ERA
coalition faces
controversy

by Joy Livingston

The Vermont Coalition for the
Equal Rights Amendment has grown
from a relatively small group of
dedicated ERA supporters to a large
group representing more than 40
organizations, regional groups, and
numerous individuals. The Coalition
has a board of directors, an executive
director and a staffed office in
Montpelier, and a very well organized
regional and town network of
coordinators and local groups. The
Coalition meets as a whole about OIICC
every two months, although in our
early development we met much more
frequently.

Many of those who crated the
coalition have been working on the
Vermont ERA for years to get the
amendment through the legislature,
fighting more than one grueling battle.
Last fall, this core group began to
organize l...:. state-wide coalition. It
was at this time that full coalition
meetings were held more frequently.

These early meetings were designed
to create the Coalition's organizational
structure. A main focus was the
inevitable by-laws discussion, including
such crucial issues as who could be a
member of the Coalition, and what
were the criteria for voting power. The
Coalition never considered the
possibility of operating by consensus.
But as more women learned of the
Coalition, interest moved from structure
to policy. In particular, many women
wanted to know how the Coalition
would deal with the connections
between the ERA and abortion and
gay/lesbian rights.

Needless to say, meetings were full
of tension. Building coalition is no
easy matter, particularly when trying to
find common ground for radical
activists, professional organizations, and
political party members and political
party regulars. We all had different
ways of organizing, different ways of
making decisions, not to mention very
different ways of looking at the Equal
Rights Amendment. While many of us
are anxious to get to the crucial policy
issues, others were equally anxious to
create a workable structure. Personally,
I was anxious to get to deal with
policy; however, hindsight has given me
an appreciation for the delay.

The policy issues we most wanted
to discuss dealt with the way the
Coalition was going to handle the ‘red
herrings" (abortion and gay/lesbian
rights). The Reactionary Right has
chosen these issues _b;_c_a_i;s_e_ they are
emotional. They are emotional issues
for everyone. The Coalition was no

exception. I think the by-laws debates,
especially around membership and
voting power, gave us a place to find
common ground. We began as a diverse
group with no basis for trust; indeed.
we all had histories that would lead us
to mistrust others in the group. The
by-laws discussion gave us more distant
issues with which to build a group
process. By the time we got to the
"red-herrings" I think we had found
ways to talk with each other, and had
acted out some of our mistrust.

The first genuine discussion of the
Coalition's policy on the ERA's
connection to abortion and gay/lesbian
rights was full of diversity. Heather
Wishick had made a very strong case
for the legal connection between the
ERA and gay/lesbian rights (see OITM,
April ’86). There were many at that
meeting who felt it was important for
the Coalition to take a stand clearly in
favor of gay/lesbian rights, advocating
the need for the connection. On the
other hand, there were strongly
reasoned arguments on the lack of legal
connection between the ERA and
gay/lesbian rights. Basically, the
argument referred to the legislative
history that clearly denied a connection.
In between these two rational
arguments were many, many statements
of personal/political stands. I shall no
doubt do injustice to the diversity of
expression, but I will still try to
summarize what I see as the two basic
points of view. On the one hand there
were those who see a need to advocate
forgay/lesbian rights. Most of these
people did not see the ERA as a tool
for such advocacy, but they did see the
need to take a strong, proud stand,
which might be best summarized by the
following: "I’m not sure if the ERA
will guarantee rights for gays and
lesbians, but it sure would be terrific
if it did!‘ The other side of the
debate centered on the concern that
making a connection between ERA and
gay/lesbian rights would serve to fuel
the firesof the Reactionary Right and
thereby spell defeat for the ERA. The
people on this side of the debate felt
the need to keep the issues separate,
perhaps best summarized by the
following: ‘The ERA has nothing to
do with gay and lesbian rights; ‘sex’ in
the amendment refers to gender not
sexuality."

The debate ended with a vote on a
proposed policy. The policy stated that
the Coalition viewed the ERA as a
separate issue from abortion rights and
gay/lesbian rights. A majority of
Coalition members voted in favor of
the policy.

Even though there had been a vote,
it was clear that the Coalition was still
divided over the ways to deal with
these issues. A number of us
volunteered to serve on an ad hoc
committee in order to come up with a
compromise solution. The committee
represented both sides of the debate,
and included several of the more
outspoken members.

June 1986 ° page 5

The ad hoc committee meeting
began with a discussion of our concerns
around abortion and gay/lesbian rights.
Come addressed the difference among
member groups in their stands on
abortion rights. All agreed on the need
to advocate for gay and lesbian rights.
Then we began to discuss how the
Coalition should deal with both issues.
We spent a good deal of time discussing
the ways in which the Right will try
to use the issues to defeat the ERA,
and we clarified the need to define our
own agenda and not to let the Right
define the agenda. By the end of the
discussion we had reached a
compromise we could all live with. We
would propose that the Coalition
expand its policy statement on the
separation of the ERA and these two
issues.

The proposed expansion would state
that the Coalition was composed of
diverse groups, all having different
interpretations of the connections, but
all committed to the passage of the
ERA. In terms of abortion rights, the
proposed expansion would go on to say
that abortion rights were already
guaranteed. and that state funding of
poor women's abortions would be
decided by the Courts prior to the ERA
vote. In terms of gay and lesbian
rights, the expansion would point out
that the Coalition came together out of
a commitment to all people's civil
rights. The final statement in the
proposed expansion pointed out that the
Right was opposed to equal rights and
would attempt to divert our attention
from the ERA.

We brought the proposed extension
to the next general Coalition meeting
and it was accepted by consensus of
the group.

Since this last vote the Coalition
has rarely discussed these issues at
general meetings. The meetings now
focus on specific organizational efforts
going on in towns and regions. Board
meetings have focused on developing
strategies for media campaigns. For
the most part, we look at the messages
we want to promote, not the ways in
which we will react to the opposition.
Generally, it is outside of the Coalition
that in-depth discussions of the ERA
and gay/lesbian rights occur. For
example, in Burlington, Peggy Luhrs
recently led a very well-attended
discussion on the ERA and homophobia.

Slowly but surely Coalition
members have grown a bit more
familiar with one another. We have

begun to find ways to work together on
the one issue upon which we agree, and
we have begun to develop enough
respect to hear each other. And I
continue to be watchful; we cannot let
our commitment to one set of rights be
lessened by our attempts to win another
set of rights. All our rights to live
freely are connected; one cannot be sold
to pay for another. We must work
together to resist moves to destroy our
rights and to build a world safe for us
all to live in.