Schlafly makes another unfortunate appearance ranting about the ERA .
It doesn’t mention women, it only mentions sex. It calls for equal rights according to sex. And that is why it is perfectly obvious that it would require same sex marriage licenses.
If the City Clerk declined to give a marriage license to a man and a man it is self-evident that you have discriminated on account of sex. I was on the platform with the Watergate Senator Sam Irvin (Senator Irvin chaired the investigation of Watergate), who was considered a Constitutional authority when he was in the Senate, and he said, I don’t know any group that the ERA would benefit except homosexuals. Remember the word in the ERA is sex, it’s not women.
Well, no Phyllis, the ERA is referring to this definition from the OED and everyone but you and your lackeys seem to at least understand it,
Either of the two divisions of organic beings distinguished as male and female respectively; the males or the females (of a species, etc., esp. of the human race) viewed collectively.
And let me recommend the OED definition of sex to everyone, their trying to deal with slang in a very uptight OED sort of way is amusing.