUL

For immediate release

October 21, 2023

The Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam Sue the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and the Simon Wiesenthal Center (SWC) for the Misuse of the Word “Anti-Semite”

Chicago—On October 16, 2023, which was the 28th Anniversary of the Million Man March, the Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam (NOI) sued the ADL, its CEO, Johnathan Greenblatt, SWC, and Rabbi Abraham Cooper of the SWC in the Federal Court of the Southern District of New York for 1st Amendment violations and for defamation.

For over 40 years, the Defendants have falsely labeled Minister Farrakhan and the NOI as “anti-Semites,” and as “anti-Semitic” because of a difference in theological viewpoints, and for his pointing out misbehavior of some members of the Jewish community, among other things.  This false labeling has hindered Minister Farrakhan in his Mission, which is to deliver the Truth taught by the Most Honorable Elijah Muhammad that will correct the condition of spiritual, mental and moral death of the Black man and woman of America that came as a result of the 310 years of chattel slavery and over 150 years of oppression and suppression thereafter.

Minister Farrakhan and the NOI, in bringing this action, are keenly aware that good, law-abiding citizens are likewise victims of this mischaracterization including, the late Nelson Mandela, President Jimmy Carter, Reverend Jesse Jackson, Bishop Desmond Tutu, and many more.

The Defendants have, at times, indiscriminately and arbitrarily mislabeled countless politicians, entertainers, athletes, authors, educators, public speakers, academicians, comedians, and others, as being “anti-Semites” and as “anti-Semitic,” simply because, in many instances, the speaker did not agree with the Defendants’ point of view and, in some instances, simply because the person made a favorable comment about Minister Farrakhan and/or the Nation of Islam.

The importance of this case extends far beyond the named Plaintiffs, but it encompasses every citizen of America who values the freedom of speech, the freedom to exercise his or her religion, and the freedom to associate with persons of like interests.

These unjust actions by the Defendants, over the years, have caused many to fear their censure and rebuke, which, thereby, significantly erodes, and has a chilling effect, on the protections woven into the fabric of the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and must not be accepted.

If it is the will of Allah (God), Minister Farrakhan will personally address the filing of the lawsuit at a press conference in the near future.

The Complaint and Exhibits may be accessed at NOI.org/NOIvADL Email inquiries may be sent to: NOILawsuit@noi.org Voicemail inquiries may be left at: 602-922-3536

Download COMPLAINT against Anti-Defamation League, Johnathan Greenblatt, Simon Wiesenthal Center, Abraham Cooper

Download Links for Court Documents Below

Exhibit A-L,

Exhibit L1-M,

Exhibit N,

Exhibit O-Q,

Exhibit R-T,

Exhibit U-Z ,

Exhibit AA-CC,

Exhibit DD,

Exhibit DD1-EE,

Exhibit FF-GG,

Exhibit HH-JJ,

Exhibit JJ1-OO,

Exhibit PP-ZZ,

Exhibit AAA-MMM

The Complaint and Exhibits may be accessed at  https://noi.org/NOIvADL/ and www.finalcall.com. The Final Call will continue to cover this important and critical story as it develops.

[troopingfairy]

Analysis from yesterday by Dutch-Palestinian analyst Mouin Rabbani. Continuation:

in the case concerning “Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel)”.

Many people, rightly horrified by Israel’s genocidal campaign against the Palestinian people in the Gaza Strip, expect the ICJ to order a comprehensive ceasefire.

In their view this is the least the ICJ can and should do. They will consider anything less a failure by South Africa, a betrayal of the Palestinian people, and an indictment of the ICJ and indeed of international law itself.

My own view is that this matter should be looked at very differently and judged by different criteria.

The ICJ can respond in several ways to South Africa’s application. It can determine that South Africa has not presented a plausible case that Israel needs to answer, decline to order any provisional measures, and effectively consider the case closed.

The Court could also determine that South Africa has failed to demonstrate that there is a dispute between South Africa and Israel as defined by the Genocide Convention, and dismiss the case on technical grounds.

Either scenario would be a clear defeat for South Africa and the Palestinians, and for that matter the concept of international justice. Most specialists consider either of these scenarios to be the least likely outcome,

largely because the South African legal team presented such a meticulously detailed and cogently argued legal and factual case, while Israel’s rebuttal was comparatively weak.

If the Court does indeed order provisional measures, it is not bound by those requested by South Africa. It can adopt all of them, some of them, or entirely different ones than those proposed by South Africa.

In the relevant precedents, Bosnia and thereafter Myanmar, the ICJ sufficed with general injunctions ordering the accused state to “take all measures within its power” to prevent acts that amount to or contribute to the crime of genocide.

In doing so it may even prohibit specific acts identified in the Convention, such as deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about the physical destruction of the threatened group.

The ICJ did indeed order a ceasefire in the case of Ukraine, but as was pointed out to me in response to a previous thread, this was an entirely different case. Ukraine did not claim that it was the victim of genocide,

but rather that unsubstantiated Russian accusations of genocide against Ukraine were being used by Russia to justify military operations on Ukrainian territory. It was on this basis that Ukraine requested, and the ICJ ordered, Russia to halt those operations.

Although South Africa has in the present case asked the Court to order an “immediate” suspension of Israeli military operations in the Gaza Strip in order to prevent further Israeli violations of the Genocide Convention,

it has not asked the Court to specifically rule on the legality of Israel’s military operations against the Gaza Strip.

The ICJ is therefore highly unlikely to offer its view on the matter by, for example, declaring Israel’s Operation Iron Sword illegal or intrinsically genocidal and on this basis ordering it to a halt.

On the basis of the above I do not expect the ICJ – which does not operate in a vacuum – to voluntarily wade into a political hornet’s nest and order a ceasefire. Even if it did, such a ruling would be dead on arrival because Israel has already stated it would ignore it.

The Court does not have the power to enforce its rulings. That role is performed by the United Nations Security Council. And so long as the United States remains a veto-wielding permanent member of the Council,

it will block any attempt by the ICJ to prevent Israel from committing genocide. I have it on good authority the US constitution will soon include a 28th amendment codifying Israeli impunity.

It would in my view therefore be a mistake to judge the Friday ICJ Order by whether or not it calls for a ceasefire. It won’t, for reasons largely unrelated to the substance of this case, and even if it did this would have only symbolic value and have zero impact on the ground.

Much more important, in my view, is whether the Court issues any provisional measures at all. If it does anything other than dismiss South Africa’s application this would be hugely significant.

because it means the world’s highest court has judged that South Africa has made a plausible case that Israel is in violation of the Genocide Convention and that its allegations deserve a full hearing.

Think of it as a formal accusation requiring a proper and full trial. And any provisional measures mean there will be that full trial.

As has been noted elsewhere, the Court is at this stage not determining whether or not Israel is guilty of the crime of genocide. Rather, it is only examining whether South Africa has plausibly accused Israel of genocide,

and if so what “provisional measures” are required to prevent irreparable harm pending the conclusion of the hearings. If it indeed proceeds to that stage, these hearings can be expected to last several years.

(The Bosnia case was initiated in 1993 and concluded in 2007, the Myanmar case was launched in 2019 and remains ongoing.)

While anything is possible Friday, including an ICJ ruling that either dismisses the case or orders a ceasefire, many specialists expect neither. Rather, they seem to believe that the Court will agree to proceed with the case and adopt more generic provisional measures.

This would, as noted, be hugely significant. It means that Israel stands legitimately accused of genocide, widely considered the most serious crime on the books, “the crime of crimes”.

The state that claims to be a “Light unto the nations”, that claims to have “the most moral army in the world” because it fights according to the code of “purity of arms”, and that claims to exist so that “Never Again”,

will stand accused of intentionally seeking to destroy a group of people on the basis of their identity, and be forced to defend itself. A searchlight unto the nations, determined to do it yet again.

Irrespective of the ultimate outcome, it is a stain from which Israel will never recover.

I am indebted to @/ArdiImseis, professor of law at Queen’s University, for pointing out a further significant aspect of an ICJ Order on provisional measures:

“The Convention is not just about the punishment of the crime of genocide, it is also about the prevention of the crime of genocide. Once you have a plausible case of genocide, which is implied if the Court does issue a provisional measures order,

that triggers a positive obligation on the part of other signatories to the Genocide Convention: to prevent genocide. This leads to the need to adjust their own policies vis-à-vis the occupying power’s actions in Gaza, including arms transfers and diplomatic protection.”

In other words, judge the ICJ Order Friday by whether it endorses or dismisses South Africa’s application, not on the basis of whether or not it orders measures that Israel will ignore and the US render meaningless.

[mitchipedia]

Gavin Newsom wants 28th Amendment for guns in U.S. Constitution. The amendment doesn’t go far enough. Swing for the fences. Repeal the Second Amendment outright.

[daggerandrose]

I don’t talk about politics a lot on here but!!! A 28th Amendment has been proposed!!

California Governor Gavin Newsom has proposed a 28th Amendment which will:

Raise the minimum age to purchase a gun to 21

Require universal background checks

Establish a “reasonable waiting period for gun purchases”

Ban the civilian purchase of assault weapons

In order for this to pass, 2/3 of all 50 states will have to propose the same amendment. That will start a constitutional convention where 3/4s of all 50 states will have to vote yes in order for it to pass.

This is huge and will take a lot of time to pass. But at least it’s something other than thoughts and prayers.

[lycanspirited]

Fucking Christ, you can't do this. Fucking California, fuck yourself.

[the-sayuri-rin]

NEW: I’m proposing the 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution to help end our nation’s gun violence crisis. The American people are sick of Congress’ inaction.

The 28th will enshrine 4 widely supported gun safety freedoms -- while leaving the 2nd Amendment intact:

1) Raising the minimum age to purchase a gun to 21

2) Universal background checks

3) A reasonable waiting period for gun purchases

4) Banning the civilian purchase of assault weapons

[building-success1]

Equal Rights For All

Fifty years ago today, the U.S. Senate passed the Equal Rights Amendment, following the lead of the House of Representatives and paving the way for it to become the 28th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Yet the ERA was never added to the Constitution - because Congress also set a deadline. It said 38, or 3/4 of the states, had to ratify the proposed amendment by 1979. It later extended the deadline to 1982. So when in 2020 Virginia became the final state needed to ratify the ERA, it was almost 40 years too late.

Federal Law

With the passage of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 came many cases of sex discrimination and complaints that revealed protective labor laws to be tools used to limit employment opportunities for women. Thereafter, in 1972, Congress finally passed the ERA stating that “Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.” Yet, almost 50 years after its passage, it has still not been added to the Constitution.

Based on sex it doesn't say Men Women or Sexual Orientation.