Florida State University Libraries

Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations The Graduate School

2013 Religion, Sex & Politics: The Story of the in Laura E. Brock

Follow this and additional works at the FSU Digital Library. For more information, please contact [email protected] THE FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCES

RELIGION, SEX & POLITICS: THE STORY OF THE EQUAL

RIGHTS AMENDMENT IN FLORIDA

By

LAURA E. BROCK

A Dissertation submitted to the Department of Religion in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Awarded: Summer Semester, 2013

Copyright © 2013 Laura E. Brock All Rights Reserved Laura E. Brock defended this dissertation on June 24, 2013. The members of the supervisory committee were:

Amanda Porterfield Professor Directing Dissertation

Deana A. Rohlinger University Representative

John Corrigan Committee Member

John Kelsay Committee Member

The Graduate School has verified and approved the above-named committee members, and certifies that the dissertation has been approved in accordance with university requirements.

ii

This dissertation is dedicated to my mother, Ruth Brock (1932 – 2010), my father, Roy Brock, and my brother, Caleb Brock.

iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I am grateful to the dozens of people who encouraged and helped me complete this project while I worked full-time and spent every spare minute researching and writing. The bright world of scholarship at Florida State University has enriched my life immeasurably and I owe a debt of gratitude to those who embody that world. My deepest thanks go to my advisor,

Amanda Porterfield, for guiding me through this project after expanding my mind and intellect in so many positive ways. Her brilliance and wisdom are delightfully a part of her perpetually optimistic outlook. I never would have finished without Amanda’s encouragement and support.

My committee was extremely helpful throughout my years of study. John Corrigan taught me to write better, think critically, and intellectually expand. His passion for knowledge and continually engaging new areas of study fueled my own desire for learning. John Kelsay has guided me and patiently listened to me ask questions since we met in 1994. I am grateful for his breadth of knowledge and scholarship. Deana Rohlinger continues to challenge and teach me since I participated in her seminar in 2008. She is the consummate scholar with an ability to impart a passion for the subjects that she teaches. Amy Koehlinger, who was part of my committee until she was lured away by another university, was a helpful guide to my studies. She helped me to think through topics in American religious history in a comprehensive way, and was a great encourager. I also would also like to thank the Religion Department staff present and past – Jon Bridges, Susan Stetson, and Susan Minnerly, for their invaluable assistance.

I never would have made it through comps or the dissertation without my student colleagues who spent hours at Crispers working as a writing group to make scholarship a collective enterprise rather than a completely solitary endeavor: Molly Reed, Cara Burnidge,

Tammy Heise, and Brooke Sherrard. I am grateful for their support and friendship throughout

iv our years together. Warm appreciation goes to Molly, specifically, for the many encouraging texts she sent to keep me sane throughout this process.

This project would never have been completed without the close constant spiritual companionship of my friends. A special thanks that goes beyond words to Kathy Mears who encouraged me every step of the way on this dissertation. Her clear mind, calm spirit, fervent prayers, and kind soul kept me on track and helped me finish this project. For reading through and editing my manuscript, my gratitude goes to my dear friend Dee Beranek, who journeyed with me on in this long endeavor, even as she faced her own life challenges. She helped me to stay cool and focused. Dee always knew exactly what to say to help me persevere. Myra Hurt provided support, encouragement, and counsel. She knew exactly when to commiserate and when to say: “Snap out of it!” Therese Lysaught is the spiritual companion that I met online as I purchased books for this scholarly endeavor ten years ago. She has been a gift from God and has walked with me throughout this project, providing encouragement and assistance in every aspect of the dissertation. My gratitude also goes to Alicia Crew and Janet Stoner whose constant encouragement kept me balanced and determined to finish this project. They made sure to get me out on the golf course now and then, ignoring the fact that my golf game was more of a “soil sampling” enterprise. A warm thanks goes to my ex-husband and dear friend, Jerry Price. He walked with me throughout this long academic journey and offered support and encouragement.

It is difficult to express the depth of my appreciation for his friendship and love. Other friends who encouraged me were the YaYa sisterhood, Elsie Crowell, Alma Littles, JoAnne Graf, Laura

Doran, Barb Harris, Pat Martin, Gayle Nelson, Murdina Campbell, Carol Hart, Betty Steffens,

Beverly Frick, Susan Wilson, Tina White, Margaret Edwards, Carol Swanson, and Cynthia

Tunnicliff. Margaret Lynn Duggar shared stories, gave me memorabilia, and urged me onward.

v This project also would not have been completed in a timely manner without the support from my boss, Dean John Fogarty, M.D., of the Florida State University (FSU) College of

Medicine, who graciously granted me a three-month professional development leave of absence.

He has also supported my growth and development as a writer and scholar. Former bosses also graciously encouraged my scholarship, including former FSU President T.K. Wetherell, and former House of Representatives’ Speaker (and current Congressman) Daniel Webster.

I wish to acknowledge the gracious aid I received from archivists and librarians in the

State Archives of Florida and the Green Library at Florida International University. My special appreciation to Anne MacKenzie who as director of the Florida Legislative Research Center and

Museum provided me with oral histories of legislators involved in the ERA battle. She also told me her own ERA stories, experienced firsthand as a legislative aide and as a legislator.

I appreciate the various conversations I have had with many current and former legislators, legislative staff members, lobbyists, and news reporters in the state capitol who generously shared their ERA memories and time with me so I could tell their story in my own way. My thanks and admiration go to Faye Culp, Sandi Harris, Martha Barnett, Patsy Eccles,

Fely Curva, Steve Wilkerson, LuMarie Polivka-West, Kathy Betancourt, Dale Patchett, Jim

Tillman, Sam Bell, Terry Meek, John Phelps, Karen Woodall, Larry Polivka, Bob Ward, Martin

Dyckman, Mary Ann Lindley, John Van Gieson, and Linda Becker. And Senator Ed Price, who shared many memories. In a similar vein, there was an FSU cohort of supporters who offered encouragement, including TaWanda DuRant, Donna McHugh, Bob Bradley, Kathleen Daly, Lee

Hinkle, Cheryl Bakker, Nancy Marcus, Cecile Reynaud, Billie Jo Jones, Jan Wells, Carol

Weissert, Doris Gray, and Steve MacNamara. Special thanks to Mary Coburn for her advice and counsel on how to survive and finish the project without forgetting the importance of spirituality.

vi Additional members of the FSU academic community – my public policy heroes –

Governor and President Emeritus Sandy D’Alemberte were kind to converse with me throughout this project. Not only did they care about my scholarship, but also each of them offered personal encouragement about my life direction. I am grateful to know such statesmen and will forever be inspired by the example of leadership they have provided in Florida’s history.

While the people named above provided support, encouragement, and material resources during the research and writing process, any errors within the dissertation are mine alone.

I am grateful to have known , who inspired this dissertation. She befriended me, although I was a young Republican, and taught me the value of passionate advocacy, leaving a lasting impression on my life.

Special gratitude goes to Senator , former member of the legislature for 12 years, 2014 gubernatorial candidate, and friend since we met in 1996 when I was sent to

Broward County to “keep and eye on” the Broward Health and Human Services Board. She was part of the ERA effort and is a life-long advocate with the goal of tikkun olam, no matter what organizational hat she wears. Nan has been a wonderful supporter and conversation partner in the writing of this dissertation. She and her husband, David, continue to be an inspiration to me.

Throughout my entire graduate school experience I have had the support of my family.

My mother, Ruth Brock, was able to see me pass my comprehensive exams before she passed away; my father, Roy Brock, has been my biggest fan and encourager as he read dissertation chapters; and my brother Caleb cheered me onward with reassuring words throughout the process. My love for them is beyond words. I am grateful for their presence in my life, and dedicate this dissertation to them.

vii TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Tables ...... ix List of Figures ...... x Abstract ...... xii INTRODUCTION – THE EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT BATTLE IN FLORIDA: WOMEN, SEX, RELIGION, AND FAMILY VALUES ...... 1

1. FRAMING THE EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT: EARLY HARMONY AND MOUNTING DISCORD, 1972 – 1974 ...... 31

2. MARCHING AND MEDIA WARS: RELIGIOUS RHETORIC, MORAL FRAMING, AND THE EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT CONFLICT, 1975-1976 ...... 94

3. “LADIES AGAINST WOMEN:” FLORIDA’S SEXUAL COUNTER-REVOLUTION AND THE MORAL VETO: 1977 – 1978 ...... 139

4. UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES: THE RISE OF THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT, AND THE LAST FLORIDA ERA BATTLE, 1979 – 1982 ...... 185

EPILOGUE – THE IRONY AND LEGACY OF THE EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT .... 232

APPENDICES ...... 237

A. EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT – NATIONAL CHRONOLOGY ...... 237

B. EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT – FLORIDA CHRONOLOGY 1972-1982 ...... 238

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 240

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ...... 248

viii LIST OF TABLES

1.1 Labor Force Participation Rates of Married Women, Husband Present, by Presence and Age of Own Children: Selected Years 1972-1982 ...... 13

3.1 Religious Committee for the ERA ...... 149

ix LIST OF FIGURES

1.1 Just prior to working on the ERA, (far left), Sandy D’Alemberte (back middle) Ross Perot (left front), Governor Askew (right front) at signing of legislation enabling families to carry on business absent a POW husband (in Vietnam) ...... 35

1.2 Rep. Gwen Cherry discussing legislation with Rep. Dick Clark...... 37

1.3 Rep. Mary Grizzle discussing strategy with Rep. Gwen Cherry ...... 44

1.4 Rep. Elaine Gordon covers the “R” in MRS. with electrical tape ...... 62

1.5 Governor Reubin Askew addresses the legislature ...... 69

1.6 Rep. Gene Hodges desk draped with a STOP ERA apron ...... 72

1.7 Excerpt from Rep. Elaine Gordon’s list of legislators; legislator address, religious affiliation and position on the Equal Rights Amendment in 1974 ...... 74

1.8 Senator Lori Wilson after the ERA defeat in the Senate ...... 91

2.1 ERA Opponents cause a stir in the house gallery by booing and hissing at Askew’s request to ratify the ERA...... 95

2.2 Rep. Elaine Bloom and Rep. Elaine Gordon ...... 105

2.3 Rep. Elaine Gordon asks the house to pass ERA ...... 109

2.4 ERA march from the Governor’s mansion to the capitol ...... 111

2.5 Governor Reubin Askew speaking at an ERA Rally with Actress Marlo Thomas, Rep. Elaine Gordon and Senator Lori Wilson ...... 113

2.6 Rep. Gwen Cherry debating ...... 129

2.7 The 1976 did not consider the ERA ...... 131

3.1 Anita Bryant was active in fighting the Dade County Ordinance and the ERA ...... 142

3.2 House Speaker Donald Tucker with a gavel replacement ...... 155

3.3 Demonstration by Anti-ERA forces ...... 156

3.4 Senator Dempsey Barron (right) and Senator Pat Thomas ...... 167

3.5 Senator ...... 168

x

3.6 Senator Lori Wilson debating the Equal Rights Amendment ...... 169

3.7 Senator and ERA proponents and opponents after the senate vote ...... 170

3.8 Woman listening to Governor Askew’s speech ...... 177

4.1 Governor Bob Graham addressed the 1979 legislature asking for ERA ratification ...... 187

4.2 Committee meeting with standing room only ...... 189

4.3 Rep. and Rep. Barry Kutun voting ...... 193

4.4 Rep. Elaine Gordon tells homemakers to “Come out of the kitchen” and support ERA. (NOW President is on the right.) ...... 207

4.5 ERA Supporters rally at the capitol after the 1981 election ...... 208

4.6 ERA proponents and opponents fill the Florida capitol ...... 210

4.7 ERA supporters at the capitol ...... 211

4.8 ERA demonstrators and bikers converge on the capitol ...... 212

4.9 Rev. Delores Moss and Sister Maureen Fielder announce broad religious support for the Equal Rights Amendment ...... 214

4.10 ERA proponents march down Apalachee Parkway in Tallahassee, Florida ...... 215

4.11 Martha Barnett (ABA President, 2000-01), and her son Richard after the ERA march. On Richard’s Shirt: “A Boy of Quality is Not Threatened by a Girl for Equality.” ...... 216

4.12 Equal Rights Amendment demonstration ...... 218

4.13 House Speaker Ralph Haben with Reps. Elaine Gordon, Sam Bell, Tom Bush & Bill Sadowski discussing an amendment to the ERA ...... 219

4.14 Helen Gordon Davis debating ...... 221

4.15 Rep. Elaine Gordon debating ...... 223

4.16 Senator in the senate chamber ...... 225

4.17 Senator Jack Gordon in the senate chamber ...... 228

4.18 Political cartoon showing the results of the Florida Senate ERA vote ...... 230

xi ABSTRACT

This dissertation examines the decade-long (1972-1982) Equal Rights Amendment

(ERA) battle in Florida. It reviews the role that religion played in the political conflict. Religion had a motivating effect on ERA proponents and opponents. Women were mobilized to enter the political arena, many for the first time, on both sides of the ERA battle. Religion affected the legislative debates and public rhetoric, and had a strong role in galvanizing support and opposition. Moving beyond the description of religion in the historical narrative, this dissertation also describes how pro- and anti-ERA forces transmitted beliefs, communicated ideology, and constructed meaning through portraying, or “framing” events for public consumption. The

“frames” used by each side of the debate demonstrate how moral worldviews transformed into political positions. Primary and secondary historical sources are used to trace the affect of religion on political semantics – especially the framing of legislative debate arguments, anecdotes, and rhetoric. Archival research includes information from legislative committee meetings, floor debates, correspondence, newspaper articles, and oral histories.

In addition, this dissertation emphasizes the religious connection made by ERA opponents to other social concerns and how religious rhetoric obscured economic concerns that had been paramount to the conception and congressional support for the ERA. As the decade unfolded, ERA opposition fueled the rise of the Religious Right.

Ratification was unsuccessful in Florida for the same reasons the ERA failed in other states. The white male-dominated southern legislature favored opponents’ explicit moral framing while also implicitly following the wishes of business interests. A handful of senate powerbrokers blocked passage of the amendment for a decade, based on varying reasons, although the rhetoric followed similar religious arguments throughout the ten-year battle. The

xii decade-long debates reveal the perpetual conflict in the political realm when religion, gender, and social issues intersect.

This project attempts to make a contribution in three ways: first, by expanding the current

ERA studies to include a slice of political life – the ERA battle – in the state of Florida, with its unique political demographics; second, by explaining how religion led to the failure of ratification when opponents linked the amendment to “threatening” social issues such as abortion expansion or gay rights, and forced ERA supporters into a defensive strategy; and third, by showing how Florida women used political framing in their lobbying efforts to generate support, or opposition, or resources, in the decade-long political conflict.

Ironically, although the ERA was defeated, female proponents and opponents were empowered through political involvement. This was especially paradoxical for ERA opponents, who advocated traditional female roles while immersed in political activism outside the home.

After the ERA battle ended in 1982, many women’s issues were addressed through progressive legislation, court decisions, and administrative rulings. More female legislators were elected to political office on the state and national government levels.

xiii

INTRODUCTION

THE EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT BATTLE IN FLORIDA: WOMEN, SEX, RELIGION, AND FAMILY VALUES

“I am woman, hear me roar In numbers too big to ignore And I know too much to go back an' pretend 'cause I've heard it all before And I've been down there on the floor No one's ever gonna keep me down again”1 ~ From Lyrics for “I Am Woman” by Helen Reddy and Ray Burton

I listen to feminists and all these radical gals - most of them are failures. They've blown it. Some of them have been married, but they married some Casper Milquetoast who asked permission to go to the bathroom. These women just need a man in the house. That's all they need. Most of the feminists need a man to tell them what time of day it is and to lead them home. And they blew it and they're mad at all men. Feminists hate men. They're sexist. They hate men - that's their problem.2 ~Jerry Falwell

My new boss hovered with his full six foot-two inch frame angling forward and with an outstretched right index finger pointed at me, as he threatened, “If you have an opinion on the

ERA, don’t express it in this environment!” It was November 1980, and I was a newly minted legislative intern in the Florida Senate. My predecessor had apparently made her support for the

ERA – Equal Rights Amendment – evident while in an elevator filled with ERA opponents, inviting the wrath of the conservative leaders of the Florida Senate. The state senate had repeatedly killed the ERA, and had just been elected President of the United

States on a platform that included opposition to ratification of the amendment. I had no intention of articulating my opinion as a professional staff member of the legislature. However, because I was part of an evangelical church active in politics, I thoroughly understood the viewpoints of

1 “I Am Woman,” lyrics written by Helen Reddy and Ray Burton. Song by Helen Reddy. (1970) Located at: http://www.lyricsdepot.com/helen-reddy/i-am-woman.html. The song reached Billboard’s number one spot in December 1972. See also “I am Woman,” Wikipedia. Located at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Am_Woman. 2 Quoted in Miguel A. De La Torre, A Lily Among the Thorns: Imagining a New Christian Sexuality (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2007), 13.

1 the women who opposed the ERA. Decades later, after working in the legislative process, befriending male and female legislators who were ERA supporters and opponents, and having long discussions about religion and morality policy formation, I decided to examine how religion affected the framing of this contentious social issue.

The ten-year (1972-1982) battle began when the ERA was thrust upon the Florida

Legislature for ratification as the 27th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The ERA stated:

Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the or any state on account of sex. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.

The Florida conflict serves as a window into larger social trends at work in that decade as well as into current disagreements over social policy in the 21st century. Scholars have written about various aspects of the national struggle to ratify the ERA, but they have mainly written descriptive accounts of organizations, historical case studies, post mortems, and legacies. A few scholars narrowly examine religion, but their focus is either on Mormon women or limited case studies. In this dissertation, I will examine how religion affected the legislative debates and public rhetoric used in Florida’s ERA battle, which played a pivotal role in the national struggle.3

Tracing the legislative debates and, to a lesser extent, the lobbying activities of ERA proponents and opponents in the state, I will demonstrate the enormously significant role that moral rhetoric played in galvanizing support and opposition.

As the decade unfolded, ERA opposition fueled the rise of the Religious Right.4 I will show the path to this development through a chronological narrative about how the ERA was debated in the state of Florida, and how religion affected the political struggle for ratification.

3 The word “religion” is used broadly to include moral vision or worldview. 4 The Religious Right is also referred to in the literature as the New Right, the New Christian Right, and the Radical Right.

2 This dissertation examines the impact of religion on both sides of the ERA debate. It explains how religion led to the failure of ratification when opponents linked the amendment to

“threatening” social issues such as abortion expansion or gay rights, and forced ERA supporters into a defensive strategy. It also shows how the ERA battle led to increased numbers of women legislators and the proliferation of political women’s groups.

Religion and the ERA Proponents and Opponents

How was religion displayed in the political setting? Individuals and groups were mobilized by religion or a particular moral vision because of the ERA. Religion also affected political attitudes and behavior. Political activists used religion to fuel issue advocacy in the public square. Moreover, in the second half of the 20th century, women usually entered the public policy arena from a religious or moral sense that fueled their passion and public vision. As Amy

Caiazza documents in The Ties that Bind: Women’s Public Vision for Politics, Religion, and

Civil Society, many women activists and lobbyists began their political involvement through churches, synagogues, and other religious and non-religious organizations. Religious involvement was one of the primary factors associated with women’s civic and political participation. Women’s drive toward advocacy emanated from a sense that they should work for moral values in a public policy setting, and these values tended to correlate with those of their religious institutions. Other studies also demonstrate a strong association between women’s social action and their moral vision.5 Thus, differing religious or moral visions often resulted in

5 Amy Caiazza, The Ties that Bind: Women’s Public Vision for Politics, Religion, and Civil Society, Research-in- Brief, Institute for Women’s Policy Research (June 2005): 1. See also Kent L. Tedin, “Religious Preference and Pro/Anti Activism on the Equal Rights Amendment Issue.” Pacific Sociological Review 21:1 (January 1978): 55; Donald G. Mathews, “‘Spiritual Warfare:’ Cultural Fundamentalism and the Equal Rights Amendment,” Religion and American Culture, 3: 2 (Summer 1993): 130; and Iva E. Deutchman and Sandra Prince-Embury, “Political Ideology of Pro- and Anti-ERA Women,” Women & Politics 2:1/2 (Spring/Summer 1982): 54; This study of political ideology included religiosity and indicated: “Both opponents and proponents said that religion was important to them.”

3 opposing approaches to public policy issues.6 This dissertation will document the public policy and politics that spring from this type of morally motivated social activism during the ERA debates in Florida.

More specifically, this project will explore the religious dimensions and rhetoric of ERA legislative debates designed to persuade listeners to support or oppose ratification. Generally,

ERA supporters and opponents shared many religious and political values, but differed on a few critical points. Both sides entered the political arena to work for a better society. They also shared political values such as belief in the importance of stewardship, compassion, individual dignity, and interconnectedness.7

ERA supporters understood religion to include diverse practices and belief systems, and they assumed that it inspired individuals to work with others toward creating an improved society. In acting out the political implications of their beliefs, ERA supporters promoted egalitarianism, increased lifestyle choices, enhanced civil rights, greater economic status including equal pay for equal work, and expanded responsibilities. They believed in moving the nation in a historically progressive moral direction. ERA proponents wanted to create a better

America with greater opportunities for future generations of women.8

Most ERA opponents considered religion a singular force with built-in normative principles for society. For these women there was a personal sense of responsibility – often articulated as a calling from God – and a stated motive to put their faith into action through advocacy of divinely mandated moral standards. They were gravely concerned about the moral decay of society, government intrusion into private life, and protection of the traditional family

6 Amy Caiazza, The Ties that Bind, Research-in-Brief, 1. 7 Amy Caiazza, The Ties that Bind: Women’s Public Vision for Politics, Religion, and Civil Society, Institute for Women’s Policy Research (June 2005): 155-76. 8 Tedin, “Religious Preference,” 57-58. See also Caiazza, The Ties that Bind, Research-in-Brief, 1, and Deutchman and Prince-Embury, “Political Ideology,” 39-55.

4 with fixed gender roles. Opponents often adopted a conservative interpretation of the Bible, including a God-ordained gendered hierarchy.9

ERA Proponents and Opponents Use of Framing and Religion

Proponents entered the ERA debate riding the second wave of the Women’s Movement, while opponents generated a counter-movement backlash against the social changes occurring in

American culture. This was more than the usual battle between competing interest groups in the

Florida Legislature. Lobbyists, organizations, and legislators in Florida found themselves in the midst of a political movement for and against the ERA. Like religion, political movements transmit beliefs, communicate ideology, and construct meaning through portraying, or “framing” events for public consumption. Religion was an important influence on pro- and anti-ERA forces’ framing of competing concerns in the ERA battle. This dissertation will identify “frames” employed by each side of the debate to demonstrate how moral worldviews translate to political positions.

Framing was first discussed by Erving Goffman, and further developed by many scholars in interdisciplinary fields. George Lakoff, Deana Rohlinger, Gene Burns, and other scholars use frames to adroitly explain public policy conflicts.10 Frames are used to organize and make sense of events. Cognitive linguist George Lakoff defines “frames” as “mental structures that shape the

9 Tedin, “Religious Preference,” 55, 57. See also Caiazza, The Ties that Bind, Research-in-Brief, 1; Donald G. Mathews and Jane Sherron De Hart, Sex, Gender, and the Politics of ERA: A State and the Nation (: Oxford University Press, 1990), 175-180; Donald G. Mathews, “‘Spiritual Warfare:’ Cultural Fundamentalism and the Equal Rights Amendment,” Religion and American Culture, 3: 2 (Summer 1993); and Deutchman and Prince- Embury, “Political Ideology,” 39-55. 10 See, for example, Erving Goffman, Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience, (York, Penn.: Northeastern University Press, 1974); Deana A. Rohlinger, “Framing the Abortion Debate: Organizational Resources, Media Strategies, and Movement –Countermovement Dynamics,” The Sociological Quarterly, 43(Autumn 2002) 4:479-507; Gene Burns, The Moral Veto: Contraception, Abortion, and Cultural Pluralism in the United States (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), and Drew Westen, The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation (New York: Public Affairs, 2007), 263-269.

5 way we see the world.” Framing is using language to communicate worldviews and ideology.11

In politics, framing is interpretive and communicative work used by activists to bolster support for policy goals. It is a useful way to construct and mobilize meaning on major public policy debates. Effective political frames use rhetoric to connect policy issues to larger familiar metaphorical and cultural predispositions that resonate with individuals. Like religion, frames motivate individuals to action, outline the boundaries of a debate, determine the arguments used by activists, and affect the tactics used in political conflict. Where there is political conflict, each side uses a different frame to minimize the effectiveness of the opposing frame. The goal of groups involved in the political process is for society to privilege their frame over the opposing side’s frame. The type of framing used in political debates can have a powerful impact on the success or failure of an issue.12

More specifically, framing asks and answers questions about the meaning of events. For instance, in the ERA conflict: What did people think the ERA would do? What would be the implications of legislating equal rights for women beyond equal pay for equal work? Would it have expanded opportunities for employment? ERA supporters contended that it would open many professions and trades to women. Would it require women to go fight wars through combat duty? Opponents maintained that ERA would mandate female military combat duty. Examining the language used to frame arguments in the ERA debate provides insight into how religion affected the political battle. In fact, each side was involved in a “framing contest” to define the

Equal Rights Amendment. Moreover, the ERA battle mirrors other framing contests about public policy conflicts over social policy issues. For example, sociologist Deana A. Rohlinger examined opposing social movement organizations’ media effectiveness on the abortion issue. The

11 George Lakoff, Don’t Think of an Elephant Know Your Values and Frame the Debate: The Essential Guide for Progressives (White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green Publishing Company, 2004), xv, 4, and 115. 12 See Goffman, Frame Analysis and Deana Rohlinger, “Framing the Abortion Debate:,” 479-507.

6 National Organization of Women (NOW) used a “rights” frame to define the necessity for a woman’s right to privacy and control of her body. Concerned Women for America (CWA) framed the abortion issue in “moral” terms concerning the value of “the sanctity of human life,” making abortion a sin against humans and God.13 Likewise, ERA proponents and opponents also used similar frames to define the issue and explain the potential impact of the proposed constitutional amendment.

Additionally, sociologist Gene Burns explains that mass social mobilization can result in polarization that may debilitate policy makers because they are often required to choose between two morally charged frames, resulting in censure from one of the sides of the conflict. Often it is after the movement has passed, and anger has been diffused, that movement goals are reframed and implemented. This happened during the decade-long ERA struggle, where the state legislators were weary from the acrimonious battle and implemented many statutory changes to address discrimination based on sex.14

Burns also identified two types of frames, which will guide the narrative in this project:

“limiting frames” and “moral worldviews” or “moral frames.” Religion affects the underlying assumptions and organizing principles for both kinds of frames. This dissertation will use both types of frames to analyze the ERA conflict. It will examine how pro- and anti-ERA activists differed in their ideological orientation and consequently used different frames to rouse support for their cause.

Limiting frames focus narrowly on one specific component of an issue. They are pluralistic in scope and enable more people, such as ERA supporters, to champion the concepts

13 Deana Rohlinger, “Framing the Abortion Debate:,” 479-507. Rohlinger indicated that churches were the central locations for organizing CWA member recruitment, training, and education, and opponents used biblical language and doctrine to shape moral frames. 14 Gene Burns, The Moral Veto: Contraception, Abortion, and Cultural Pluralism in the United States (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 12.

7 that are not as broad and emotionally charged as moral worldview frames. Proponents used limiting frames focused on equality and rights. This strategic frame was designed to bring together women’s groups with differing opinions to advocate for ratification under a specific ideal. Proponents’ view of religion as a private matter that affected their values and advocacy from well below the surface fit easily into the equality and rights frames. Equality and rights were not amoral frames. Proponents simply used religion in a more limited way.

Moral worldview frames encompass broad moral considerations. Many morally charged issues are made a part of an overall ideological package. Individuals and groups, such as ERA opponents, band together around sweeping moral claims. Moral frames require broad ideological agreement with an uncompromising position. Opponents’ moral frames encompassed religiously influenced ideology that involved broader concerns including, but not limited to, women in combat, unisex bathrooms, homosexual rights, abortion rights, and sex education.

Interestingly, Burns argues that although groups like the ERA opponents are not usually successful in the policy arena, they are often able to exercise a “moral veto” of legislation. Why would the minority group using a moral frame be able to stop legislation? Because a “dedicated vocal minority interest group” like the ERA opponents can intimidate state legislators, especially southern legislative leaders, on “moral” public policy issues.15 Indeed, year after year in Florida, the ERA opponents successfully convinced the conservative members of the Florida senate to defeat the ERA, despite Gallup and Harris polls indicating widespread support from Floridians.

Juxtaposing how proponents used limiting frames and opponents employed moral frames requires clarification. The limiting frames of equality and rights that proponents are embracing in this narrative are not amoral. On the contrary, limiting frames and moral frames are similarly committed moral positions. This is the language used in Burns’ framing analysis, and this

15 Gene Burns, The Moral Veto, 22-24.

8 dissertation will use that language, but will apply these terms with meaning in context of the

ERA battle in Florida. Thus, for this project, limited framing applied to rights and equality is not amoral, but rather a secular and legal framing of a moral perspective rooted in progressive, humanistic forms of Judaism and Christianity. Moreover, it is secular and legal for a moral reason – equality is not intended to be restricted to Christians and Jews. This dissertation will use

“limited frame of equality,” to mean secularized rights language.

ERA Proponents and Opponents Use of Limiting and Moral Frames in the ERA Conflict

Religion influenced both types of frames in the analysis of Florida’s ERA struggle, but opponents more often employed a moral frame that was explicitly religious. Importantly, the manner in which the ERA was framed by both sides was reflected in the rhetoric and debate, where the influence of religion is most readily observed throughout the decade-long battle.

Opponents challenged limiting frame political arguments for equality with morally framed assertions, lacing their political rhetoric with moral and biblical language. Believing they had a calling from God, or a sense of purpose, opponents had an awareness of moral or religious agency in their activism. Political activism was a way to spread religious values.16 Their moral arguments were highly emotional, politicized appropriations of conservative biblical theology.

For example, ERA opponent Shirley Spellerberg, the President of the Florida Chapter of Women for Responsible Legislation used a moral frame to describe her opposition to ERA, focusing on a conservative interpretation of the Bible. Spellerberg referred to herself as a “fully liberated woman in spirit and in Christ” who represented “non-professional, contented women of every race, color, creed, and economic class.” She argued that the ERA would “make a wife equally responsible for the financial support of her family; subject girls and women to compulsory military service and possible combat duty; legalize homosexual marriages and the adoption of

16 Amy Caiazza, The Ties that Bind, 13, 21.

9 children by homosexual couples; and eliminate special rights, benefits, and exemptions conferred by law upon members of the female sex.”17 Indeed, elevating traditional gender roles and portraying equality as a dangerous threat became effective moral frames for opponents in the decade-long battle.

Alternatively, proponents of the ERA most often used the limiting frame of equality, including equal pay for equal work, as well as equal access to educational and professional opportunities. This frame derived support from religion but that religious dimension was not as evident on the surface. As Burns explains, limiting frames “tap into cultural assumptions, typically assumptions that are too common even for people to think about them explicitly – that is, it does not occur to people that the world could be otherwise.”18 Activist proponents of the

ERA viewed political and civic work as something they are “just supposed to do, so self-evident that it can hardly be put into words.”19 Political equality resonated deeply with the religious beliefs and values of many ERA proponents, but they did not necessarily think about it in religious terms, especially in the political arena relating to public policy. Religion often influenced political existence “behind the backs” of participants. Often without proponents’ realizing it, religion was “an effective, if non-articulated, set of organizing principles.”20 For example, Governor Reubin Askew’s avid support for the ERA did not alter through the years.

Askew brought a profound and certain idea of morality to his political work. He made every

17 Shirley Spellerberg, President of Women for Responsible Legislation, Florida, Miami, Florida (February 15, 1973) Box 503, ERA Correspondence, Senate Judiciary-Civil Committee, Florida State Archives, Tallahassee, Florida. 18 Gene Burns, The Moral Veto, 14. 19 Amy Caiazza, The Ties that Bind, 15, 21. Many people when asked about the link between their political activism and their faith are at a loss for words. They can better express the question by telling a story or giving an example of how faith is interwoven with activism. 20 Rhys H. Williams, “Religion as Political Resource: Culture or Ideology?” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 15 (Dec. 1996) 4:368-378. Citing Ginsburg’s study (1989) of abortion clinic conflict, which examined participants’ worldviews, sociologist Rhys Williams argued that religion was implicit in culture and providing meaning in the world. Religion was the source for both “culture” and “ideology,” and molded the identity, the sense of solidarity, and the moral outrage that was integral to social movements.

10 effort to advocate policies that fit within his moral vision. Religion was a large part of Askew’s life. He was an active member of the local Presbyterian Church, refused to drink alcohol, and advocated ethical public policy. Given his religious ethic and moral vision, it could be assumed that Askew’s advocacy for the ERA was based on these important personal religious convictions.21 However, in explaining his relentless support for ERA, Askew used a limiting frame focused on equality that was based on the influence of his mother’s financial challenges

(as a divorced woman with three young children to support). For Askew, equality was a just cause that shaped his moral and political perspective on the ERA:

I never explicitly attributed my political stance completely to religion. I was usually persuaded on the grounds that something was right or should not be, rather than a religious argument. … It isn’t so much what you profess … it’s how you live that which you profess. … I was not personally for the ERA because of religion; rather I was for the ERA because of the rightness of the cause and the consequences of opposing it. I was persuaded by my mother’s experience.22

Thus, ERA proponents, like Askew, held a more naturalized and secularized understanding of political equality as a moral good and “the right cause.” By concentrating on equal rights for women, proponents assembled various strands of information and simplified and encoded the advantages of the ERA, and created a meaning-filled, limiting frame. Moreover, progressive Jewish and Christian groups took up defense of political equality as something every

American deserved, regardless of religious affiliation, thereby creating distance but not disconnection from specific and personal beliefs about religion. Religion implicitly influenced the limiting frame of political equality, which was focused enough to draw and unite a diverse group of supporters.

21 Martin A. Dyckman, Reubin O’D. Askew and the Golden Age of Florida Politics (Gainesville, Fla.: University Press of Florida, 2011), 133. Dyckman indicated: “Askew chose the Presbyterian Church because of ‘educated ministry, and also the theology.’” 22 Reubin O’D. Askew conversation. Institute of Government, Florida State University. (February 15, 2012) Tallahassee, Florida. See also Dyckman, Reubin O’D. Askew.

11 Interestingly, as the decade-long conflict progressed, ERA supporters recognized that opponents were gaining momentum through use of moral frames. Anti-ERA forces were effectively using religious language to connect the ERA to social issues portraying “threats” to the gender roles and the traditional family such as gay rights expansion, unrestricted access to abortion, creation of unisex bathrooms, and application of the military draft to women. As a result, later in the decade – too late – ERA supporters shifted to use moral language within their limiting equality frame to try to gather additional support. Their strategies were ineffective because they did not generate the same fearful emotions that opponents’ frames produced.

Connecting Religion to Other Social Issues

In developing an argument that ERA opponents differed from proponents in the type of interpretative frame they most often used, this dissertation will emphasize the religious connection to other social concerns that ERA opponents made to garner additional opposition. It will build on this argument to show how effective moral framing in the Florida ERA debate fueled the rise of the Religious Right. In fact, the Religious Right emerged in the late-1970s with the goal of recapturing American culture from the social revolution of the 1960s, using several conservative religious organizations to mobilize Christians around social issues. The religious groups used local churches as a base to organize their constituencies. Evangelicals were prompted to enter the political arena to infuse morality into politics. They articulated a particular moral vision of America, demonized “enemies” or opponents, and used the media to broadcast their cause. The organizations sought to defeat the ERA, ban abortions, allow school prayer, penalize homosexuality, expand government funded private education, and promote faith-based social services.23 The moral rhetoric that came to a head during the debate over the ERA in

23 Robert Wuthnow, “The Political Rebirth of American Evangelicals,” in Robert C. Liebman and Robert Wuthnow, eds., The New Christian Right: Mobilization and Legitimation, (New York: Aldine Publishing Co., 1983), 168-185.

12 Florida contributed to a coalescence of these conservative religious groups in what became a

“sexual counterrevolution.”24

Veiling Economic Concerns Through Warfare Over Social Issues

Finally, left out of the legislative debate rhetoric in Florida, where competing moral visions dominated, yet undergirding anxiety on both sides was the obvious fact that the ERA battle cloaked economic concerns that were inherent in the fluctuating tide of the recession.

Women surged into the workforce out of necessity and desire in the decades following post-war prosperity. Cultural shifts from the 1960s presaged acceptance of women raising children while working outside of the home. Table 1.1 indicates the growth in the number of married women in the workforce with children. In 1972, about 41 percent of America’s married women were in the workforce. This number grew to 51 percent in 1982. Married women in the workforce with children increased from 40 percent in 1972, to 51 percent in 1982.

Table 1.1 Labor Force Participation Rates of Married Women, Husband Present, by Presence and Age of Own Children: Selected Years 1972-198225 Participation Rate (Percent of Population in Labor Force) With Children Under Age 18

Year Total No children Total 6 to 17, none Under 6 under age 18 younger 1972 40.8 42.2 39.7 49.2 30.3 1973 40.8 42.1 39.7 49.4 29.6 1974 43.0 43.0 43.1 51.2 34.4 1975 44.4 36.6 44.9 52.3 36.6 1976 45.0 43.8 46.1 53.7 37.4 1977 46.6 44.9 48.2 55.6 39.3 1978 47.6 44.7 50.2 57.2 41.6 1979 49.4 46.7 51.9 59.1 43.2 1980 50.1 46.0 54.1 61.7 45.0 1981 51.0 46.3 55.7 62.5 47.8 1982 51.0 46.2 56.3 63.2 48.7

24 Nancy L. Cohen, Delirium: How the Sexual Counterrevolution is Polarizing America, (Berkeley: Counterpoint Press, 2012). 25 Partially duplicated from Nancy E. McGlen and Karen O’Connor, “Attitudes Toward Women in the Workplace,” The 1970s (San Diego, CA: Greenhaven Press, Inc., 2000): 267-277. Based on U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Perspectives on Working Women, (June, 1980): 4.

13 Along with the increased numbers of women in the workforce, women’s wages became a larger part of the family income.26 Two-income families ensured that if one of the earners lost work the other would be able to cover the expenses. Additionally, the demand for material goods that took their parents decades to save for – houses, cars, furniture, and other items – increased during that era.27

Remarkably, women’s entry into the workforce did not vary much by religiosity or religious tradition. Both women who attended church and did not attend church entered the workforce – from 1973 onward – in increasing numbers at about the same rate. Examining these trends for thirty-five years, Robert D. Putnam and David E. Campbell concluded: “Religious tenets and religious institutions seem to have had virtually no braking effect on the movement of women toward greater participation in the economic life of the country.” In addition, they tracked the changing attitudes toward gender equality and discovered, “deeply religious

Americans are less traditionalist in their views about gender roles than their secular counterparts had been a generation earlier.” Putnam and Campbell observed a growing number of religious women over the four decades who were progressive on gender equality but conservative about the sexual revolution.28

Frustration over the lack of enforcement of the Equal Pay Act of 1963 fueled proponents’ advocacy for the ERA. They sought to abolish economic discrimination as well as social

26 Rose M. Kreider and Diana B. Elliott, “Historical Changes in Stay-at-Home Mothers: 1969 to 2009,” Fertility and Family Statistics Branch, U.S. Census Bureau, presented at the American Sociological Annual Meeting, , Georgia, 2010. 27 Linda J. Waite, “U.S. Women at Work,” The Rand Corporation, (December 1981). 28 Robert D. Putnam and David E. Campbell, American Grace: How Religion Divides Us and Unites Us, (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2010), 237-239. Using data from the General Social Survey, Putnam and Campbell analyzed women who attended church and never attended church as a measure of religiosity. Participation in the workforce by highly religious women rose from approximately 40 percent in 1973 to 56 percent in 2008, while workforce participation for non-religious women rose from approximately 41 percent to 60 percent. Women moving into the workforce from major religious traditions followed the same trajectory of 40-45 percent in the early 1970s to 55-60 percent in the 2000s. Data on the number of women entering the workforce from progressives and conservative denominations is not included in their analysis.

14 discrimination. Conversely, for opponents, many of whom were forced by economic necessity to leave hearth and home to go to work, moral issues connected to the ERA diverted attention away from financial concerns (and possible guilt).29 Linking the ERA to social issues such as homosexuality or abortion superseded the focus of their economic anxieties. Conservative political strategists realized that it was important to shift focus away from the financial needs of conservative lower- and middle-class religious people because they would be drawn to liberal economic policies, according to political scientist Michael Lienesch and conservative political operative Richard Viguerie. Thus, controversial social issues were used as meaningful symbols to activate Christians in the political arena by identifying threats to their beliefs and lifestyle.

Social problems were constructed as moral problems that needed to be addressed, enabling people in the Recession to channel their economic anxieties toward fighting a political battle.

Moral commitment to political goals was used to override and suppress individual economic self-interest. Consequently, conservative lower- and middle-class religious people were diverted from thinking about liberal economic issues and were directed into the conservative Religious

Right.30

29 See Kim Parker and Wendy Wang, “Modern Parenthood: Roles of Moms and Dads Converge as They Balance Work and Family,” Pew Research (March 14, 2013), located at: http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/03/14/modern-parenthood-roles-of-moms-and-dads-converge-as-they- balance-work-and-family/. Women may have been working outside the home but have always spent more time than men in attending to family activities. Parker and Wang determined the amount of time parents spend with their children has risen since 1965. Fathers have nearly tripled their time with children. Mothers’ time with children has also increased with modern day mothers spending more time with their children than mothers did in the 1960s. Additionally, there is still a large gender gap in time spent with children: Mothers spend about twice as much time with their children as fathers do (13.5 hours per week for mothers in 2011, compared with 7.3 hours for fathers). Also, the amount of time parents spent doing housework has changed. Time spent doing household chores has more than doubled for fathers since 1965 (from an average of about four hours per week to about 10 hours). Time doing housework has gone down significantly for mothers over the same period (from 32 hours per week to 18). Nevertheless, mothers still spend more time with children and doing housework than men. 30 Michael Lienesch, “Right-Wing Religion: Christian Conservatism as a Political Movement,” Political Science Quarterly 97:3 (Autumn, 1982): 403-425 and Richard A. Viguerie, The New Right: We’re Ready to Lead, (Falls Church, VA: The Viguerie Company, 1981).

15 Historiography

Generating extensive research and literature on the decade-long Equal Rights

Amendment battle, scholars of various disciplines have fashioned diverse interpretations of the events occurring in states and in the nation. Legal scholars, communications theorists, political scientists, feminists, psychologists, and others have analyzed this as one of the most contentious political battles of the 20th century. It was the fulcrum of cultural and social change and the center of the birth and death of social movements, counter movements, and many movement organizations. The expansive body of literature informs this dissertation, which complements the major themes of discovery by affirming many findings in the study of Florida’s ERA battle. I hope to add a new dimension to the remarkable insights of these scholars who have spent decades researching and writing. This is the first study of the influence of religion as reflected in the legislative debates and the accompanying lobbying effort in Florida. Tracing the trajectory of the Florida ERA debate reveals the emerging sexual counterrevolution that spurred the rise of the

Religious Right. Though Religious Right organizations may have originated elsewhere, ample national evidence suggests that Florida, as one of three key ERA battleground states, was at the epicenter of their expansion.

Equal Rights Amendment in Florida Historiography

Regrettably, there is scant, if any, mention of the ERA battle in the major books on

Florida history and politics. However, two excellent articles provide background and insight on the decade-long political conflict. Political scientist Joan S. Carver produced the seminal historical journal article on the ERA in Florida, “The Equal Rights Amendment and the Florida

Legislature,” that was published just prior to the end of the debate. Carver interviewed many of the participants, painted a vivid picture of how the ERA was an important part of Florida’s

16 legislative history, and included a discussion of lobbying efforts by churchwomen. Building upon Carver’s work, Kimberly Wilmot Voss, a communications professor, focused on the media portrayals of women in “The Florida Fight for Equality: The Equal Rights Amendment, Senator

Lori Wilson and Mediated Catfights in the 1970s.” Voss described the dramatic presentations made by female proponents and opponents in the media, which were designed to heighten excitement over the issue. Part of the controversy documented by Voss included connections made to God and religion by ERA supporters and opponents. Religion intensified the debate, according to Voss.31 Nevertheless, Carver and Voss interpreted the history of the ERA in Florida as only slightly and tangentially connected to religion. I tell a story about religion as the motivating impetus for the entry of women into the political fray. My narrative also shows how effective moral framing of the ERA as a threat to traditional religious values and behavior brought usually non-political people into political activism, and generated resources for conservative religious and political organizations.

Equal Rights Amendment Historiography

Equal Rights Amendment scholars have examined the conflict from particular social, legal, or historical vantage points. The major studies have documented the conflict in some key battleground states, analyzed the rhetoric used by proponents and opponents, chronicled the strategies employed by both sides, and documented what went wrong for proponents. With the exception of one book on Mormon women and five narrowly focused articles, the role of religion was not examined in the main literature as the golden orb around which the debate rotated as argued in this dissertation. Scholars supporting the ERA, somewhat bewildered at the failure of

31Joan S. Carver, “The Equal Rights Amendment and the Florida Legislature,” The Florida Historical Quarterly 60:4 (April, 1982): 455-481, and Kimberly Wilmot Voss, “The Florida Fight for Equality: The Equal Rights Amendment, Senator Lori Wilson and Mediated Catfights in the 1970s,” The Florida Historical Quarterly 88:2 (Fall, 2009): 173-208.

17 the amendment, in some cases exorcised their grief by conducting autopsies on the ERA corpse after the battle was finished. For example, layers of understanding were unpeeled through the scholarship of the former Chair of the Civil Rights Commission and legal historian, Mary

Frances Berry in Why ERA Failed and by political scientist Jane J. Mansbridge, in Why We Lost the ERA. They emphasized the importance of disagreement over women’s roles, but did not analyze the role that religion played in defining the terms of that conflict.32

Berry and Mansbridge agreed on the description of the ERA battle as encompassing early political agreement, increasing opposition, and lagging support as the decade progressed. They also concurred that proponents did not fully understand the difficulty of the constitutional amendment ratification process. Court decisions occurring during the ratification years in favor of women’s equality dampened supporters’ efforts, according to Berry and Mansbridge.

Importantly, they indicated that the shift of debate focus from the significance of gaining equality to protecting traditional family values and gender roles was devastating to the ERA effort. I will take this a step further by arguing that this debate shift was part of the moral frames used by opponents to put ERA supporters back on their heels in Florida. Indeed, this dissertation will support and expand the findings of both Berry and Mansbridge that religious opposition by conservative religious women helped defeat ratification because they were concerned about the perceived threat to their essential roles and identities.33

Ideas about women’s principal roles and identities also formed the basis of legislative decision-making on the ERA, according to political scientist Janet Boles, in The Politics of the

32 Mary Frances Berry, Why ERA Failed: Politics, Women’s Rights, and the Amending Process of the Constitution (Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press, 1986), 82-83, and Jane J. Mansbridge, Why We Lost the ERA, (: University of Chicago Press, 1986), 16, 174-176. Berry used legal analysis to conclude that the ERA failed because there was not local widespread consensus that there was a social problem requiring a constitutional solution. Mansbridge used social movement theory to interpret interviews from female activists in . Both made several prescriptive recommendations for future constitutional amendment efforts. 33 Berry, Why ERA Failed, 82-83, and Mansbridge, Why We Lost the ERA, 16, 174-176.

18 Equal Rights Amendment. Regionalism connected to ideological distinctiveness was an important factor in Southern states. Boles explained that this view included a romantic southern ideal that, “men are meant to wield power and women are to be protected and idolized.” The more traditional view on the role of women was part of a “generally conservative approach to social change.” Many legislators in Georgia opposed ERA, according to Boles, because they “did not want to remove women from the prestigious position (‘the pedestal’).” Some legislators indicated that they had been instructed by their wives to oppose the ERA.34 The debate in Florida exactly paralleled Boles’ observation in Georgia, including the similar rhetoric. Although Florida was far more geographically diverse – with south Florida completely different than north Florida in so many ways – north Florida conservative Democrats dominated the legislative leadership positions and projected traditional southern ideals.

In Sex, Gender, and the Politics of ERA: A State and Nation, Donald G. Mathews and

Sherron De Hart concurred with Berry, Mansbridge, and Boles in their reasons for defeat of the

ERA. Mathews and De Hart expanded the analysis of the ERA battle to ascertain what it revealed about the women’s movement in the 1970s. They described the activism that included sending letters, petitions, and busloads of women to lobby the legislature. ,

Mathews and De Hart maintained, was representative of a diverse group of people so their study could apply to other states not ratifying the ERA. They offered a compelling and comprehensive examination of the ideology, motivations, and behavior of ERA proponents and opponents that could also be used to describe Florida women. As a small part of their study Mathews and De

Hart considered the impact of religion on the ERA struggle. Significantly, they explained that

ERA opponents “sometimes suggested that proponents were irreligious, which was not true,

34 Janet K. Boles, The Politics of the Equal Rights Amendment (New York: Longman, 1979), 142-169. Boles documented the legislative decision-making in the Georgia, Texas, and Illinois, which generally mirrored the political rhetoric and decision-making in Florida.

19 although there was indeed a religious difference between the two sides,” which “lay in the manner of religious perception.” Like Berry, Mansbridge, and others, Mathews and De Hart described how North Carolina fundamentalist churches were active in opposing the ERA.

Echoing other scholars, they averred that religion elicited differing perceptions of gender roles in

ERA proponents and opponents, which intensified the conflict.35

While Berry, Mansbridge, Boles, and Mathews and De Hart produced excellent books using material from Illinois (Berry and Mansbridge), Georgia (Boles), and North Carolina

(Mathews and De Hart), religion was not the center of their studies although they discussed its impact on the ERA battle. Additionally, when religion was discussed, more focus was upon the

ERA opponents who were usually either fundamentalists or from conservative religious denominations. Consequently, the main body of ERA literature is not focused on the role of religion in the ERA struggle. However, that does not mean that the historiography has totally overlooked the importance of religion. There is one comprehensive book on Mormon involvement in the ERA battle and there are five short journal articles that address religion in the struggle from different vantage points. I intend to add to the literature by documenting the impact of religion on ERA opponents and proponents. Specifically, I hope to augment the contribution of these studies by focusing on how the ERA was framed in the lobbying efforts and legislative debates in Florida.

The meager, but important, literature addressing religion and the ERA is anchored by a large study of Mormon women. In Martha Sonntag Bradley’s exhaustive study of Mormon women, Pedestals & Podiums: Utah Women, Religious Authority & Equal Rights, religion was examined as central to the lives of Mormon women. Bradley produced a comprehensive tome

35 Mathews and De Hart, Sex, Gender, and the Politics of ERA, 175, 223-225. Mathews and De Hart provided an in- depth meticulous evaluation of the ERA proponents and opponents’ ideology, rhetoric, and activism. They claimed that the public debate surrounding the ERA conflict had the intensity of a religious conflict.

20 that meticulously examined Mormon feminism, the Mormon involvement in the ERA issue, and

Utah’s International Women’s Year conference. Balancing the voices of proponents and opponents in her study, Bradley delicately weaved a systematic analysis of the importance of the

ERA battle to Mormons. Her discussion focused on the grassroots efforts of Mormon women in

Utah and other states. In 1975, the Mormon campaign against ERA began through the high profile activities of Barbara Smith, President of the Latter Day Saints (LDS) Relief Society. The

LDS leadership (First Presidency) issued an anti-ERA statement a year later, in 1976. The

Mormon Church successfully made the difference that contributed to the defeat of the ERA in several states, by making the ERA a moral rather than a political concern. Bradley’s observation that the ERA battle was centered on “opposing styles of discourse,” each proceeding from different “cognitive schema constructed to help women understand their positions in the world,” grounds this analysis.36

Supplementing Bradley’s work, five narrowly focused social science journal articles illustrate the central role that religion had on ERA proponents and opponents through case studies. Although sample sizes were usually small and their methods varied, these scholars clearly made the case for the importance of religion.37

Denominational affiliation and ERA activism formed the basis of Kent L. Tedin’s study,

“Religious Preference and Pro/Anti Activism on the Equal Rights Amendment Issue.” He identified a large number of Texas women (51 percent) who were non-religious affiliates among the pro-ERA women. As expected, Tedin found an even greater number of fundamentalists (66

36 Martha Sonntag Bradley, Pedestals and Podiums: Utah Women, Religious Authority & Equal Rights, (Salt Lake City, UT: Signature Books, 2005), 315-320, 457-478. 37 Although the approach of this dissertation does not rely on social science methods, similar conclusions about the impact that religion made on the ERA battle will be reached through an extensive analysis of the debate rhetoric and the dynamics of the political battle documented in the press through the decade-long struggle. This largely descriptive material will be analyzed through the lens of framing methods focused on language and rhetoric used to politically mobilize people. Going deeper through interviews, survey research, and other methods would be an area for future study.

21 percent) among the anti-ERA women. Combining groups, non-affiliates, Jews, and liberal

Protestants comprised 61 percent of the pro-ERA women. Conservative Protestants, fundamentalists, and sectarians comprised almost 80 percent of the anti-ERA women.

Denominational preference, Tedin discovered, was an important factor in separating the pro- from the anti-ERA activists.38 Using the same data from Texas interviews, Tedin and David

Brady focused on anti-ERA women and found that 92 percent indicated that religion was very important to them and the source of their political attitudes.39

Likewise, a survey of North Carolina ERA activists by Theodore S. Arrington and

Patricia A. Kyle concluded that ERA proponents belonged to non-fundamentalist churches or had no religious affiliation, whereas, ERA opponents belonged to major fundamentalist denominations. The study, conducted in 1975, identified anti-ERA women as “single-issue activists” whose fundamentalist ministers motivated them to oppose ERA.40

Using different data but arriving at similar conclusions, sociologist Val Burris determined that religious affiliation indicated that Mormons consistently opposed ERA, Jewish people supported ERA, and membership in a fundamentalist Protestant denomination was connected to

ERA opposition. Also, for both men and women, frequency of church attendance was associated with ERA opposition.41

Finally, according to psychologists Iva E. Deutchman and Sandra Prince-Embry, religiosity was related to support or opposition to the ERA. Both ERA proponents and opponents indicated that religion was important to them. Opponents were more “fanatical and orthodox”

38 Tedin, “Religious Preference,” 55, 61. 39 David Brady and Kent Tedin, “Ladies in Pink: Religion and Political Ideology in the Anti-ERA Movement,” Social Science Quarterly 36 (March 1976): 574. 40 Theodore S. Arrington and Patricia A. Kyle, “Equal Rights Amendment Activists in North Carolina,” Signs 3:3 (Spring, 1978): 666-680. 41 Val Burris, “Who Opposed the ERA? An Analysis of the Social Bases of Anti-feminism,” Social Science Quarterly 64:2 (June 1983): 305-317. Burris used data from the 1980 National Election Study.

22 than proponents, attended church more frequently, and indicated that their friends shared their religious beliefs. Supporters of ratification did not indicate that their friends shared their religious convictions. Deutchman and Prince-Embry concluded that ideology polarized ERA proponents and opponents, and also bound them to the political sphere.42

While these scholars analyzed the ERA battle from different vantage points and demonstrated the impact of religion, there has not been a larger year-to-year study of how religion fueled the debate in the state legislative and political arena for the entire decade of legislative consideration. I intend to expand the historiography by examining the role of religion in galvanizing warring sides and exacerbating the fight in Florida. Although the approach of this dissertation did not rely on social science methods, the legislative debates and other primary sources revealed how religion drove politics in the legislative arena.

Rise of the Religious Right and Sexual Counterrevolution Historiography

In the mid- to late-1970s, conservative strategists used social issues to build a coalition of evangelicals and political conservatives. New political-religious organizations were created to advocate for a “pro-family” political agenda. Dozens of books have been written about the rise of this new “Religious Right.” Scholars have written about the cultural shifts (social backlash against the 1960s), people (Jerry Falwell, , Tim and Beverly LaHaye, Howard

Phillips, Richard Viguerie, Paul Weyrich, Ed McAteer and others), organizations (Conservative

Caucus, Eagle Forum, Moral Majority, Concerned Women for America, Religious Roundtable and others), and evangelical churches that contributed to the evolution of the Religious Right.43

42Deutchman and Prince-Embury, “Political Ideology,” 39-55. 43 Paul Boyer, “The Evangelical Resurgence in the 1970s American Protestantism,” in Bruce J. Schulman and Julian E. Zelizer, eds., A History of the Religious Right, Rightward Bound: Making America Conservative in the 1970s, (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2008), 33. The surge in evangelical church growth began in the 1970s and continued through the end of the 20th century and is well documented. For example, historian Paul Boyer tracked the expansion of denominational membership documenting a shift toward an evangelical renaissance: “From 1970 to 1985, as the liberal Episcopal, Presbyterian, Methodist, and Congregational churches suffered membership

23 Until the past decade, scholars traced the rise of the Religious Right from various paths and pronounced different verdicts concerning whether they remain a player in American politics.

Recent scholarship has drawn a direct line from opposition to the Equal Rights Amendment

(ERA) to the rise of the Religious Right. This dissertation will complement the work of three scholars who have insightfully demonstrated the unintentional impact that the ERA had in generating cohesive religious opposition to the amendment in the form of new organizations and a conservative countermovement.

Political scientist Ruth Murray Brown, for example, in For a “Christian America:” A

History of the Religious Right, identified a direct link to the countermovement against the ERA that developed into the Christian Right. Brown astutely maintained that a Christian conservative backlash against a litany of social change that began in the 1960s and 1970s explained “why it was southerners, fundamentalists, and particularly women who, tending to be guardians of morality, were the instigators of the backlash” and the ERA “became the opening wedge for a conservative countermovement to feminism in particular and liberalism in general.” She illustrated how women who opposed ERA moved on to oppose other issues such as abortion, homosexuality, and teaching sex education and evolution in the public schools, as well as providing access to certain textbooks. Brown argued that the Christian Right began as a reaction to ERA amid concerns about progressive societal moral decay and government interference with traditional family life. She also identified the shift of the primary focus of an anti-ERA crusade

losses of around 15 percent, evangelical churches [such as the Southern Baptist Convention and several Pentecostal denominations] grew explosively.” See also Cullen Murphy, “Protestantism and the Evangelicals,” The Wilson Quarterly 5:4 (Autumn 1981): 105-119. From 1970 to 1980 membership in mainline churches such as the United Methodist Church decreased by 11.4 percent; the United Presbyterian Church declined by 23 percent; the Episcopal Church fell by 16.9 percent, and the Christian Churches shrank by 22.6 percent. See also “Assemblies of God,” and “United Methodist Church,” Denominational Profiles, Association of Religion Data Archives, located at: http://www.thearda.com/NewDenoms/families/index.asp. The Assemblies of God Churches nationally grew from 1,078,332 in 1972 to 1,879,182 members in 1982. The United Methodist Church national membership declined from 10,334,521 in 1972 downward to 9,405,164 in 1982.

24 to a distinct “pro-family” movement by 1979.44 This shift is also reflected in the Florida ERA fight as the opponents gained political power toward the end of the decade. Using social issues, they garnered legislative support and increased their membership.

Historian Marjorie Spruill supported Brown’s findings through her analysis of the state and national International Women’s Year (IWY) conferences in 1977. Spruill argued that the conferences contributed to the rightward turn in American politics by rousing conservatives around gender issues. Both feminists and anti-feminists claimed that the conferences were widely beneficial for elevating their concerns and widening their bases of support. Like Brown, Spruill contended that the conferences convinced anti-feminists of the need to broaden their movement beyond opposition to the ERA, to a sustained effort, called the “Pro-Family Movement.”

Merging in the late 1970s with economic conservatives, they became a part of the Religious

Right that elected Ronald Reagan as President in 1980. Spruill concludes: “After 1977, national politics would be increasingly polarized and gender issues would be at the heart of the dispute.”45

Indeed, ERA proponents and opponents returned from the conferences energized for continued legislative conflict in Florida, which was a key ERA battleground state.

Finally, Nancy Cohen, in Delirium: How the Sexual Counterrevolution is Polarizing

America, enhanced the scholarship of Ruth Murray Brown and Marjorie Spruill by identifying the countermovement by anti-feminists and other conservative organizations as the “sexual counterrevolution.” She argued that modern (21st century) politics were a product of the ERA

44 Ruth Murray Brown, For a “Christian America:” A History of the Religious Right, Rightward Bound: Making America Conservative in the 1970s, (Amherst, N.Y.: Prometheus Books, 2002), 15-21, 24. Brown argued that as the Christian Right evolved, rather than just being against an issue, they engaged in a fight against “un-Christian” influences on public institutions, especially the public schools. They ultimately engaged in lobbying and litigation to gain public recognition of Christianity in public institutions, directly challenging U.S. Supreme Court “separation of church and state” decisions. 45 Marjorie J. Spruill, “Gender and America’s Right Turn,” in Bruce J. Schulman and Julian E. Zelizer, eds., A History of the Religious Right, Rightward Bound: Making America Conservative in the 1970s, (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2008), 71, 72.

25 battle that resulted in a shadow movement “counterrevolution.” The movement was started by women and led by women. Although most welcomed the cultural changes of the

1960s and 1970s, a vocal minority became unhinged, according to Cohen. The first target of the sexual counterrevolutionaries was the ERA. Waging war on the ERA for ten years, they moved on after that victory to suppressing child daycare funding, hindering sex education, and attacking gay rights. Cohen maintains that these “sexual fundamentalists” managed to take over the

Republican Party and were critical to electing Ronald Reagan as president in 1980. Cohen traces a direct line from the ERA sexual counterrevolutionaries to modern day polarized politics.46

Rather than a linear evolution of opposition to social issues as described by Cohen, the trajectory of conflict in Florida’s ERA battle indicates more of an integrated opposition by sexual counterrevolutionaries to multiple issues that they connected to ERA ratification. This dissertation identifies how ERA opponents linked ratification early in the decade-long struggle to what they labeled as a “parade of horribles” that included forcing women into combat duty, and expansion of abortion and gay rights.

Brown, Spruill, and Cohen explained how the ERA fomented the rise of the Religious

Right. Their scholarship will be complemented by this study. Sex, gender, politics, and religion were brought together by the ERA battle. Indeed, in this dissertation, I agree with Brown,

Spruill, and Cohen that as the women’s movement grew in strength, social conservatives mobilized in opposition, driven by distinctly different views of women and their social roles. The

ERA was at the center of this perfect storm. Furthermore, this study will examine how religion was a driving force in ERA battle, and how it was important to both proponents and opponents.

46 Nancy L. Cohen, Delirium: How the Sexual Counterrevolution is Polarizing America, (Berkeley: Counterpoint Press, 2012). See also Susan Sherman, “It’s the Sex, Stupid: An Interview with Author Nancy Cohen About How the Sexual Counterrevolution is Polarizing America,” Truthout (February 11, 2012) located at: http://truth- out.org/opinion/item/6557:its-the-sex-stupid-an-interview-with-author-nancy-cohen-about-how-the-sexual- counterrevolution-is-polarizing-america.

26 Religion affected the rhetoric in the legislative arena. Religion helped galvanize both pro-and anti-ERA forces. ERA proponents often came to their belief in equal pay for equal work through moral visions nurtured in religious institutions. Opponents fought against the ERA because of moral visions nurtured in religious institutions. But unlike proponents of the ERA, opponents framed equal rights for women in larger, explicitly religious terms, linking equality to gay rights and abortion. Once introduced into debate, these social issues galvanized a coalition of religious and economic conservatives, fueling the rise of the Religious Right and the sexual counterrevolution. Ultimately and ironically, the ERA battle led to larger numbers of female legislators and activated women in the political arena.

This dissertation will fill the gap in the literature to make a contribution in three principle ways: first, by expanding the current ERA studies to include a slice of political life – the ERA battle – in the unique state of Florida, with its “fractured political geography;”47 second, by explaining how religion led to the failure of ratification when opponents linked the amendment to “threatening” social issues such as abortion expansion or gay rights, and forced ERA supporters into a defensive strategy; and third, by showing how Florida women used political framing in their lobbying efforts.

How religion affects political semantics – especially the framing of legislative debate arguments, anecdotes, and rhetoric – is at the center of this dissertation. It is based on a

47 Thomas R. Dye, Politics in Florida, (Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1998), 6. See also Robert Huckshorn, ed. Government and Politics in Florida, 1st ed. (Gainesville: Press, 1991), 58-110. Political scientists have identified that in the 1970s and 1980s, as today, diverse population clusters were spread across the state. The “Redneck Riviera” and its conservative voters and politicians extended from Pensacola to Jacksonville, around the panhandle and gulf shores southward. North Florida resembled Old Dixie and was home to many Christian fundamentalists. South Florida was a mix of cultures with a large Jewish population, including many women whose progressive political values were tied to their religious self-understanding. Tallahassee and Gainesville were the exception to the conservative blend of the north Florida panhandle area. See also Joan S. Carver, “Women in Florida,” The Journal of Politics 41 (Aug. 1979) 3: 941-955. Carver discusses the influx of newcomers in south Florida that created two cultures where women are concerned: The north Florida conservative culture and the south Florida culture that was more receptive to change in women’s roles.

27 combination of primary and secondary historical sources in three areas: archival research including legislative committee meetings, floor debates, bills, amendments, analyses, hearing tapes, correspondence, oral history, and other public documents expressing pro- and anti-ERA feeling; special interest publications and debates including letters, speeches, brochures, books, radio and TV debates, media reports, pamphlets, and periodicals; and the data in the literature on the ERA struggle. Legislative debates are the primary focus of this study because they reveal the public performance of religious and political ideologies.48

I narrate the Florida ERA battle as it developed, dividing this history into four chapters, each of which highlights a turn in political debate. Foregrounding the debate in this chronological narrative exposes the intensifying effect that religion had on this public policy battle. I hope that the sometimes-outrageous public words of legislators and colorful antics of lobbyists will bring humor to the story. The decade-long debates reveal the lasting conflict in the political realm when religion, gender, and social issues intersect.

Chapter one begins the study by examining the years 1972 through 1974. Early harmony and support for ERA evaporates in the face of rising opposition fueled by religious opponents.

As more women were elected to the legislature in 1973, and more women became active in supporting or opposing the ERA, the battle began to escalate in the public arena. Legislators held public hearings in Florida’s largest cities, resulting in testimony from hundreds of women.

Legislative debates in the house in 1973 and the senate in 1974, revealed clashing religious and moral views of gender, the Bible, the role of government, sex roles in the family structure, and prospects for the future should ERA be ratified. Opponents who used moral frames to persuade uncommitted legislators to vote against ratification of the amendment defeated the ERA. The

48 Time constraints kept the scope of this study from including formal interviews and a survey. That will be part of a future project. However, certain primary source information was available because the author knows several people who were involved in the ERA battle. These sources are noted in the footnotes.

28 newly organized grassroots lobbying effort of ERA opponents with their vocal and theatrical lobbying style caught proponents entirely off guard. Opponents exercised a “moral veto” in the second and third Florida legislative ERA debates, despite widespread public support for ratification.

The focus of chapter two is the exacerbation of conflict between ERA proponents and opponents. This chapter shows how efforts by proponents to step out of a limiting frame focused on equality, and claim moral high ground for their position, only worked to further marginalize reasoned debate over equal pay for women, as opponents refused to consider alternative moral arguments. For the first time the ERA was heard and debated in both the house and senate in

1975. Proponents staged a giant march on the capitol with celebrity speakers and gained the national spotlight. Religion played a central part in a drama acted out on the national stage as the

Florida House of Representatives and Senate debated the ERA. Gradually, ERA opponents attached abortion and other social issues to ERA ratification. The house passed the ERA, but the senate defeated the amendment. Both sides refocused efforts in 1976 on media efforts and state election campaigns.

The rise in power of “the ladies against women” in 1977 and 1978 is the basis of chapter three. The ERA failed in the senate and was not considered in the house in 1977. It was a banner year for mobilization of conservative women, first in the battle of the Dade County Gay Rights ordinance, which they soundly repealed, and then in the senate, where, as a minority they were able to exercise a “moral veto,” and finally in the state “Year of the Woman” conference.”

Understanding the importance of religion in the ERA conflict, proponents organized and activated religious women. In 1978, the “Little ERA” was proposed as Amendment 2 to the

Florida Constitution and failed on a statewide referendum. The media battle over the passage of

29 the constitutional amendment mirrored the frames that had been used in the legislative debates.

Proponents began to expand the limited frame emphasis on equality to make moral arguments for ratification of the ERA.

Chapter four chronicles the last four years of the ERA battle, 1979 to 1982, and the rise of the Religious Right. Using a brilliant parliamentary move in 1979, ERA proponent Rep.

Elaine Gordon was able to get both the house and senate to vote on the ERA. Seeds sown by conservative ERA opponents took root to generate support for religious and political organizations. Merging interests, ERA opponents and conservative activists pressed forward and organized voters to elect President Ronald Reagan in 1980. While ERA proponents were exhausted and focused on national efforts, anti-ERA activists were broadening their sphere of influence and adding many other issues, beyond the ERA, to their political agenda. The final

ERA battle in Florida, and the nation, made 1982 an exceptional year for ERA opponents.

The epilogue seeks to ascertain the legacy of the impact of religion on the ERA struggle in Florida. Tracing the trajectory and irony in women’s advances, this chapter links the ERA struggle in the past to the present.

30

CHAPTER 1

FRAMING THE EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT: EARLY HARMONY AND MOUNTING DISCORD, 1972 – 1974

Come senators, congressmen; Please heed the call Don't stand in the doorway; Don't block up the hall For he who gets hurt; Will be he who has stalled There's a battle outside; And it is ragin'. It'll soon shake your windows; And rattle your walls For the times they are a-changin'.1 ~ Bob Dylan (1964)

“Times were a changing” from the tumultuous 1960s, onward through the next decades.

The social tidal wave that began in the 1960s – generated by the protest movements, the Vietnam

War, expanded governmental services, and the mass media marketplace – and spilled into the

1970s and 1980s.

National History of the ERA

Women’s Suffrage leader wrote the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) in 1923.

It was introduced in Congress from 1923 through 1972. Women’s groups were divided on the issue for reasons that included differences concerning protective labor legislation, gender equality, and traditional family roles. After World War II, there was not much movement to pass the ERA, although it was a part of the Democratic and Republican platforms until the mid-1960s.

Political party support for the ERA in the platforms of 1964 and 1968 was withdrawn. This was due to opposition from the Kennedy Commission on the Status of Women in 1961. In that era, the Kennedy Commission, labor, and women’s groups were opposed to the ERA because they

1 Bob Dylan, “The Times They are a Changin,’” Stanza from Song Lyrics, from the The Times They are a Changin’(January 1964).

31 were concerned that it would effectively repeal “protective legislation” that included gender- based restrictions designed to shield women from workplace hazards.2

The Civil Rights Movement created the environment for the resurgence of the ERA and the second wave of the Women’s Movement.3 Affluent, educated, and politically astute women were a part of the Women’s Movement and many identified themselves as feminists. The

National Organization for Women (NOW) was formed in 1965. In 1967, President Lyndon

Johnson supported the ERA and in 1968 President Nixon supported it. State protective laws governing work conditions, wages, hours, and restricting female access to many jobs, were voided because of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, making it easier for some groups to switch from opposition to support of the ERA, including the American Federation of Labor and

Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO), United Auto Workers, League of Women

Voters, and the Women’s Bureau.4

In 1970, the NOW and other women’s rights groups organized grassroots political pressure and lobbying efforts to support passage of the ERA in Congress. In 1972, the U.S.

House of Representatives passed the ERA by 354 to 23 and the U.S. Senate passed the ERA by

84-8 and sent it to the states for ratification on March 22, 1972. To be part of the U.S.

Constitution, 38 states were needed to ratify the amendment. Thirty-five states ratified the ERA by 1977.5 Opposition to the ERA increased and conservative organizations organized in the state

2 Anita Miller and Hazel Greenberg, The Equal Rights Amendment: A Bibliographic Study (Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1976), xiv-xvi. 3 Suzanne Staggenborg and Verta Taylor, “Whatever Happened to the Women’s Movement?” Mobilization: An International Journal 10:1 (2005) 37-52. The women’s movement is generally referred to in “waves,” which refer to times of high visibility with the “first wave” ending with the passage of women’s suffrage in 1920, and the “second wave” consisting of the activities arising in the 1960s through the 1980s. 4 Miller and Greenburg, The Equal Rights Amendment: A Bibliographic Study, xiv. 5 Ibid, xiv-xvi. Hawaii, New Hampshire, Delaware, Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska, Texas, , Alaska, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Colorado, West Virginia, Wisconsin, New York, Michigan, Maryland, Massachusetts, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, and California ratified the ERA in 1972. Wyoming, South Dakota, Oregon, Minnesota,

32 legislatures to defeat the amendment and to rescind the amendment where it had already been passed. In 1979, Congress extended the deadline for ratification to June 30, 1982. Ultimately the opposition succeeded in blocking passage of the ERA in the three crucial battleground states, including Florida.6

Tracing the role of religion within the trajectory of the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) battle in Florida provides a new perspective on gender politics in Florida. Examining the unfolding ERA story, especially the limiting and moral frames reflected in the rhetoric used by proponents and opponents, reveals the influence and role of religion on the divisive emotional politics affecting this controversial legislative issue. The story begins in 1972 with harmonious support in the Florida House of Representatives, moves to disinterest in the Florida Senate, and in 1973 and 1974, shifts to discord stirred up by rising ERA opposition. Religion is reflected in the conflict between proponents and opponents. This chapter will tell the story and identify how religion provides new insight on an old cultural and political battle.

Florida Political Context

In 1972, Democrats ruled the Florida Legislature but were divided by a geo-political split between South Florida progressives and North Florida conservatives. The state legislators were largely college-educated white males, with occupations in law, business, education, banking, agribusiness, medicine, or insurance. In 1972, there were four women serving in the Florida

Legislature, one serving in the 40-member Senate and three serving in the 120-member House of

Representatives. There were no term limits, and some legislators served for decades, a factor contributing to the ultimate defeat of the ERA in the state. Interest groups and lobbyists were

New Mexico, Vermont, Connecticut and Washington ratified the ERA in 1973. In 1974-75, , Montana, Ohio, and North Dakota ratified the amendment. In 1977, Indiana was the final of 35 states to ratify the ERA. 6 Ibid. The 15 states that did not ratify the ERA were either in the Bible Belt or Mormon states: Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, Missouri, Utah, and Nevada. Four states – Idaho, Kentucky, Nebraska, and Tennessee – later voted to rescind ratification.

33 usually heavily involved in Florida politics, however, in the first ERA legislative deliberation they were absent. Passing Congress by a large margin, the ERA did not seem controversial when it first arrived in Florida.7

1972: The Florida House of Representatives Overwhelmingly Passes the ERA

Janet Reno put down her pencil and examined the words written on the yellow legal pad before she handed it to the committee secretary to be typed on a bill form. “Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex. …” Reno took the typed version of House Concurrent Resolution (HCR) 4440, sponsored by the House Judiciary Committee, to the chairman Rep. Talbot “Sandy” D’Alemberte for approval. Reno, an astute staff director for the House Judiciary Committee, had been monitoring

Congress. D’Alemberte was a progressive attorney representing Miami. Reno and D’Alemberte were in the nascent stage of what would be a lifelong friendship centering on promoting justice and progressive public policy.8 It was a productive friendship. While working for D’Alemberte,

Reno drafted several legislative reforms, including a no fault divorce law and a constitutional amendment reorganizing and updating Florida’s court system. After the judicial constitutional amendment passed in March, Reno and D’Alemberte shifted their attention to another major policy issue. They wanted to ensure that the Florida House of Representatives would be ready to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) when it passed the Congress. On March 22, 1972, the

7 Susan A. MacManus, “Women in State Legislative Office,” Political Chronicle 6 (Winter/Spring 1994-95): 10-18. Many of Florida’s female legislators had held elective posts in nonpolitical organizations (civic, business, professional, cultural, church, service) and in political party organizations prior to running for office. See also Joan Carver, “The Equal Rights Amendment and the Florida Legislature,” The Florida Historical Quarterly 60: 4 (April 1982): 455-481. In this excellent history of the ERA in Florida, Carver identifies three phases of the ERA history: 1) Consensus as to the desirability of the ERA, with little involvement by interest groups; 2) Transformation of the ERA to a highly volatile issue; and 3) Growth of ERA support in House and increased polarization of sides. The first phase was this weeklong phase of support in 1972. The women in the Florida Legislature during the 1972 Legislative Session included: Senator Beth Johnson (R-Cocoa Beach), Rep. Jane W. Robinson (R-Cocoa), Rep. Mary R. Grizzle (R-Clearwater), Rep. Maxine Baker (D-Miami), and Rep. Gwen Cherry (D-Miami). 8 For purposes of this project the word “progressive” is defined as “favoring or advocating progress, change, improvement, or reform, as opposed to wishing to maintain things as they are, especially in political matters.” Dictionary.com. Located at: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/progressive.

34 ERA – the proposed 27th Amendment – was approved by the U.S. Senate and sent to the states for ratification by the required 38 states. Reno and D’Alemberte acted quickly. The House

Judiciary Committee and a bi-partisan group of legislators sponsored the resolution.9

Figure 1.1. Just prior to working on the ERA, Janet Reno (far left), Sandy D’Alemberte (back middle) Ross Perot (left front), Governor Askew (right front) at signing of legislation enabling families to carry on business absent a POW husband (in Vietnam). Courtesy of State Archives of Florida, photo by Gaines.

1972 House of Representatives Floor Debate

In 1972, there was general support for the ERA in the Florida House of Representatives.

Progressive House Speaker Richard A. “Dick” Pettigrew supported ratification, and the resolution was rapidly moved through the House. Momentum was on the side of the proponents

9 Sandy D’Alemberte conversation at Shell Oyster Bar, Tallahassee, Florida, April 19, 2011. Janet Reno was later State Attorney for Dade County (1978-1993) and U.S. Attorney General (1993-2001). Sandy D’Alemberte was later the Chairman of the Florida Constitutional Revision Commission (1977-1978), President of the American Bar Association (1991-1992) and President of Florida State University (1994-2003), among other distinctions. Journal of the House of Representatives of Florida, March 23, 1972: 887, 892. The ERA passed the U.S. House of Representatives in October 12, 1971, 354-23. The U.S. Senate approved the ERA resolution on March 22, 1972 by a vote of 84-8. The Hawaii legislature ratified the ERA just 32 minutes after the U.S. Senate vote sent it to the states for approval. Nebraska, New Hampshire, Delaware, Iowa and Idaho followed within days. “The Congress: One Giant Leap for Womankind,” Time (Monday, April 3, 1972). Located at: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,903392,00.html. See also Paul Anderson, Janet Reno: Doing the Right Thing (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1994), 60-61.

35 who had just succeeded in an intense lobbying effort on the national level. Only one house member spoke against ratification.

Was there clear evidence of the effect of religion the first year the ERA was considered?

Yes, in both implicit and explicit ways. Reflecting the importance of religious identification, legislators proudly exhibited their religious affiliation as part of their biographical information.

Additionally, many attended a weekly morning Christian prayer meeting during the legislative session. Generally, religion was intertwined with politics on “social” legislation. In legislative debates about “social issues,” the Bible was often quoted and religious references were more the rule than the exception. Therefore, it was no surprise to hear biblical references from both the prime sponsor and sole opponent in the first ERA debate in 1972.

How was the ERA framed in the first year of its introduction? Using a limiting frame emphasizing equality and justice, proponents simplified their debate to emphasize the necessity of women receiving the same rights as men. They assumed there would be no opposition to such a worthy constitutional amendment. Conversely, the most vociferous of the few ERA opponents used a “moral frame” to argue against the ERA. Many broad and concurrent morally charged ideas were encompassed within this argument. Most frequently, as in this debate, the moral frame was based on conservative religious views. Furthermore, binary arguments about masculinity and womanhood dominated the short impassioned house deliberation.10

The ERA debate in 1972 was colorful and emotional. The chamber and gallery were filled with the sound of raucous laughter and hooting by both legislators and observers. The usual formal legislative etiquette was nonexistent. Representative Gwendolyn Cherry, who handled the Judiciary Committee’s HCR 4440 on the House Floor, introduced the amendment,

10 Gene Burns, The Moral Veto, 16.

36 which was only debated by one opponent, Dr. David Smith. Both were religious individuals, arguing from their particular worldview and using their respective frames to shape the debate.

Figure 1.2. Rep. Gwen Cherry discussing legislation with Rep. Dick Clark. Courtesy of State Archives of Florida.

Rep. Cherry was passionately devoted to social justice and women’s rights. She was the first black woman to serve in the Florida Legislature. Cherry was the epitome of a woman whose religious convictions formed the basis of her worldview and legislative advocacy. She was one of the founders of her church, the Church of the Open Door. Cherry was a realist who tried to educate fellow legislators about the world that she represented. She declared that legislators were products of their environment, experience, heredity and “whatever acts on them.” Cherry recognized the importance of relationship building with fellow legislators. She said the more they got to know each other, “the more we come out similar on a whole lot of things.” However,

Cherry pragmatically understood that although, “they may not be particularly concerned with

37 poor people or human priorities, I’ve got to be concerned with them ‘cause I see them all the time.” Often, she indicated that her priorities were vastly different from those of her colleagues, who were concerned about business, roads, insurance, banking, and other issues.11 Cherry briefly introduced the Equal Rights Amendment Resolution and the short debate ensued.

Rep. Dave Smith was the only opponent who would speak against ratification. Smith ultimately became one of the organizers and chief lobbyists against the ERA in ensuing years, as head of the Florida Conservative Union. He was a conservative Christian, who enjoyed referring to himself as “Florida’s Number One Male Chauvinist Pig,” and wore a small gold pig pin on his lapel.12 Smith fervently argued against the measure invoking gender stereotypes and ideals. He chided members for being “too chicken to stand up for their masculine rights.” Smith proclaimed that the ERA was the most ridiculous resolution ever considered by the House of

Representatives. Framing the ERA as part of a socialist conspiracy, Smith called the resolution the “handiwork of Birch Bayh and the brave Chappaquiddick Teddy.” It was a “socialist conspiracy” incited by “a bunch of hairy chested frustrated women, who have stampeded the

Congress of the United States of America.” Using fiery rhetoric that invoked moral frames to contrast those "promoting the socialist conspiracy,” Smith claimed that proponents were attempting “to degrade woman’s place and our beloved America” and “bring about a unisex

11 Gwen Cherry Interview with Dr. James Button. Tallahassee, Florida. Samuel Proctor Oral History Program, Department of History, University of Florida (November 7, 1975). Located at: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00005808/00001. Cherry was born in 1923 and was a public school teacher (22 years), writer, and an attorney. She graduated from Florida A & M Law School in 1965. Cherry was elected from Miami in 1970 and served until her untimely death from a one-car accident in Tallahassee on February 7, 1979. Allen Morris, The Florida Handbook 2009-2010 (Tallahassee, Fla.: The Peninsular Publishing Company, 2009): 161-162. Cherry said that as one of three African Americans in the legislature, she was constantly called upon to represent, not just Dade County blacks, but also all African Americans in the state. Her colleagues frequently referred persons concerned about social issues to her for assistance. Cherry said that she had not only become a “legislator-at-large” for African Americans but also for women because she championed women’s rights. Women came to her from “all over the state” until finally, more female legislator “activists” were elected to help her take up their issues, “fighting the cause so I can let that go for the time being.” 12 “30 Women March Against Equal Rights Amendment: Male Chauvinist Pig Advises,” Sarasota Herald Tribune (April 3, 1973): 5B.

38 society.” He painted a gloomy picture that women in Russia and China might be happy “as bricklayers, plumbers, hide carriers, bulldozer operators, and so forth.” “However,” Smith raised the ideal of “true womanhood” and yelled, “I believe that American womanhood is a better deal; they deserve to be loved and admired; they deserve to be cuddled and coddled!” Finally, summoning a biblical source of authority, Smith concluded the sole debate against the ERA by referring to a conservative religious vision of male-female relations: “Like in the Book of Ruth she follows him. … Let’s show the that members of the Florida

Legislature know the difference between and John Wayne.” Shouting and yelling

“Yea!” could be heard throughout Smith’s flamboyant comments.13

Arguing for the Equal Rights Amendment, Rep. Donald Tucker complimented Smith on his respect for American womanhood. He also chastised Smith by declaring: “It is ridiculous, and almost unbelievable for me to hear in this day and age, [you] speaking in the chauvinistic terminology …” Asking legislators to support “this fine amendment as offered by Mrs. Cherry on behalf of all the women in this country to give them the rights they so richly deserve,” Tucker offered a contrasting limiting “rights frame” of the ERA’s purpose. He averred that he was grateful for his mother, “who is a woman too, and I’m grateful for it and I’m thankful to her and

I want her to have the same rights and privileges that I have and that other men have.” Further,

Tucker elevated the superiority of womanhood by asserting, “there is no greater responsibility that God has placed on either sex than motherhood … and the responsibility that she has in the

13 Florida House of Representatives, ERA Floor Debate, series 38, box 142, T267, tape 2, (March 24, 1972), Florida State Archives, Tallahassee, Florida. A few years later Smith left the legislature and became the director of the Conservative Union and legislative coordinator for Florida’s STOP ERA organization.

39 rearing of a family; so if there is any position, we are unequal, because women are far above us.”14

Amid cheering and laughter in the house chamber, further support came from Rep.

Murray Dubbin who stated: “There are some roosters in this chamber who will find if they don’t vote for this they will be capons.” Cherry closed the deliberation with a request for a favorable vote.15 At the conclusion of what would be the shortest debate in the ERA’s ten-year legislative history, the house quickly passed the ERA by a vote of 84 to 3.16

1972 Florida Senate Inaction

In 1972, the Florida Senate differed with the Florida House of Representatives over the

ERA, a portent to the history of the ratification effort in that chamber. The senate was more conservative than the house. Deliberation on social issues was often stalled in the senate until more women were elected later in the decade. The senate was controlled by the north Florida

“Pork Chop Gang,” and was reluctant to adopt the ERA as the 27th Amendment to the U.S.

Constitution.17 Despite encouragement from Florida’s U.S. Senator to quickly ratify the ERA, Senate President Jerry Thomas, who had gubernatorial aspirations, argued that ratification in Florida was legally impossible. He said: “The house’s decision to consider the bill is an effrontery to the state constitution.” Using a delaying strategy to maintain the status quo,

14 Florida House of Representatives, ERA Floor Debate, series 38, box 142, T267, tape 2 (March 24, 1972), Florida State Archives, Tallahassee, Florida. See also “’Chickens’ Cluck Yes for Women,” St. Petersburg Times (March 25, 1972): 12-B. 15 Florida House of Representatives, ERA Debate, series 38, box 142, T267, tape 1 (March 24, 1972), Florida State Archives, Tallahassee, Florida. See also “’Chickens’ Cluck Yes for Women,” St. Petersburg Times (Saturday March 25, 1972): 12-B. 16 See Journal of the House of Representatives of Florida, March 24, 1972: 904-5. After the roll call vote it is customary for legislators who missed the vote to enter votes into the record. The listing of recorded votes at the time the measure was voted on is the official count toward passage or failure, therefore that is the vote that will be reported for purposes of this project. In this case, for instance, there were seven recorded “yeas” and one recorded “nay” after the official chamber vote of 84-3. 17 The term “Pork Chop Gang” was coined by Tampa Tribune Editor James Clendinen as a name for rural north Florida conservative legislative leaders controlling the power in the legislature. He said they were “fighting for pork, rather than principle.” Allen Morris, The Florida Handbook 2009-2010 (Tallahassee, Fla.: The Peninsular Publishing Company, 2009), 191.

40 Thomas indicated: “If it comes over, I will absolutely rule it out of order.” Further, Thomas declared that the Florida Constitution prohibited the legislature from ratifying any proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution until the following legislative election.18

Florida Attorney General Robert “Bob” Shevin disagreed with Senate President Thomas’ legal interpretation. He supported the Florida House of Representatives’ passage of the ERA.

Shevin emphasized that federal courts had previously ruled that states could not restrict ratification of U.S. constitutional amendments. Specifically, the U.S. Supreme Court held in another case relating to state efforts to stop women’s suffrage that state constitutions could not block legislative consideration of federal constitutional amendments. Representatives Trombetta,

Pettigrew, D’Alemberte, other house members, and Senator Gerald Lewis, reactivated a dormant federal lawsuit against the constitutional provision prohibiting ratification of any constitutional amendment prior to a general election. Shevin and the plaintiffs won their argument. The federal court struck down Article X, Section 1 of the Florida Constitution in January 1973, too late for the Florida Senate to vote on ratification in the short window of opportunity when the momentum seemed so favorable for successful passage in March 1972.19

Transition Between the Legislative Sessions of 1972 and 1973

In the transition period between the 1972 and 1973 legislative sessions, mounting advocacy and opposition efforts added a level of political complexity to the ERA battle. These divisions were heightened by religion. Further, the ERA political focus quickly shifted from

18 Specifically, Article X, Section 1 of the 1968 Florida Constitution stated: 1. Amendments to the United States Constitution The legislature shall not take any action on any proposed amendment to the constitution of the United States unless a majority of the members thereof have been elected after the proposed amendment has been submitted for ratification. Interestingly, the provision was originally enacted in response to post-Civil War amendments that ended slavery and created the rights of African Americans “Out of Luck on Women’s Rights?” St. Petersburg Times, Friday, March 24, 1972: 16-B includes the Thomas quotation. See also Martin A. Dyckman, Reubin O’D. Askew and the Golden Age of Florida Politics (Gainesville, Fla.: University Press of Florida, 2011), 133. 19 Dyckman, Reubin O’D. Askew, 133; and Sandy D’Alemberte conversation, April 19, 2011. See Trombetta v. State of Florida, 339 F. Supp. 1359 (1972), Trombetta v. State of Florida 353 F. Supp. 575 (1973).

41 proponents’ favorable limiting frame of equality to opponents’ unfavorable moral frame of social concern. For example, the early disagreements about equality and “true womanhood” developed to become more encompassing. The notion of legal equality was a noble ideal for proponents, while it meant digression toward a decadent future for opponents. In fact, legal historian Mary

Frances Berry in Why ERA Failed, explained: “Equality may have seemed simple to pro- ratificationists, but to others it meant sexual permissiveness, the pill, abortion, living in communes, draft dodgers, unisex men who refused to be men, and women who refused to be women.” Berry also lamented that ERA opponents “succeeded in drawing attention away from the constitutional principle [of equality], to traditional family values and roles as the turf on which the battle was fought.”20

The November 1972 election brought a few more female legislators into the ERA battle.

Two female ERA proponents defeated male ERA opponents. Rep. Gwen Cherry and the six female house members and one female senator supporting the ERA were a harbinger of the emergence of feminist progressives. They represented a new “gender consciousness” in women being elected to the legislature without regard to political party affiliation. Further, these female legislators focused attention on social issues historically neglected by their male colleagues.

They believed that these issues were not simply personal difficulties, but social problems based on gender. As such, political solutions were necessary.21

20 Mary Frances Berry, Why ERA Failed: Politics, Women’s Rights, and the Amending Process of the Constitution, (Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press, 1986), 85. See also Donald G. Mathews and Jane Sherron De Hart, Sex, Gender, and the Politics of ERA: A State and the Nation (New York: Oxford University Press, 1990), viii, 222- 225. 21 Women in the Florida Legislature elected in November of 1972, included the following: Senator Lori Wilson (I- Merritt Island), Rep. Mary L. Singleton (D-Jacksonville), Rep. Jane W. Robinson (R-Cocoa), Rep. Mary R. Grizzle (R-Clearwater), Rep. Betty Easley (R-Clearwater), Rep. Elaine Gordon (D-Miami), and Rep. Gwen Cherry (D- Miami). All were ERA proponents. See also Rebecca Klatch, "The Formation of Feminist Consciousness Among Left - And Right - Wing Activists of the 1960s," Gender & Society 15 (2001): 791-794, 796-797. Klatch described the development of the feminist consciousness in women in the 1960s. She argued that “feminist consciousness” is a subset of “gender consciousness.” Further, Klatch stated: “Within gender consciousness, I include not only feminists

42 Rep. Mary Grizzle, the first Republican woman elected to the House of Representatives, was an example of the new female progressive legislators. She fought for equal pay for equal work, a married woman’s right to control her own property, and legislation allowing women to serve on juries. A devout Episcopalian, Grizzle, like Governor Reubin Askew, fought for social justice from the moment she entered the legislature onward. Did she talk about religion? No,

Grizzle did not overtly discuss religion except to explain how conservative churches opposed many of her efforts. Yet, deeply held religious values informed her moral imperative to advocate for legislation benefitting children, seniors, and disabled persons. Grizzle also sponsored social and environmental legislation, including maternity leave for teachers, wastewater treatment requirements, and several child daycare initiatives. She explained that child daycare licensing was a hard fought battle against many conservative church groups. Reflecting a progressive moral vision, Grizzle said she “did it for our country first.” Later, as Grizzle reflected on her 29- year legislative career, she said fighting the conservative church groups over child daycare licensing was the hardest battle of her tenure in the house and senate because: “They thought we wanted to make all the kids communists.”22

but also women who believe in gender equality but do not necessarily identify with the term feminist (Katzenstein 1990), as well as women who recognize a common identity and interest as women but who mobilize in support of traditional conceptions of gender (similar to Kaplan's [1982] notion of female consciousness).” 22 Mary Grizzle served in the House of Representatives from 1963 to 1978 and the Senate from 1978 to 1992. As a wealthy housewife and mother of six, she led organizations such as the PTA, the Florida Federation of Republican Women, and the Governor’s Commission on the Status of Women. Mary Grizzle interviewed by Mike Vasilinda and Ron Richmond, (March 16, 2001), Florida Legislative Research Center and Museum, Tallahassee, Florida. See also Craig Basse, “Pioneering Politician Mary Grizzle Dies,” St. Petersburg Times, (November 9, 2006). Located at: http://www.sptimes.com/2006/11/09/State/Pioneering_politician.shtml. See also “House Passes 92-14 Women’s Rights Bill,” St. Petersburg Independent (April 14. 1970): 1A. The author knew Senator Grizzle. She had a history of conflicts with Phyllis Schlafly in Republican women’s forums, dating back to the 1960s. The soft-spoken Grizzle had a robust legacy of sponsoring bills that included social and environmental reforms. For example, in 1970 she sponsored and secured passage of the “Married Women Property Rights Act,” enabling married women to hold and transfer property in their own name. She was inducted into the Florida Women’s Hall of Fame in 2003. Grizzle died in 2006 at the age of 85.

43

Figure 1.3. Rep. Mary Grizzle discussing strategy with Rep. Gwen Cherry. Courtesy of State Archives of Florida.

Governor Reubin Askew added the ERA to a list of items for a November 28, 1972

Special Session. The House of Representatives was poised to ratify the amendment again.

However, the Senate was not interested in considering the ERA since the court challenge was pending. Consideration was deferred to the following legislative session starting in April 1973 due to rising opposition. Therefore, in December 1972, Senator Dan Scarborough, chair of the

Senate Judiciary-Civil Committee, announced that joint legislative public hearings would be held throughout the state. Scarborough, who would later be a steadfast proponent, wrote a constituent:

“At this juncture it appears that a consensus has not developed as to just what this amendment would do to present Florida Statutes that specifically protect the rights of women.”23

By the end of 1972, 22 of the 38 necessary states had ratified the ERA in nine months. In the following years, Florida would become a key battleground state for the ERA ratification

23 Joan Carver, “The Equal Rights Amendment and the Florida Legislature,” The Florida Historical Quarterly 60: 4 (April 1982): 455-481. The period of 1972-1974 Carver categorizes as the second phase of the ERA history: the transformation of the ERA to a highly volatile issue. See also Senator Dan Scarborough to Ms. Grace C. Baker, December 1, 1972. Senate Judiciary-Civil Committee, series 18, box 303, Florida State Archives, Tallahassee, Florida.

44 effort. The gathering storm of opposition to the ERA would expand well beyond the comments of a lone opponent. Incubating an assortment of festering emotions on both sides of the religiously influenced debate, the House and Senate would become cultural combat zones.

Southern resentments against “Yankee imperialism,” federalism in civil rights efforts, and woman’s suffrage on one side, would conflict with bitterness concerning discrimination against blacks and women on the other. Women began to emerge on both sides of the debate, compelled by a religious or moral vision of society.

Consequently, women’s political involvement increased beginning with the 1973 legislative session. The entrance of vast numbers of women in the battle for and against the ERA would ultimately be the catalyst for change in the Florida political environment for subsequent decades. Many organizations involved in the ERA battle produced future female legislators.

These women were part of a network of friends who used their activism and friendships to

“nurture themselves” and “better their communities.”24 Further, a number of state and federal laws would be passed in lieu of the ERA.25 Many homemakers would leave the kitchen to become effective advocates, lobbyists, and protestors on both sides of the ERA conflict. Indeed, many ERA “post mortems” would conclude that women ultimately killed the ERA.

24 Examples include Elaine Bloom, President of the Greater Miami Chapter of the National Council of Jewish Women, first elected to the House of Representatives from 1974-1978 and subsequently from 1986 to 1996; Eleanor Weinstock, President of the Florida League of Women Voters (1973-1975), elected to the House of Representatives from 1978-1986 and the Senate from 1986 to 1992; and Elizabeth Metcalf, President of the Florida League of Women Voters (1975-1977), elected to the House of Representatives from 1982 to 1988. See also Emily J. Minor, “Friendships Helped a Group of Dynamic Young Women of the ‘60s Change Everything,” Palm Beach Post (July 20, 2010). Located at: http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/friendships-helped-a-group-of-dynamic-young-women- 813839.html. Weinstock disclosed that because the Florida Legislature did not ratify the ERA she decided to run for the Florida House of Representatives. Weinstock said of her fellow activists in an interview, "We loved each other." She stated that they saw and spoke to each other on a daily basis: “It was just a very, very close relationship." 25 For example, legislation was passed addressing anti-discrimination practices, property ownership, credit lending, jury service, displaced homemakers, Title IX funding for women’s athletics, and child daycare licensing.

45 1973: The Florida House of Representatives Kills the ERA

From January to March, prior to the beginning of the 1973 Legislative Session in April, the House Select Committee on Equal Rights and Senate Judiciary Committee held five public hearings around the state on the ERA. Mounting opposition was evident in the hearings in major metropolitan areas: Pensacola, Jacksonville, Orlando, Tampa and Miami. There were huge crowds at the meetings. The hearings offered a sampling of what would be a war of opposing moral and religious ideologies. Two of the passionately compelling speakers from each side were a representation of the hundreds of women testifying at the public hearings held across the state in early 1973.26

The first example representing a limiting frame focused on a specific economic concern about equal work opportunities and pay for women. Advocating for the ERA, a young woman told the story of her experience with discrimination and asked the legislators to ratify the amendment. The young woman said that she could earn $4.00 an hour delivering newspapers as opposed to $.75 an hour babysitting. However, she had to place the paper route in her 12-year- old brother’s name because only males were allowed to have paper routes.27

The second example demonstrating a broad moral frame portrayed the ERA as a moral threat to society’s future. Shirley Spellerberg was a conservative talk show host and President of the Florida Chapter of Women for Responsible Legislation (WRL), an organization that was comprised of mostly evangelical women from across the state. Spellerberg testified that the ERA was not only unnecessary, but also a danger for women. She painted a picture of a dark and tumultuous future where family support for housewives would be withdrawn, dower property

26Florida House of Representatives, ERA Debate (HCR 73), series 38, box 145, T329, tape 1, (April 17, 1973), Florida State Archives, Tallahassee, Florida. For example, in Miami there were more than 450 people. The hearing started at 7:30 in the evening and ended at 12:15 in the morning. 27 Ibid.

46 rights altered, girls and women subjected to the military draft, and homosexual marriages allowed that would “open the door to adoption of children by legally married homosexual couples.”28

1973 Legislative Hearing Testimony and Correspondence

The united support for ERA in 1972 completely evaporated in 1973. Like a rising tsunami, the debate over the ERA intensified and crashed against the legislative shore.

Developing political strategies that women at home and at work could engage in, both proponents and opponents made phone calls, wrote letters, and organized groups of women.

Legislators’ phone lines were tied up with dozens of daily calls on the issue. Sacks full of letters were dumped on their desks. Parades of women crowded their offices. A sea of women in red and green converged on the capitol. Not only did each side wear either red (opponents) or green

(proponents) garments, but they also adorned themselves with jewelry, banners, and hats indicating their allegiances. Never in Florida’s history had a legislative issue brought so many women to Tallahassee. The relatively small committee meeting rooms had standing audiences with lines of women that extended down hallways.29

How can this public policy conflict, akin to warfare, be explained? What was the basis of the intense battle over ratification of the ERA? The leading source of conflict was the religious or moral worldview that distinguished the proponents from the opponents of the ERA. Differing worldviews affected the “limiting” or “moral” frames that were used in the dispute. Additionally,

28 Shirley Spellerberg, President of Women for Responsible Legislation, Florida, Miami, Florida (February 15, 1973), series 18, box 303, ERA Correspondence, Senate Judiciary-Civil Committee, Florida State Archives, Tallahassee, Florida. 29 Women also brought distinctive forms of creative advocacy in the political fight in the realm of material culture that was previously unseen in Florida politics. For example, the League of Women Voters of Florida (LWVF) were selling hundreds of ERA bracelets and telling women to wear them until the ERA passed in Florida. The nickel and copper bracelets were selling for $3.00 and the proceeds were used to pay for pamphlets and correspondence supporting the ERA. These women’s rights advocates were selling the unisex-styled bracelet to both men and women. “It’s a great Christmas gift for the man who has everything,” LWVF member Barbara Fleisher said at the time. Susan Lykes, “ERA Bracelets Flooding the Market,” St. Petersburg Times (Dec. 24, 1973).

47 it is important to understand in today’s political environment that proponents and opponents did not fall neatly either into the Republican or Democratic political parties in 1973. There were also male and female legislators and others on both sides of the ERA conflict.

While the disparity between moral and limiting frames helps explain the texture and momentum of debate, proponents of the ERA were equally motivated by moral concerns, even though they expressed these concerns in limited and more implicit ways. Thus, contrasting religious views and moral visions were central components of the ERA struggle. From the springs of differing notions about morality, ideas concerning public policy flowed forth, influencing the actions of women on both sides of the ERA battle.

The committee testimony, correspondence, and legislative debate highlight the divergent religious or moral perspectives that created the chasm between the warring sides. As cognitive linguist George Lakoff argued in Moral Politics, different ideology resulted in divergent political reasoning. Public policy was approached from distinctive viewpoints, and the debates were framed using different metaphors and arguments.30 Actually, substantial policy differences intensified as time passed. Both sides articulated fears, suspicions, and anxieties concerning equality, justice, communist threats, traditional family preservation, interpretation of the Bible, visions of true womanhood, and government or judicial encroachment.

Generally, ERA proponents understood morality as values that promoted equality, fairness, and social justice, so their arguments used narrow, or “limiting,” frames that

30 George Lakoff, Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2004), 65, 107-143. Lakoff distinguishes between liberals and conservatives in the political arena. Using the “nation as family” metaphor, Lakoff argues that liberals and conservatives hold different ideals of the family that result in divergent moral reasoning. On the one hand, liberals subscribe to a “nurturant parent morality.” In this model, fairness, equity, bonds of affection, and social responsibility are stressed. Human nature is basically good, and therefore cooperation, communication, and mutual care are important. On the other hand, conservatives hold a “strict father morality.” In this model, human nature is viewed as inherently self-involved. Rules for behavior must be followed and authority respected and obeyed. Strict hierarchies in the home and government exist that must not be altered. Lakoff readily admits that a rigid dichotomy is artificial and liberalism and conservatism include a wide range of variation.

48 emphasized egalitarianism. For example, Elise Leviton, President of the League of Women

Voters of Florida, expressed what equality meant in terms of women’s rights and freedom. She said the 4,000 Florida League members opposed discriminatory practices on the basis of sex.

They believed that the ERA would rectify women’s concerns about financial support amounts currently dictated by husbands, unfair credit limits for women, restricted female domiciliary rights, women’s voting rights, women running for public office, jury service for women, and female name change rights.31

Similarly, both religious Quakers and Jewish women framed the debate for ERA ratification based on religious beliefs that formed a social duty to promote equality and end discrimination. Quaker proponent David Landouke declared: “We feel that just as there is equality between the sexes before God there should be equality before the laws of our land.”32

Likewise, Elaine Bloom, President of the Greater Miami Section of the National Council of

Jewish Women, Inc. (NCJW), employed the Jewish social responsibility ethic in support of

ERA. On behalf of 2,700 members, she stated that NCJW was not always in favor of the ERA because of apprehensions about abolishing necessary protective legislation. After reviewing a study reporting that protective legislation was being used to restrict employment opportunities for women, NCJW changed their position. Bloom, who would later spend 14 years in the House of Representatives advocating for social justice issues, insisted that, “social customs and personal relationships between men and women would be decided upon by the individuals involved. The question of who pays the dinner bill has nothing to do with legal equal rights.” Ending

31 Elsie Leviton, President, League of Women Voters of Florida, “Statement of the League of Women Voters of Florida to Joint Hearings of the Florida House of Representatives and the Florida Senate on the Question of Ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment to the United States Constitution,” Orlando, Florida (January 15, 1973), series 18, box 303, ERA Correspondence, Senate Judiciary-Civil Committee, Florida State Archives, Tallahassee, Florida. 32 David Landouke, Miami Friends, Religious Society of Friends, to Senator Dan Scarborough (April 1, 1973), series 18, box 303, ERA Correspondence, Senate Judiciary-Civil Committee, Florida State Archives, Tallahassee, Florida.

49 discrimination and ensuring equality were the top priorities for Jewish women, Bloom argued, stating: “We maintain that ratification of the ERA would bring us one step nearer our democratic goals as a nation, as every citizen recognizes the significance of a Constitutional amendment, as men as well as women are presently discriminated against under the law, and it is time that this is changed.”33

Opponents adhered to ideas about sex that were usually based on traditional gender roles as moral standards. They countered equality and discrimination arguments. Using moral frames to depict possible future adverse societal consequences. Citing Karl Marx’s Communist

Manifesto, one opponent argued that the ERA was part of a plot to destroy the family unit.34

Similarly, quoting the Soviet Proclamation of Equal Rights, the Organization of Girls Galore against ERA or “Gi Gi,” claimed that the purpose of the ERA is “to destroy the family as the basic unit of society and make all children wards of the state.”35

Opponents also held beliefs concerning morality that were usually based upon a conservative interpretation of Scripture as strict moral principles. Citing the Bible as a primary source of moral authority was standard rhetoric for opponents. Often appeals to the Bible were terminal for the debates in legislative committees and in the house and senate chambers.

Proponents were constantly frustrated when the opponents invoked the Bible and used moral frames in the debate. Bringing implacable conservative interpretations of the Bible to bear on the

33 Elaine Bloom, President, Greater Miami Section, NCJW, to legislators, (February 26, 1973), box 303, ERA Correspondence, Senate Judiciary-Civil Committee, Florida State Archives, Tallahassee, Florida. The author knows Elaine Bloom, and she has a tremendous legacy of promoting Jewish social ethics while in public office and as a volunteer. Rep. Bloom’s faith is the source of her passionate advocacy. 34 Ruthanna Foster to Senator Dan Scarborough entitled “Phony ‘Equal Rights’” [undated], series 18, box 303, ERA Correspondence, Senate Judiciary-Civil Committee, Florida State Archives, Tallahassee, Florida. 35 Gi Gi to legislators, [undated] series 18, box 303, ERA Correspondence, Senate Judiciary-Civil Committee, Florida State Archives, Tallahassee, Florida.

50 ERA conflict, opponents likened the dispute to a “spiritual battle.”36 They were confident and intransigent in their fundamentalist interpretation of Scripture. ERA opponents framed a “parade of horribles” to mobilize conservative church people all over the state against ratification. They were concerned about encroachment on their way of life and the welfare of their children. For example, in 1973, ERA opponent Marshall Heeth argued that the Bible provided “God’s version of the status of women and that is that they are to be subject to their husbands.” Further, he stated that any deviation from “God’s laws” ultimately “leads to ultimate ruin for any nation.”37

Similarly, Lillian Beebe claimed that the ERA “defies the teachings of the Bible – that man is the head of the home but spineless men are letting women usurp their rights given to them by

God.”38

This is another example of how both proponents and opponents used the Bible to bolster their claims throughout the ten-year ERA debate. Most religious proponents used Scripture to derive a “basic ethical orientation.” They usually interpreted Scripture liberally and sometimes referred to additional sources of moral authority to support their political activities.39 In the ERA

36 See also Donald G. Mathews, “’Spiritual Warfare:’ Cultural Fundamentalism and the Equal Rights Amendment,” Religion and American Culture, 3:2 (Summer, 1993): 130. 37 Marshall Heeth to Senator Dan Scarborough (February 8, 1973), series 18, box 303, ERA Correspondence, Senate Judiciary-Civil Committee, Florida State Archives, Tallahassee, Florida. 38 Mrs. Lillian Beebe to Senator Dan Scarborough (April 5, 1973), series 18, box 303, ERA Correspondence, Senate Judiciary-Civil Committee, Florida State Archives, Tallahassee, Florida. 39 For the uses of Scripture and other sources of moral authority referred to in a public policy conflict see James M. Gustafson, “The Place of Scripture in Christian Ethics,” Interpretation 24 (October 1970) 4: 430-455. In his discussion about the Vietnam War, Gustafson began a conversation about the sources of moral authority in ethics that has lasted decades. He identified the predisposition that people have in each these examples to seek Scripture that confirmed preexisting judgments. Gustafson argued there were at least four ways of applying Scripture as revealed morality: moral law, moral ideals, moral analogies, and a “great variety” (encompassing “moral values, moral norms and principles through many different kinds of Biblical literature”). Scripture was one of several sources of moral authority, but “never the final court of appeal for … ethics.” Other bases for moral judgments, according to Gustafson, included tradition, human experience, the empirical sciences, and philosophy. Although Gustafson discusses “revealed morality” at length, he preferred “revealed reality,” which seems to proceed from the “great variety” of sources. He distinguishes between a view of Scripture as “revealed morality” and a view of Scripture as a revelation of theological principles that are used to interpret what “God is doing” in particular circumstances. Reflecting ideas from H. Richard Niebuhr’s The Responsible Self, Gustafson contended that Christians, as moral agents responsible to God, should discern what they must be and do in specific historical and social circumstances.

51 struggle, proponents invoked Scripture to support equality, which was an important moral ideal although it was part of a limiting frame. Conversely, opponents framed their arguments in moral terms from a conservative religious worldview. In short, many conservative religious adherents judged people by their fidelity to a fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible. They grounded interpretive authority in the texts using the doctrine of biblical inerrancy, as Kathleen C. Boone asserted in For the Bible Tells Them So: The Discourse of Protestant Fundamentalism. She identified a fundamentalist “mind-set” that insisted on the inerrancy of the Bible. Indeed, certain fundamentalist insider catchwords, stereotyped gestures, and rhetorical flourishes were part of the opponents’ language.40

Moreover, ERA opponents judged even religious proponents throughout the ERA struggle as “weighed and found wanting.” For example, Baptist Pastor Leonard F. Willinger proclaimed that ERA supporters were “in opposition to the sympathies of Almighty God on this matter by [their] approval of this anti-Christian piece of legislation.” Referring to the Bible, he indicated that the Bible clearly delineated the role of women and “this whole idea of getting women out of the home and into business and industry and professional positions is foreign to

40 Kathleen C. Boone, For the Bible Tells Them So: The Discourse of Protestant Fundamentalism (New York: State University of New York Press, 1989): 7, 59-60, 89. Boone uses literary criticism techniques to examine Protestant fundamentalist communication. Boone explained that the biblical author was deemed to have been inspired by God so the meaning was fixed and interpreted by fundamentalists based on certain shared presuppositions and doctrines. She contended that the authority of Scripture was combined with the authority of fundamentalist preachers to engage their flocks in political action. "Once the Bible has been established as a God-given text, free of error and plain in its message, might it be possible that fundamentalism perpetuates itself in the minds of individual believers binding them to a certain kind of belief solely because the Bible tells them so?" Addressing the fundamentalist political phenomenon, Boone identifies two reasons for fundamentalist activism: apprehension for maintaining their ability to “win souls” and concern for “the hearts and minds” of their children: “Fundamentalists see a world where their own children are threatened by ungodly teaching in the public schools, where homosexuals lurk in the playgrounds awaiting a chance to seduce the little ones with pornographic materials, while working mothers are so far from the domestic scene that children are left to their own pitiful devices.” While the study is immensely valuable, Boone at times is highly critical of fundamentalists in her analysis, and thus draws certain conclusions that a former insider might not draw. For example, Boone argues that fundamentalists “are less inclined to search for, to meditate upon, the spirit of biblical passages, than to examine the letter of the text to determine the minimum required of them and the maximum they can get away with.” She adds: “What is not explicitly forbidden by the Bible is permitted.” See pp. 94-95.

52 the plan of God Almighty in His creation of women.” Calling the ERA a “sub-Christian piece of legislation,” Rev. Willinger declared: “By approving the Equal Rights Amendment, you are either knowingly or unknowingly taking a stand in opposition to the Bible teaching on this subject, and find yourself in the unwise position of being on the same side of the fence as those who categorically state that they are in a position to know that the Bible is not the inspired Word of God.” Carrying this logic forward, Willinger said: “If you are a church member in one of the historic Christian denominations that was founded on a belief in the Bible but you take an anti-

Bible position on a piece of social legislation such as the Equal Rights Amendment, then you are a hypocrite in this area.”41

In 1973, proponents and opponents in every debate on the ERA invariably addressed the idea of womanhood and the family, framing the issue from their particular moral or religious viewpoint. Proponents included many housewives from traditional families. They also included religious women who held traditional notions of the family. Committee testimony from proponent Adele Kanter, a self-proclaimed “housewife” and “not a member of any women’s liberation group,” asserted that the ERA would not destroy the American home or motherhood.

She declared that the ERA “has no affect on a religious and love relationship between a man, his

41 Leonard F. Willinger, Associate Pastor, Trinity Baptist Church, to Senator (February 13, 1973) series 18, box 303, ERA Correspondence, Senate Judiciary-Civil Committee, Florida State Archives, Tallahassee, Florida. See also Donald G. Mathews and Sherron De Hart, who describe the ambiguity of the term “fundamentalism,” and its reference to 19th century biblical literalists and theologians concerned about modernist biblical and historical criticism made by skeptics and Christians. Indeed, “many ministers who opposed ERA identified themselves as ‘fundamental’ Christians to identify themselves as ‘true’ as opposed to ‘liberal,’ that is, ‘false’ Christians.” Donald G. Mathews and Jane Sherron De Hart, Sex, Gender, and the Politics of ERA: A State and the Nation (New York: Oxford University Press, 1990): 175. See also David W. Brady and Kent L. Tedin. “Ladies in Pink: Religion and Political Ideology in the Anti-ERA Movement.” Social Science Quarterly 36 (March 1976): 567, 574. In a sample of Texas anti-ERA activists, Brady and Tedin found that anti-ERA women fit characteristics of the Religious Right. They believed in the threat of Communism and big government. Anti-ERA women were also worried about morality. Traditional religion was a major source of their political beliefs.

53 wife, and their children,” and promised that if the ERA were ratified she would not abandon her family and would “continue to submit to my husband each evening with pleasure.”42

Conversely, traditional gender stereotypes fueled opposition letters that emphasized the importance of women’s role as wives, mothers, and homemakers. One woman wrote that being a homemaker, “is not a menial task but rather is fully important as the husband’s job of financing and directing the home.”43 Another opponent argued: “God placed man and woman into separate categories with special given rights that man should not tamper with – just protect.”44 Supporting this view, R. Marie Griffith’s excellent study of evangelical women, God’s Daughters:

Evangelical Women and the Power of Submission, corroborates the formation and social reinforcement of women’s traditional personal and collective identity as wives and mothers.

Women in the Aglow fellowship studied by Griffith elevated women’s calling in traditional family roles and constructed biblical terms such as “submission” to mean female liberation and fulfillment.45

Generally, Catholic women populated both sides of the ten-year ERA struggle. The

Catholic Church did not take an official position on the ERA. The Catholic Bishops in America individually held different views on ratification. Catholic nuns as well as Catholic laywomen wrote letters, testified, and lobbied for and against the ERA in Florida. Some early testimony opposed ERA based on potential gender role changes including the loss of protective legislation,

42 Mrs. Julian (Adele) Kanter to Senator Dan Scarborough. (February 16, 1973), series 18, box 303, ERA Correspondence, Senate Judiciary-Civil Committee, Florida State Archives, Tallahassee, Florida. 43 Ruthanna Foster to Senator Dan Scarborough entitled “Phony ‘Equal Rights’” [undated], series 18, box 303, ERA Correspondence, Senate Judiciary-Civil Committee, Florida State Archives, Tallahassee, Florida. 44 Marshall Heeth to Senator Dan Scarborough (February 8, 1973), series 18, box 303, ERA Correspondence, Senate Judiciary-Civil Committee, Florida State Archives, Tallahassee, Florida. See also J.W. Plenert to Senator Dan Scarborough, (March 12, 1973), series 18, box 303, ERA Correspondence, Senate Judiciary-Civil Committee, Florida State Archives, Tallahassee, Florida. 45 See R. Marie Griffith, God’s Daughters: Evangelical Women and the Power of Submission, (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997).

54 changes to the elevated status of wives and mothers, and concerns about enabling male abandonment of family responsibility.46

Cobbling together complaints using a “moral frame,” opponents presented a chaotic future should ERA pass. For example, Shirley Spellerberg who merged her leadership in Women for Responsible Legislation of Florida with a new national STOP ERA organization created by conservative Phyllis Schlafly, argued that courts could interpret the ERA to “abolish existing state laws which deal with legal distinctions between the sexes.” Further, Spellerberg chastised legislators, reminding them that they would stand for re-election and be held accountable for their position on the ERA: “If any of you legislators were to campaign for election on a platform of [harming traditional women by supporting the Equal Rights Amendment], how many of you would be elected?” She urged legislators not to take away such “moral” rights in the name of

“equality.” Concluding her diatribe, Spellerberg argued: “God-given physiological and

46 For example, in 1973, the South Dade Deanery of the Miami Archdiocesan Council of Catholic Women passed a resolution opposing the ERA. Their opposition was based on several reasons related to traditional gender roles, including: • The National Council of Catholic Women opposes the Equal Rights Amendment, because it proposes an idea foreign to the Christian concept of woman’s co-equal, but individual dignity with man, and because it would destroy the legal safeguards women have secured through the years. • Equality with men would lower the God given right women now have as wives and mothers and, as women, they would lose more than they would gain. • Because of this equality, men would legally abdicate their role as provider and protector of the home and it would destroy family life as we know it in America. Mrs. Joseph V. Niemoeller, President, North Dade Deanery (March 1, 1973) and Mrs. Norman (Miriam) Askey and Mrs. John (Rosa Anne) Roche, South Dade Deanery to Senator Dan Scarborough (March 22, 1973), series 18, box 303, ERA Correspondence, Senate Judiciary-Civil Committee, Florida State Archives, Tallahassee, Florida. Additionally, in 1973, the Catholic Woman’s Club of Jacksonville opposed ratification of the ERA arguing that it was “the most dangerous piece of legislation ever introduced” and that it would “lead to the destruction of the Nation.” Influenced by natural law thinking, they stated: “Nature cannot be changed …” and “there are real differences, both physical and social, between women and men. Future generations depend on this difference, without it life ends.” Correspondence from Mrs. W.P.G. “Bess” Meyers, Jr. to Senator Dan Scarborough (March 12, 1973), series 18, box 303, ERA Correspondence, Senate Judiciary-Civil Committee, Florida State Archives, Tallahassee, Florida.

55 functional differences between the sexes make it imperative that women as a class be granted special protection in certain instances under the law.”47

ERA supporter, Winifred Sharp, an influential attorney and future appellate judge, countered opponents’ portrait of a chaotic and dark future for women. She described a better future for women. Sharp listed and disputed many opponents’ claims, including three major issues surfacing in 1973: 1) the ERA was a “communist” inspired plot; 2) ERA would adversely affect “states’ rights;” and 3) the ERA was contrary to Old Testament writings. Sharp countered the opponents’ major arguments saying, “with all due respect to the Bible and religion, our society and law cannot be frozen (or frozen back) to Old Testament times and dictates. In summary – although these arguments are emotionally and loudly advanced by the opposition to the ERA, I do not feel they have any substance or impact.” Concluding, she said: “Much of the opposition’s arguments are premised on legal arguments or rights which do not exist or which will not be affected by the ERA, and threats of legal chaos and the need for horrendous statutory revisions, which will not result in Florida.”48

1973 ERA Debate in the House of Representatives

Every year on the opening day of the annual Florida legislative session, the Governor gave a speech listing policy priorities for the Legislative Session. Governor Reubin Askew was one of Florida’s most progressive governors, with a considerable leadership legacy of bringing

47 Testimony of Shirley Spellerberg, President of Women for Responsible Legislation, Florida, Miami, Florida (February 15, 1973), series 18, box 303, ERA Correspondence, Senate Judiciary-Civil Committee, Florida State Archives, Tallahassee, Florida. 48 Winifred J. Sharp to Richard McFarlain, (February 28, 1973), series 18, box 304, ERA Correspondence, Senate Judiciary-Civil Committee, Florida State Archives, Tallahassee, Florida. Sharp served as a District Court of Appeals (5th DCA) judge from 1979 to 2006.

56 the state into the modern era.49 Askew’s position on the ERA was formed from his moral vision and did not diminish through his years as governor.50

The 1973 Legislative Session opened with Governor Askew urging ratification of the

ERA as part of his policy agenda. Beyond concern for ratification, Askew asked that there be an opportunity to vote on the ERA: “It’s inconceivable that as a modern Legislature representing

7.5 million people, you would allow only three people to preclude your participation in history, regardless of whether that participation would be in the form of a yea or nay.” Further, Askew exhorted: “Regardless of what your votes might be, I urge you to record them on the floors of your respective houses, to do so early so that you can move on to other matters; and to do so not on a procedural point, but on the merits of the amendment itself.” Closing, he said: “Let it not be said that in the roll call of history, Florida has abstained.”51

Askew was referring to a senate procedural move the previous month in which the Equal

Rights Amendment, Senate Concurrent Resolution (SCR) 16 by Senator Ralph Poston, was reconsidered after its rejection by a 4-to-2 vote.52 The day after the legislature listened to

Governor Askew’s speech, SCR 16 was reconsidered and killed on a tie vote (3-3) by the Senate

Judiciary-Civil Committee.53 Proponents’ parliamentary maneuvers failed in the senate. Senate

49 For more on the extensive legacy of Governor Askew, see the excellent biography by Martin A. Dyckman, Reubin O’D. Askew and the Golden Age of Florida Politics (Gainesville, Fla.: University Press of Florida, 2011). 50 Reubin O’D. Askew conversation. Institute of Government, Florida State University. (February 15, 2012) Tallahassee, Florida. See also Dyckman, Reubin O’D. Askew. Askew’s mother, Alberta Askew, had a profound influence on his moral outlook and public policy positions. Divorced from Askew’s father when he was two, she worked as a hotel housekeeper after getting no financial support because the judge knew Askew’s father. Although religion was a large part of Askew’s life, his mother’s influence and family challenges formed the source of his support of the ERA. Interestingly, Askew’s peers often berated the high moral standards and ethic that he represented. He selected the Presbyterian Church because of its theology, and refused to drink or have alcohol in the Governor’s mansion. 51 Governor Reubin Askew, “Governor’s Address to the 1973 Joint Legislative Opening Session,” April 3, 1973, Journal of the House of Representatives of Florida, (April 3, 1973): 8. 52 Senator Dan Scarborough to Mrs. F.J. LuBien (March 26, 1973), series 18, box 304, ERA Correspondence, Senate Judiciary-Civil Committee, Florida State Archives, Tallahassee, Florida. 53 Committee Bill Report, April 4, 1973, Senate Judiciary Civil Committee Files, Florida Senate, FSA, Box 305, Florida State Archives, Tallahassee, Florida. See also Journal of the Senate of Florida, (April 5, 1973): 74.

57 President Horne, an ERA proponent, was forced by precedent to make rulings to not take up the resolution that were contrary to his “personal feelings concerning the substance of the bill.”54

Despite senate opposition, the house ERA resolution was moving forward because of the passionate advocacy of proponents. They felt that if there was strong support in the house that the senate could revive the resolution. The House Select Committee on Equal Rights approved

House Concurrent Resolution (HCR) 73, sponsored by Representatives Cherry, Kutun, Gordon,

Easley, Harris McPherson and Tubbs, on April 10, 1973.55

On April 17, 1973, HCR 73 was debated on the house floor. Speaker Terrell Sessums, an

ERA proponent, was presiding. Decorum was absent with loud clapping, yelling, laughter, and cheering throughout the two-hour deliberation. The legislative debate mirrored the arguments raised in committee testimony and in written correspondence. Moral rhetoric on both sides resounded throughout the house chamber with great emotion and passion. Both proponents and opponents used frames in this second ERA debate to communicate a particular version of reality and explain what was really at stake. Using limiting frames focusing on “rights” arguments, or using moral frames centered on broad social issues, proponents and opponents constructed their debates to draw support from the many undecided legislators.

All of the six female house legislators supported the measure. The Republican Leader,

Rep. Jim Tillman, stated that ERA proponents’ tactics and strategies would backfire on them

54 Journal of the Senate of Florida, (April 5, 1973): 31, 74, 76, 78-79. Religious women’s organizations welcomed Senate President Mallory Horne’s support of the ERA, including Mrs. Theodore Machler, President of the Unitarian Universalist Association, Diane Dawson, President of the Women’s Council, First Presbyterian Church of Tallahassee, and Mrs. Guy Thomas, President of the Church Women United in Tallahassee. Ruth Ann Williams to Mallory E. Horne, Senate President, series 18, box 304, ERA Correspondence, Senate Judiciary-Civil Committee, Florida State Archives, Tallahassee, Florida. See also Mrs. Constance H. Hansen to Mallory Horne, Senate President, indicating that Horne said he “will not do as you stated so vehemently on television last evening and force the issue.” (April 3, 1973), series 18, box 304, ERA Correspondence, Senate Judiciary-Civil Committee, Florida State Archives, Tallahassee, Florida. 55 Journal of the House of Representatives of Florida, (April 10, 1973): 166. Rep. James Tillman, an ERA opponent, moved that the resolution be favorably reported out of committee because he felt it should be debated and voted on in the entire House of Representatives. Jim Tillman conversation, (April 25, 2011), 10th Floor Capitol Snack Bar, Tallahassee, Florida.

58 because they “turned a lot of people off. Some people who were inclined to vote for it are now going to vote against it.”56 Although Cherry and others were sponsors, she deferred to her male colleague who was the chair of the select committee to handle the ERA resolution in the house floor debate.

The chairman of the House Select Committee on Equal Rights, Rep. Robert Hartnett, opened the debate by presenting the work of the committee. He said that in the five hearings held across the state, “what initially seemed to be casual interest of some to what now seems to be a full-blown panic, we have seen supporters of the amendment nearly come to blows with those who disagree or even ask reasonable questions of the effects of the Equal Rights Amendment.”

Hartnett said that interest grew as the proceedings moved from city to city. Dramatic testimony was given at each location, Hartnett said, with one woman saying that she did not want to share a bathroom with “some dude who looks like Tarzan, smells like Cheetah, and acts like Jane.”

Raising his voice to be heard over the loud shouting in the background, Hartnett said that regardless of the arguments heard from both sides, “the real issue before us is whether a constitutional amendment can change an attitude.” He urged the house legislators to listen to both sides of the debate and “bite the bullet and vote.”57

Many legislators used a religiously based romantic frame of “true womanhood” to justify their opposition to ERA ratification. Rep. Ed Blackburn argued that the ERA would be a detriment to women and they would lose their privileges. He said that women were morally superior to men and would not tolerate public corruption. Blackburn said that women “have an exceptionally quick instinct that refutes hypocrisy and at the same time recognizes character, ability, and integrity.” He continued: “Women have a deep sense of compassion and

56 “It’s Go, No Go Day for Rights Amendment,” The Evening Independent (April 17, 1973). 57 Florida House of Representatives, ERA Debate (HCR 73), series 38, box 145, T329, tape 1, (April 17, 1973), Florida State Archives, Tallahassee, Florida.

59 understanding for the impoverished, the needy, and the less fortunate.” Blackburn concluded his remarks saying: “Women are simply better than men!”58 Additionally, Rep. , an opponent of the ERA, also cited women’s special role and calling. He said: “From the earliest biblical times, woman has occupied a special place in our society.” Hutto argued that the ERA would strike at the family unit, removing women from the home: “God has given woman a special role in our society of being a mother and of handling little children.” Responding to loud clapping in the chamber, he said that most women were very proud to be known as housewives and mothers. Closing, Hutto said: “Women do have a special place in our society and if we do not continue to let them have this special niche in our society, we are going to see our way of life is in jeopardy and I ask you to vote no on the ERA.”59 Finally, the majority of women in the state are “happy, satisfied, and pleased with their position here in the State of Florida,” claimed ERA opponent, Rep. Ralph Haben.60

Rep. Elaine Gordon, who would be the ERA’s most ardent advocate in the ensuing decade, entered the debate for the first of many legislative floor fights. Gordon had joined the women’s movement because of job discrimination and then entered into politics to “become a part of a gigantic power structure and bring about change from within.”61 She was a passionate advocate for women’s rights and single mother raising three children at the time. Gordon had been active in the National Council of Jewish Women and the Jewish Women’s Political Caucus.

Although not overtly religious, Gordon said that Judaism informed her feminist moral vision and advocacy on behalf of human rights. Gordon explained: “We Jews come from a culture where the woman is a strong leader in the home and responsible for the problem-solving and crisis

58 Ibid. 59 Ibid. 60 Ibid. 61 Elaine Gordon Speech, undated. Elaine Gordon Papers, box 5, Special Collections, The Green Library, Florida International University, Miami, Florida.

60 management.” Gordon said that she was “awakened to politics by Jewish feminist Betty

Friedan.” She said that as the result of research on the accomplishments of Jewish women in history, “I discovered myself, in the sense that I felt that my public service, and particularly on human services, was a tradition – a heritage – a reason d’être – as a Jewish woman.”62 Moreover,

Gordon’s passion for social justice was informed by two lessons from her Jewish upbringing.

When she was growing up “there was always the pushka in the house,” Gordon explained. “That meant that however poor you were, even if you were the poorest of the poor, you had an obligation to help others.” The second lesson was the obligation to “perform mitzvoth without the promise of a reward.”63 When Gordon first arrived in the House of Representatives, she immediately made waves because the chamber desk nameplates read either “Mr.,” “Mrs.,” or

“Miss.” Gordon “raised eyebrows” by insisting that her nameplate read “Ms.” A couple of years later all of the nameplates were changed to “Rep.”64

Responding to opponents’ claims that the ERA would destroy the family unit and denigrate “true womanhood,” Gordon listed the organizations supporting the ERA in her comments: “including women’s and men’s groups of all religious persuasions, including the

Ecumenical Task Force on Women and Religion, the National Coalition of American Nuns, and the Women’s Christian Temperance Union, and more, all of which represent hundreds of

62 Elaine Gordon Speech to National Council of Jewish Women, Greater Miami Section, undated. In addition, in an undated letter to Archbishop McCarthy, Gordon wrote: “I continue to draw strength from my strong Jewish faith which helps me in my struggle for the many social justice issues that I have fought for over the years. As an elected representative and as a community volunteer, I have practiced and lived by the tenets of my religion.” Elaine Gordon Papers, box 5, Special Collections, The Green Library, Florida International University, Miami, Florida. She had friendships with the major national women’s rights feminists that included , , and . 63 David Bittner, “House Speaker in November Sees Change in Her Status as Woman,” Jewish Floridian (May 4, 1984). Elaine Gordon Papers, box 1, Special Collections, The Green Library, Florida International University, Miami, Florida. Stated simply, the pushka is a box for collecting alms for the poor and mitzvoth are good deeds. 64 Gordon said: When “all of the nameplates were changed to “Rep.” all of us could have the respected salutation to which we are all entitled, without having to be identified by our marital status.” “Farewell Address to the House,” (April 8, 1994), Elaine Gordon Papers, box 1, Special Collections, The Green Library, Florida International University, Miami, Florida. This is also information from personal conversations with Rep. Gordon, 1987 to 1997.

61 millions of people.” She said: “These are not organizations that would advocate destruction of the home and family, rather they respect those institutions highly.”65

Figure 1.4. Rep. Elaine Gordon covers the “R” in MRS. with electrical tape. Courtesy of State Archives of Florida.

The opponents’ initial attack using moral framing put the proponents in a defensive position. At this early stage of the decade-long conflict, proponents did not shift to a full liberal moral frame challenge to their adversaries. ERA proponents rallied around a narrow common theme of equality for women and painted a picture of the new liberated modern woman engaging the world and having educational and career opportunities like the single 30-year old, Mary

Richards on The Mary Tyler Moore Show (1970-1977).

Adding to Gordon’s argument by framing the benefit of “modern womanhood,” Rep.

Jane Robinson said that ERA was needed for women who “want more than the shiny floor that

Johnson’s wax gives you or watching the 267th chapter of a soap opera on TV.”66

65 Florida House of Representatives, ERA Debate (HCR 73), series 38, box 145, T329, tape 1, (April 17, 1973), Florida State Archives, Tallahassee, Florida. 66 “House Rejects Equal Rights,” Sarasota Herald-Tribune (April 18, 1973): 1A.

62 Clapping and laughter exacerbated the debate intensity after each legislator spoke. Both proponents and opponents in the 1973 Legislative debate on the ERA invoked the Bible as a source of moral authority. For example, proponent Rep. Eugene Tubbs, arguing for ERA ratification, exhorted house members to ignore spurious arguments concerning unisex bathrooms and other “possible perversions.” He said the central issue was “to grant rights that should have been granted from the days of antiquity.” Tubbs closed by quoting the Bible, saying “and when I vote for this amendment, I’ll go home and I will be proud to say to my wife, ‘Entreat me not to leave thee, or to return from following after thee, for whither thou goest, I goest; and where thou lodgest, I will lodge; and thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God;’ and she will be free.”67

Opponent Rep. Arthur H. Rude also quoted the Bible as he spoke against the ERA.

Thanking Tubbs for quoting the Bible, he said that God’s order in the Bible established certain classifications. Women were not allowed to serve on the Sanhedrin or hold “high positions in the church hierarchy.” Rude argued that the Bible provided that “there are certain places a woman should be and certain places she should not be.” He closed by saying: “from here on out I would like to be able to vote for motherhood bills and not personhood bills.”68

Several legislators contended that since the majority of their ERA mail was running mainly against ratification, they were voting against the resolution. Conversely, ERA proponent

Rep. Marshall Harris said his mail was running largely against the ERA but he was going to vote for it anyway. Harris believed that Catholic schools had their students write letters for mass mailings against the ERA because they believed there was a connection to abortion: “I was suspicious of the mail when I got 67 letters, all identical, until I found that in fact, there was a

67 Florida House of Representatives, ERA Debate (HCR 73), series 38, box 145, T330, tape 1, (April 17, 1973), Florida State Archives, Tallahassee, Florida. 68 Ibid.

63 small Catholic girls school where two Sisters had written the text of that letter on the board and two classes sent me 76 letters.” Harris said that: “ … as legislators, you have to explain to your people why you vote regardless of how you vote.”69

Using a limiting frame and raising the issue of race while focusing on equality, Rep.

Gwen Cherry reminded legislators that America was founded on ideas of freedom, equality, and justice. She said that all six female house members were united in their support for ratification, regardless of political party affiliation. Cherry acknowledged the good intentions of legislators in enacting legislation, but “often you want to say what blacks should do. But I think we should let blacks – or whoever the persons are – say what is to happen with their destiny.” She urged

House members to stand with female legislators, the president of the United States, congressmen, and the governor in supporting ratification. Reflecting her own spiritual perspective, Cherry closed with a religious reference: “Let me remind you of something that they say from the Bible: a woman was made, not out of a man’s foot to be trampled on, not out of man’s head to rule him, but from out of his ribs, close to his arms, to walk beside him in equality.”70

Finally, Rep. Bob Hartnett, in his closing arguments, pointed out that it was Holy Week, which began the previous Palm Sunday. He said that in the middle of the week Jewish people would celebrate Passover. Harnett quoted a portion of the Jewish Passover Service, linking it to the need for the ERA:

69 Ibid. 70 Ibid. Later that year, Cherry, the current chairwoman of Florida NOW, applied to be President of the University of Florida, to challenge “the whole system of selecting university presidents.” She lambasted those “who tell me there is no job discrimination when the Governor and the cabinet are eight white men, when the Florida delegation to Congress is seventeen white men, and when the university presidents are 36 white men and one black at predominantly black Florida A&M University.” Cherry used the occasion as a platform to remind people of her fight to end job discrimination against women. She said: “There is nothing in our society that is not either male- dominated or male-oriented.” Brian Jones, “Cherry Calls for a Change in Presidential Selection,” Florida Alligator (November 30, 1973). Elaine Gordon Papers, box 1, Special Collections, The Green Library, Florida International University, Miami, Florida.

64 The struggle for freedom is a continuous struggle. For never does man reach total liberty and opportunity. In every age some new freedom is won and established, adding to the advancement of human happiness and security. Yet each age uncovers a formerly unrecognized servitude, requiring new liberations to set man’s soul free. In every age the concept of freedom grows broader, widening the horizons for finer and nobler living. Each generation is duty bound to contribute to this growth, else mankind’s ideals become stagnant and stationary.71

The resolution failed on a vote of 54 to 64. The House was in discordant chaos and there was loud shouting and yelling. From the press gallery, it was observed that the “rhetoric of several speakers brought the packed galleries of predominantly female spectators to their feet with loud ovations.” Seeing the 64 red lights indicating defeat, “several of the women legislators in support of the amendment seemed to be close to tears.”72

Since the senate previously killed the ERA in the Senate Judiciary-Civil Committee on a tie vote, (3-3), the senate ERA resolution was dead for 1973. Senator Lori Wilson said that there would not be an attempt to revive the resolution because “it would be a waste of calories.”73

After an attempt to amend the ERA onto another resolution failed, Senators Scarborough and

Wilson introduced Senate Bill (SB) 393 to prevent sex discrimination in lending, credit, or hiring. On April 20, 1973, the bill passed the senate. It outlawed sex discrimination in business except in setting salaries. The senate killed amendments offered by Wilson to cover wage discrimination and the payment of attorney fees and court costs. Debating the bill, senators often praised or condemned the ERA, with gallery audiences applauding and shouting as points were made. Described as a “love feast compared to lengthy and often tense debate in the house

71 Florida House of Representatives, ERA Debate (HCR 73), series 38, box 145, T330, tape 1, (April 17, 1973), Florida State Archives, Tallahassee, Florida. 72 Ibid. In an obviously pre-planned parliamentary strategy, Rep. Billy Joe Rish moved to reconsider the vote by which HCR 73 failed. Rep. Ed Blackburn moved to lay the reconsideration motion on the table. The Speaker called the voice vote in favor of ERA opponents, and the next bill was rapidly taken up, with Rish grinning and jubilant. “Florida Rejects Ratification of Equal Rights Amendment,” New York Times (April 18, 1973): 32. “Woman Senator Continues ERA Fight,” Sarasota Journal (April 18, 1973). 73 “House Rejects Equal Rights,” Sarasota Herald Tribune (April 18, 1973): 1A.

65 Tuesday,” the bill passed 36-0. Later, SB 393 passed the House of Representatives and Governor

Askew signed it into law.74

Equal Rights Amendment proponents were sorely disappointed because they thought the

Florida Legislature would ratify the ERA in 1973. National ERA proponents called the defeat in

Florida a “setback” but still expected it to ultimately pass.75 In fact, only eight additional states approved the ERA in 1973, bringing the number of states ratifying the amendment to 30.76

***

What made the difference in momentum from 1972 to 1973? Religion was a catalyst and conduit for new opposition to ERA. After the 1972 Legislative Session, opposition to ratification increased due to concerns over several issues that would mean social change for the future of women. First, opponents raised concerns about the military draft of women on the heels of the

Vietnam War era. Fighting Communism in Vietnam made it a central issue. Opponents tied the push for equality to Communism.77 Second, economic concerns were sublimated and transformed into concerns about issues such as women being drafted into the military, the threat of Communism, and government intrusion into religious affairs. Conservative religious women were able to channel anxiety from being in the workplace by necessity toward a greater endeavor

– the defeat of the ERA. Interestingly, controversial social issues, such as abortion and homosexuality were not emphasized as central issues in connection with the ERA until later.

Third, there was mounting opposition from conservative forces, such as Shirley Spellerberg’s

74 “Woman Senator Continues ERA Fight,” Sarasota Journal (April 18, 1973) and William R. Amlong, “Senate Passes Mild ERA Bill,” Daytona Beach Morning Journal (April 20, 1973): 8A. Journal of the Florida Senate (April 19, 1973): 215, 220. See Chapter 73-251, Laws of Florida. 75 Michigan Congresswoman Martha W. Griffiths, who marshaled forces to pass the ERA in Congress remained optimistic. Nick Thimmesch, “The Sexual Equality Amendment: Will Nine More States Approve?” New York Times (June 24, 1973): 222. 76 “The Sexes: The Start of an ERA?” Time (January 6, 1975). 77 Floridians’ proximity to Cuba exacerbated concerns about Communism. Additionally, in Florida, a statutorily mandated class on Communism was part of the high school curriculum.

66 Federation of Women for Responsible Legislation and STOP ERA-Florida organization. The

ERA defeat in Florida was the result of several successful conservative offensives launched in southern and rural state legislatures in February 1973.78

1974: The Florida Senate Kills the ERA

The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) took a hard turn toward absolute polarization of both sides in 1974. The differences transitioned into a full-scale political morality policy conflict over incongruous moral values and worldviews. Proponents and opponents mobilized resources and organized supporters, expanding their influence in Florida. Religion influenced individuals’ core values that formed the basis of the disagreement. Religious and moral interpretations of gender roles were used to frame the conflict and strengthen the political power of interest groups.

This was more than the usual interest group legislative conflict. It was a political movement in which women were entering the political arena as activists and lobbyists for the first time. Many female proponents and opponents experienced new social, political, and individual empowerment. Both sides continued to use political issue framing, moral rhetoric, and creative strategies to further their position. Examining the ERA battle in 1974 reveals how these factors emerged in Florida’s political milieu.

Religion became more involved in the political division as the political conflict continued to grow. Not only was this apparent in the moral framing, but also in how legislators and advocacy groups functioned in the public arena. For instance, individual legislators often used chamber debate as an opportunity to explain their worldviews, while citing the Bible,

78 Nick Thimmesch, “The Sexual Equality Amendment: Will Nine More States Approve?” New York Times (June 24, 1973): 222. Indeed, before the 1973 Legislative Session began in April, Schlafly said STOP ERA already had several thousand members in Florida. The STOP ERA and anti-feminist counter movement tossed proponents onto the backs of their heels. They had to quickly organize and finance a counter offensive. State ERA proponents even urged their followers to sell their blood to raise money for their cause. Eileen Shanahan, “Opposition Rises to Amendment on Equal Rights: Ratification is Uncertain as Foes Marshal Arguments for State Legislators,” New York Times (January 15, 1973): 1, 12.

67 interpreting American history, and arguing for or against the ERA. Additionally, religion affected how legislators perceived their role as representatives of the people. Legislators often expressed their decision on the ERA as based on whether they voted according to their personal conscience as “trustees of the people’s interest” or whether they voted according to voter feedback in the form of polls, letters, and telephone calls.

Interest groups used religious and moral interpretations of gender roles to expand their political power. The organizations on both sides of the conflict framed gender roles to demonstrate the necessity and legitimacy of their group. On the one hand, proponents were fighters for expanded female roles and revised male gender roles under the banner of equality for women. They sought to share economic and political power with men. Equal Rights Amendment supporters argued that gender was a fluid term, which meant freedom from traditional social and institutional restrictions. They used limiting frames to shape their argument narrowly on the imperative for equality. On the other hand, opponents were defenders of traditional male and female roles, usually defined by religious norms. For these women, the ERA debates revealed an interpretation of gender as a fixed term, attached to traditional established institutions and conventions. Using moral frames based on biblical sources of moral authority, opponents claimed that female roles were distinct from male roles. In short, women were subordinate to men in the family.

These divergent views formed the basis of a cultural divide that fueled the conflict and powered the opposing groups in the ERA conflict. As Nancy L. Cohen, in Delirium observed, a sexual counterrevolution was born in the movement of right-wing traditionalist women against the ERA. They forged a social movement based on religious ideology, a communications network, large numbers of female activists led by politically astute leaders, and a strategy to stop

68 ERA: “It was a grassroots movement initiated, led, and prosecuted by ordinary women, who were compelled to act by their belief that the American Way, true religion, and civilization itself all stood on the foundation of the traditional family and its biblically ordained submission of women.”79 Consequently, the groups associated with each side grew in resources and political power as they identified themselves with a religious or moral interpretation of gender roles.

1974 ERA Strategies and Tactics

On the opening day of the 1974 Legislative Session, Governor Reubin Askew again urged the legislature not to miss the opportunity to be among the 38 states needed to ratify the

ERA, saying: “Thirty-three states have said that we should end discrimination against women, and the Amendment enjoys bipartisan support throughout our State and Nation.”80 As in the

1973 Legislative Session, female proponents and opponents were jammed into offices, hallways, and meeting rooms in the capitol.

Figure 1.5. Governor Reubin Askew addresses the legislature. Courtesy of State Archives of Florida.

Both sides spent far more time and energy organizing than they had in the previous two years. Rep. Elaine Gordon, Senator Lori Wilson, and other pro-ERA legislators met with

79 Nancy L. Cohen, Delirium: How the Sexual Counterrevolution is Polarizing America (Berkeley, CA: Counterpoint, 2012), 54-55. 80 Governor Reubin Askew, “Governor’s Address to the 1974 Joint Legislative Opening Session,” April 2, 1974, Journal of the House of Representatives of Florida, (April 2, 1974): 5.

69 proponents, while national STOP ERA leader Phyllis Schlafly, Shirley Spellerberg, Rep. Dave

Smith, and other anti-ERA legislators met with opponents to develop strategies and tactics that they would use throughout the ten-year ERA battle.

Religion shaped the proponents’ and opponents’ tactics. Both groups organized around certain ideologies and used their networks to generate support for their position. For example,

ERA proponents organized religious women’s groups to advocate ratification within their churches and communities. Also, several pro-ERA organizations including the League of

Women Voters, Business & Professional Women, Florida Education Association, and National

Organization of Women and 23 other groups, created and funded an office and hired an executive staff director to coordinate a major ratification effort called “ERA-74.” Local coalitions were established to counter the opponents’ grassroots efforts and advocate on behalf of the ERA.81

Similarly, ERA opponents created and expanded a grassroots network. However, they primarily focused on churches to organize and mobilize networks of women. Local STOP ERA groups were established through specific outreach to housewives who were church members.

Chartering buses and planes, and filling Tallahassee hotel rooms, opponents were thoroughly organized and armed with information by the STOP ERA leaders.82

Both opponents and proponents used similar tactics pursued in other states. Letter writing to legislators, newspaper editors, and other public officials was the mainstay of advocacy.

Proponents and opponents distributed pamphlets, circulated flyers at churches and other organizations, and developed and mailed policy papers. Other strategies included establishing a

81 Edna Tait to Legislators Committed to the Support of the ERA and to those Seriously Considering such Support, “Status Report of ERA-74,” (March 18, 1974), Women subject file, Florida Commission on the Status of Women, series 79, box 1, Florida State Archives, Tallahassee, Florida. 82 Ibid.

70 Speaker’s Bureau that included women ready to debate the ERA, making talk show appearances, holding press conferences, conducting workshops on the ERA, and initiating special events to examine the ERA and garner support or opposition. In addition to the letters to newspaper editors, both sides purchased full-page ads and sought newspaper editorial board endorsements.83

Proponents’ creative organizational tactics included sponsoring a Valentine’s Day Blood

Drive, sending valentines to legislators, activating a group called “Men for ERA,” organizing a

“truth squad” to follow STOP ERA founder Phyllis Schlafly and challenge, “the sweeping statements she makes.” The Florida NOW organized a carnival in Broward County that included opponent legislator effigy piñatas, a “Pin the Tail on the Male Chauvinist Pig” game, and a

“kissing booth” for proponent legislators.84 Likewise, opponents used imaginative strategies and

“femininity tactics” that they had used in other states such as organizing several groups of 30-40 housewives to lobby in Tallahassee. Further, opponents wore long dresses and “little red aprons saying ‘STOP ERA’ and were scurrying around delivering ‘home-baked’ bread from the

‘Breadmaker to the Breadwinner’ in groups of two or three to each legislator.” They also distributed apple pie along with jellies labeled “Preserve Us from a Legislative Jam: Vote

Against the ERA Sham.” Proponents countered with their own baked goods. Consequently, there was no shortage of baked goods or jellies for legislators during the ten-year ERA battle.85

83 See Donald G. Mathews and Jane Sherron De Hart, Sex, Gender, and the Politics of ERA: A State and the Nation (New York: Oxford University Press, 1990): 64-90. Mathews and De Hart carefully document tactics used by ERA proponents and opponents in their excellent and thorough study that mirror the tactics in Florida. 84 Janet K. Boles, The Politics of the Equal Rights Amendment (New York: Longman, 1979): 125. 85 Edna Tait, “Chronological Report of ERA-74, Florida,” (mimeograph, undated), Women Subject file, Florida Commission on the Status of Women, series 79, box 1, Florida State Archives, Tallahassee, Florida. See also Judy Klemesrud, “Opponent of ERA Confident of Its Defeat,” New York Times (December 15, 1975): 53. Proponents also organized conferences around themes affecting women. For example, in Tallahassee NOW organized a conference on the importance of child daycare. Unfortunately, one of the young mothers attending the conference had to point out that they failed to provide child day care for attendees. Dr. Pat Hayward conversation, the Mockingbird Cafe, Tallahassee, Florida (August 22, 2011).

71

Figure 1.6. Rep. Gene Hodges desk draped with a STOP ERA apron. Courtesy of State Archives of Florida

Proponents were on the defensive in 1974. ERA-74 director, Edna Tait, lamented: “We found ourselves constantly refuting false information such as the letter from five Tennessee legislators urging our legislators to vote against the ERA.” Proponents also had to defend the favorable endorsement of the Governor’s Commission on the Status of Women. Opponents charged that they were using state resources to support the ERA.

Importantly, how did religion figure into opponents and proponents’ legislative efforts?

Concentrating on legislators’ religious affiliation was a central strategy. Proponents used legislators’ denominational religious affiliation to determine how they might vote on the ERA and what type of persuasion might be effective. Likewise, opponents appealed to common values and faith traditions. They identified churches attended by legislators and influential individuals in those churches who could persuade them to oppose the ERA. Similarly, proponents distributed a list that indicated legislators’ “home addresses, religion, and position on the ERA” in an effort to sharpen advocacy efforts.86

86 Edna Tait, “Chronological Report of ERA-74, Florida.”

72 Proponents believed that religious affiliation might correlate with voting for or against the ERA. Rep. Elaine Gordon developed and maintained a list of potential ERA votes in the house and senate. She created a chart listing the legislator’s name, position on the ERA (whether they were a “yes,” which meant “support ERA,” “no,” which meant “forget it,” “?no,” which meant “no, but will talk,” or “?” which meant “wavering,”) and finally, their religious affiliation

(Figure 1.7. provides an excerpt from this list). It was clear Gordon believed that religious affiliation was an important factor for each legislator’s position on the ERA.87

Gordon’s list included Baptists, Catholics, Methodists, Episcopalians, Presbyterians,

Jews, Lutherans, some “miscellaneous affiliations,” and a few “no affiliations.” The largest religious affiliation in the legislature was Baptist. According to Gordon’s list, Baptists were on both sides of the ERA but slightly more against it. The next largest group” – Catholic legislators”

– was evenly split on the ERA. Episcopalian legislators were also split between support and opposition, but a large number were categorized as “?No” – “no, but we’ll talk.” The only religious affiliation solidly in favor of the ERA was the Jewish religious affiliation, with ten in favor and only one opposed. The senate portion of the list was clearly updated with Gordon’s writing “no” over several question marks next to senators’ names. The list was kept in a notebook and continually updated for several years after 1974. Although the list was not predictive, it demonstrates the importance of knowing legislators’ religious affiliation for proponents’ strategies.88

87 “The Florida House of Representatives & The Florida Senate (Annotated List of Members),” (1974), Elaine Gordon Papers, box 9, Special Collections, The Green Library, Florida International University, Miami, Florida. 88 Ibid. Interestingly, on Rep. Gordon’s list of legislators’ religious affiliations and ERA positions, Senator Dempsey Barron’s name had a question mark (“?”) that was struck through and “no” was written over it.

73

Figure 1.7. Excerpt from Rep. Elaine Gordon’s list of legislators; legislator address, religious affiliation and position on the Equal Rights Amendment in 1974.

Gordon’s list generally indicates a split in ERA support and opposition by Florida legislators with the same denominational affiliations. House and senate members of similar religious denominations were on both sides of the ERA conflict in 1974. This goes against the common assumption that there was a link between religious preference and ERA support or opposition, which was also a part of popular opinion. The finding is also contrary to the conclusions in political scientist Kent Tedin’s study of Texas ERA proponents and opponents.

Tedin demonstrated a strong relationship between denominational affiliation and support or opposition of the ERA. Proponents tended to be from liberal denominations or were not affiliated with any denomination, while opponents were affiliated with conservative denominations.

Alternatively, Gordon’s list seems to indicate that denominational affiliation in 1974 was less predictive of ERA support or opposition by Florida legislators. A reason could be that as time passed and the debate escalated, religious polarization generated more active opposition from certain fundamentalist denominations. Additionally, Tedin’s study used interviews that were focused on female activists waiting to testify on the ERA (opponents) or attending meetings of feminist organizations (proponents) rather than legislators. This difference between activists and legislators and the meaning of denominational affiliation for each group may account for the

74 variation between Gordon’s list and Tedin’s study. Furthermore, legislators as religious affiliates or non-affiliates were likely to have diverged from activists in denominational or no denominational commitment.89

1974 Florida Senate Legislative Hearing Testimony

“People have backed off into the arena of deliberation … with both sides reviewing it … rejecting fears of all sorts of rebellious changes in the social environment” declared Equal Rights

Amendment (ERA) proponent Senate President Mallory Horne. He predicted that the resolution would be a “major fight” but it would have a strong chance at passage in the 1974 legislative session. Insisting that ERA merely restated current constitutional law, Horne acknowledged that however, it was a “hot button issue” for the 1974 Legislature.90

In the senate, Senator Lori Wilson and others filed Senate Concurrent Resolution (SCR)

18, the ERA, which was referred to the Committee on Rules and Calendar. Wilson, the only female member of the senate, was a tireless advocate for ratification during her six-year tenure.

Wilson was a striking figure in the all male senate, almost always wearing white, with her blonde tresses pulled back. Sometimes deferring to her male proponent co-sponsors, Wilson pursued many different strategies and arguments in her advocacy for the resolution.91

89 Kent L. Tedin “Religious Preference and Pro/Anti Activism on the Equal Rights Amendment Issue.” Pacific Sociological Review 21:1 (January 1978): 55-67. Tedin documented that theological conservatives, who were mostly from fundamentalist denominations were opposed to the ERA, while those in favor were theological liberals. There was a large number of non-religious affiliates (51%) among the pro-ERA women. An even larger number of fundamentalists (66%) were numbered among the anti-ERA women. Together, non-affiliates, Jews, and liberal Protestants comprised 61% of the pro-ERA women, while conservative Protestants, fundamentalists, and sectarians comprised about 80% of the anti-ERA women. A detailed analysis of actual votes correlated with denominational preference in this Florida ERA battle is beyond the scope of this study. Additionally, economist Ethel B. Jones demonstrated “an important role in opposition to ERA by constituents associated with fundamentalist Christian sects and the Mormon Church.” Ethel B. Jones, “ERA Voting: Labor Force Attachment, Marriage, and Religion,” The Journal of Legal Studies 12:1 (January, 1983): 157-168. 90 “Sen. Horne Predicts Busy 1974 Legislative Session, “ St. Petersburg Times (December 31, 1973), Elaine Gordon Papers, box 1, Special Collections, The Green Library, Florida International University, Miami, Florida. 91 Lori Wilson (Cocoa Beach) was elected in 1972 as an independent (spelled with a small “i”) no party legislator. She married Gannett publisher Al Neuharth on Dec. 31, 1973. Wilson did not seek reelection in 1978. For a few months, she ran for U.S. Senate in 1980 as an independent, but dropped out when she could not overturn the law

75 The weekend before the senate committee and chamber vote, ERA proponents believed that the vote was “uncomfortably close.” They had firm commitments in the Committee on Rules and Calendar from 10 of the 18 committee members. In the full senate, proponents counted 18 firm yeas, 16 firm nays, and six that could swing for or against ratification. At the beginning of the week, they identified “other forces that were at work” that had nothing to do with the ERA.

They listed the rumors: “1) the power struggle between Senate President [Mallory Horne] and

Senate President-elect [Dempsey Barron]; 2) a move to kill ERA in committee by (a) the

Republicans to embarrass the Governor [Askew] (a Democrat) and/or (b) the Democrats to keep their three state senators who had announced for statewide races from having to vote on such a controversial issue.”92

Proponents held frequent meetings and stayed in constant communication about the vote count in the Senate. Rep. Elaine Gordon believed she had the votes for ratification in the house.

Most legislators’ positions on the ERA were evolving. Many proponents thought that it could pass in the Florida Senate.

Senator Barron was chair of the Senate Rules and Calendar Committee. Barron, who was given credit for the ERA’s ultimate defeat, was a conservative Democratic power broker who held many populist views, but opposed ratification.93 Because of the huge controversy

requiring three times as many signatures to get on the ballot. Later Wilson ran for state senate in 1988 as a Republican, but was defeated. See Darcy G. Richardson, “Florida’s Hard Road to Success Outside the Major Party System,” The Jacksonville Observer (April 27, 2010). Located at: http://www.jaxobserver.com/2010/04/27/things- change-hard-road-to-success-outside-the-two-major-parties-in-florida/. See also Allen Morris, The Florida Handbook, 2009-2010 (Tallahassee, Fla.: The Peninsular Publishing Company, 2009). 92 Edna Tait, “Chronological Report of ERA-74, Florida.” 93 Dempsey Barron (Panama City) began his 32-year legislative career in 1956 when he was elected to the Florida House of Representatives. In 1960 he was elected to the Florida Senate where he served as senate president from 1975-1976, and held office until 1988 when he was defeated. For more than two decades, Barron controlled the senate and determined leadership positions. Craig Basse and Lucy Morgan, “Barron Dead at 79,” St. Petersburg Times (July 8, 2001). Because of Barron’s many populist positions on issues addressing race and gender, early proponent strategy documents indicate Barron as an unknown vote. Later, he was the primary foe of the ERA. Years later Barron indicated that he regretted his opposition to the ERA. See also 1974 Strategy Lists, box, 9, Elaine Gordon Papers, Special Collections. The Green Library, Florida International University, Miami, Florida and box 1,

76 surrounding the ERA, the senate committee room was crowded with hundreds of women.94

Testimony alternated between pro and con positions and was limited to five minutes for each of the 17 speakers. Public testimony in the committee in 1974 used the limiting and moral frames originally developed in 1973.

Indeed, the committee debate was a “political morality conflict” because it affected

“potential sweeping policy change involving different moral concerns.” Several specific moral policy issues, based on different core values, were raised in the committee discussion, including the homosexuality issue.95

Why was the issue of homosexuality such a contentious issue? After the social movements of the 1960s, people were concerned that society was in a state of moral decay. “Gay

Rights” and homosexuality were seen as a part of the moral decline of American society. Public policy concerning homosexuals was identified as the moral issue that most divided American society. When homosexuality was linked to any public policy issue, it created moral controversy.96 Further, in 1973, the Board of Directors of the American Psychiatric Association removed “homosexuality” from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders over the objections of many psychiatrists.97 Many religious denominations condemned homosexuality as a “sin” of the highest order.98

Commission on the Status of Women 1974 files, Florida State Archives, Tallahassee, Florida; Martin A. Dyckman, Reubin O’D. Askew, 292; and Lori Wilson interviewed by Mike Vasilinda, (October 1, 2003), Florida Legislative Research Center and Museum, Tallahassee, Florida. 94 Robert D. Shaw, “Askew Persuades Key Senator – ERA Squeezes to Floor,” St. Petersburg Times, (April 10, 1974): 21. The crowd was estimated to be 300 people that overflowed the senate’s largest committee meeting room and down the corridors. 95 Donley T. Studlar, “What Constitutes Morality Policy? A Cross-National Analysis,” in Christopher Z. Mooney, The Public Clash of Private Values: The Politics of Morality Policy, (New York: Seven Bridges Press, 2001): 43. Morality policy and politics consist of debates over morality and clashes about values. 96 Ibid. 97 “Facts about Homosexuality and Mental Health,” Department of Psychology, University of California-Davis, located at: http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_mental_health.html. 98 Generally most Christian denominations such as Baptists, Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Reformed Presbyterians, Lutherans-Missouri Synod, Seventh Day Adventists, and Mormons, condemned homosexuality. Some

77 Opponents were able to harness and expand fears by framing a future in which the ERA would eliminate the traditional family unit and homosexuality would be encouraged. For example, STOP ERA leader Phyllis Schlafly penned an article entitled “ERA and Homosexual

‘Marriages’” that fueled fears about the ERA. Using the ERA to extend rights to homosexuals would interfere with the family in society, argued Schlafly. Tying the ERA and homosexual rights to radicalism, Schlafly contended: “Surely the right of parents to control the education of their children is a right of a higher order than any alleged right of, say, the two college-educated lesbian members of the Symbionese Liberation Army to teach our young people.” She used the work of two legal scholars to support the claim that the ERA would authorize “homosexual marriages” and “homosexual adoption of children.” Further, Schlafly publicized the National

Organization of Women’s support of lesbians and claimed that over ten percent of their members were lesbians.99

At the Senate Committee on Rules and Calendar meeting, proponent Florida Attorney

General Robert “Bob” Shevin, a supporter of the ERA, shot back at opponents on the issue of homosexuality. He used legal arguments from an Attorney General Opinion that he published.

Attorney General Opinions did not carry the force of law but were used as a basis of legal guidance on issues of statutory interpretation of Florida law for state officials. Rep. William

Gibson asked for an Attorney General Opinion “as to whether the adoption of the Equal Rights

Amendment would ‘legalize homosexuality’ in this state and would guarantee the right of a female to marry another female.” Dispelling the claim that homosexuals would receive special

denominations were moderate on the issue, including Methodists, Presbyterian USA, Lutherans (ECLA), Episcopalians and Quakers. Other denominations were supportive including Unitarian Universalists, United Church of Christ and Metropolitan Community Church. See “Homosexuality and Christianity,” Religion Facts located at: http://www.religionfacts.com/homosexuality/christianity.htm. 99 Phyllis Schlafly, “ERA and Homosexual ‘Marriages,’” The Phyllis Schlafly Report, Vol. 8, No. 2, Section 2 (September, 1974): 1-4.

78 rights from the ERA, Shevin argued that the thrust of the ERA was that “males and females are entitled to identical treatment” and “sex-based classifications will be struck down when they provide dissimilar treatment for men and women who are similarly situated …” He reasoned that classification of persons as “homosexuals” is not a sex-based classification. Further, Shevin maintained that “homosexuality is not a characteristic unique to one sex; it may occur in either sex, so that a statute relating generally to homosexuality would apply to both males and females.” The general purpose of the ERA was to prevent discrimination between males and females, not heterosexuals and homosexuals. Likewise, Shevin argued that Florida statutes that prohibit marriage between persons of the same sex apply to males and females, not to heterosexuals and homosexuals. He said: “because of the concept of the Equal Rights

Amendment as guaranteeing equality of rights as between members of the male and female sex, I do not conceive that it would be extended to guarantee to members of the same sex a right that traditionally, and by definition, may be entered into only with a member of the opposite sex.”100

Shevin also countered claims that ERA would diminish states rights: “I can assure this committee that I would not be supporting passage of this amendment if it were at all conceivable that its passage would weaken the powers of the State of Florida to act and to rule as a sovereign.” Finally, he insisted, “ratification would not limit the right of the State to legislate and regulate in any areas … provided its action would not deny or abridge the rights of its citizens on account of sex.”101

100 Robert L. Shevin, Attorney General, to Honorable William Gibson, Representative, 38th District, (March 28, 1974), Women Subject file, Commission on the Status of Women, series 79, box 1, Florida State Archives, Tallahassee, Florida. Committee on Rules and Calendar, The Florida Senate, (April 9, 1974), series 625, box 817-2, Florida State Archives, Tallahassee, Florida. 101 Committee on Rules and Calendar, The Florida Senate, (April 9, 1974), series 625, box 817-2, tape 1, Florida State Archives, Tallahassee, Florida.

79 Disagreeing with the Attorney General, attorney Harry Middlebrooks testified that the

ERA would create “chaos as a result of the nullification of state laws.” Linking state law invalidation to athletics, a sacred arena for many southerners, Middlebrooks argued that “our boys have the right to be coached by a real man, one who can dress out with the boys, give them moral leadership, and give them a physical male model to follow. Gentlemen, this is what football is all about.” Wild laughter broke out in the committee room.102

Empowered by religious enthusiasm, many people testifying at the hearing made their first foray into the political arena. For example, Rev. Wade Fulton, pastor of Memorial

Presbyterian Church in West Palm Beach, said that only extraordinary matters would bring members of his church into the political arena. Using a moral frame for his argument, he said that the ERA “strikes at heart of the integrity and stability of the family.” Fulton said that men are charged with “protecting and caring for women that God has committed to their care.”103

Motivated by stated religious beliefs, some opponents framed the debate in terms of ideal traditional family disruption should the ERA be ratified. Mrs. Laverne Smith insisted that the

ERA was not necessary because women were satisfied with the status quo. She claimed to represent most women, saying that she was “representing the silent majority of women who are unable to be here. I am a very fulfilled woman.”104 Additionally, Mrs. Willard Crane, representing the Northeast Miami Women’s Club presented resolutions opposing ERA ratification. She said the women of America enjoy a privileged and an honored status under existing laws: “This being so because of the high rank and value that has been placed on motherhood, on the home, on the strong family unit, and on the child being raised in the home.”

Further, Crane stated that the country was built on the foundation of the home and the family

102 Ibid. 103 Ibid. 104 Ibid.

80 unit, which needed legal safeguards: “A healthy home situation is now, and has been, the only foundation under God, on which a strong and a free nation can be built and maintained.”105

Returning after achieving victory through the defeat of the ERA the prior year, Shirley

Spellerberg, President of STOP ERA-Florida, declared the importance of maintaining the status quo for women. She testified that women in industry are opposed to the ERA despite the supportive resolution adopted by the AFL-CIO. To persuade the committee members that she had the support of religious groups, Spellerberg listed religious organizations opposing the ERA, including: “The National Council of Catholic Women, representing 11 million members, the

Southern Baptist Women representing 12 million members, the Union of Orthodox Rabbis, and many others …” Portraying an adverse future for women should ERA be ratified, Spellerberg argued: “Women could be placed in combat duty, governmental financial assistance for women could be prohibited, and protective laws could be repealed.”106

Several members of the House of Representatives were at the senate committee meeting to support the ERA. They framed the ERA as necessary for women to obtain equality and justice.

They were concerned that the resolution might be killed in committee. Rep. Betty Easley, who famously stated that to be a good legislator a person must “act like a lady and think like a man,” used her status as a mother to support ratification: “I am here today not as a member of the legislature, but as the mother of four daughters and one son and grandson and granddaughter …

It is inconceivable to me that the Florida Legislature would fail to enact legislation that would simply provide equal standing under the law to all persons.”107 Rep. Elaine Gordon argued that

105 Ibid. Many women testifying and writing letters in opposition to the ERA used their husband’s names as identifiers. 106 Ibid. See also Don Keeth, “ERA Opponents Assemble at Rally,” Orlando Sentinel Star (January 26, 1974). 107 Committee on Rules and Calendar, The Florida Senate, (April 9, 1974) series 625, box 817-2, tape 1, Florida State Archives, Tallahassee, Florida. See also Allen Morris, “Betty Easley,” Women in the Florida Legislature, Florida House of Representatives, Tallahassee, (1995), and Robert D. Shaw, “Askew Persuades Key Senator—ERA

81 equality and justice for women were long overdue. She referred to court cases that did not address discrimination, concluding: “We can’t afford that prejudice any longer.”108

Senator Lori Wilson, sponsor of the resolution, after coordinating testimony in favor of the ERA, provided the closing remarks. Revealing the moral vision behind her passion for equality, Wilson told the story of her 14-year old daughter’s tearful question asking why she was not equal. Jeers could be heard from the committee audience as Wilson said she could not provide an answer to her daughter. In a smooth southern drawl, she asked the committee members to decide based on what they felt what was “right in their conscience.” They should search their souls, Wilson said, “look inward, each in your hearts, each in your own way, almost

200 years after the birth of this nation, and a century after this union was almost torn apart over the very subject of freedom.” Referring to divinity, Wilson declared: “But the Providence we live under makes little account of time.” Explaining her moral vision further, she said: “Providence is the Spirit of what we think is right and just and what we hope one day will govern all our world.”

Finally, Wilson asserted that the era of change had arrived, whether they wanted it or not, including, “changing ideas, attitudes, ways of life.” Continuing, she said: “Our world will change.” Wilson concluded by asking the committee to be a part of the change for a positive future. Loud clapping, shouts, and bellowing followed her remarks.109

Senator Richard Pettigrew argued that the full senate should have the opportunity to vote on the ERA. Despite parliamentary attempts by Senators W.D. Childers and Lew Brantley to have the committee immediately adjourn, Chairman Dempsey Barron ignored the motions and the committee voted 10-8 to recommend the resolution favorably. A few members stated that

Squeezes to Floor,” St. Petersburg Times, (April 10, 1974): 21. Easley, a Largo Republican, was labeled “Libby” by other legislators for supporting ERA ratification. She served in the House of Representatives from 1972-1986. 108 Committee on Rules and Calendar, The Florida Senate, (April 9, 1974) series 625, box 817-2, tape 2, Florida State Archives, Tallahassee, Florida. 109 Ibid.

82 they voted “yes” only to send the ERA to the Senate floor. The meeting concluded with loud cheering, clapping, and yelling.110

The legislative committee debate provides insight through the testimony of members of the public, rather than simply the debate between legislators that is narrated through most of this story. Proponents sought equality out of a desire to pursue positive political change and progress.

They used limiting frames to portray concern for women’s equality that reflected mainstream thinking as reflected in Gallup and Harris polls at the time. As noted by female legislators in the

Senate committee testimony, it was inconceivable that they could oppose such a timely constitutional amendment. Opponents, on the other hand, adhered to traditional ideas about gender roles and felt threatened by the perceived cultural change that the ERA represented.

Framing their opposition in moral terms laced with biblical references and lofty rhetoric about true womanhood, protection of the family, and potential threats to society, opponents argued from a comprehensive worldview. Both framed the future America with or without ERA in their own apocalyptic terms.111 Further, testimony provided by the public at the committee meeting confirms observations by Donald G. Mathews and Sherron De Hart identifying the dichotomous ideas about women’s public roles held by each side of the ERA debate. They stated that proponents entered the public sphere through voluntary associations and public volunteer work from a positive framework, whereas opponents were motivated to enter the public sphere to

110 Ibid. 111 Christopher Z. Mooney, The Public Clash of Private Values: The Politics of Morality Policy, (New York: Seven Bridges Press, 2001), 3-5. This apocalyptic tone was affected by the threat to core values that the ERA represented. Personal and community belief systems affect these core values, which in turn, ultimately affect public policy. In most morality policy debates there is one side that characterizes the debate in “absolutist, moralistic terms.” This was apparent in the legislative testimony and chamber debate.

83 defend their private identities. Mathews and De Hart astutely observed that self-definition – personally and collectively – for proponents and opponents was central to the ERA struggle.112

1974 Florida Senate ERA Floor Debate

The next day, on April 10, 1974, the senate considered SCR 18. Senate President Mallory

Horne, an ERA proponent, presided over the Senate. An attempt to amend the resolution to include a straw poll referendum was made by Senators Sims, Childers, Gallen, and Ware.

Senators Myers and Firestone countered with procedural motions, arguing that a federal constitutional amendment cannot be amended. President Horne ruled that a straw ballot amendment could not be offered and the ERA should be voted up or down.113

The debate was intense and full of acrimony. Even without the microphones, the voices of debating legislators could be clearly heard in the galleries. The crowds had to be controlled and monitored by the Senate Sergeant’s office and local law enforcement officers. This first debate in the Florida Senate was full of religious and moral references. Proponents used a limiting frame of equality to maintain that for historical and biblical reasons women deserved to have the ERA ratified. The debate below reveals the moral underpinnings of the limiting frame of equality. Likewise, the opponents’ debate rhetoric illustrates the use of moral frames to invoke fear concerning homosexual marriages and an attack on traditional family roles. Indeed, focusing on issues such as equality, discrimination, war, and homosexuality, senators invoked historical interpretation, the Bible, and experience as their sources of moral authority. With a backdrop of audience clapping, yelling, and jeering, senators agreed on the importance of the historical moment.

112 Donald G. Mathews and Jane Sherron De Hart, Sex, Gender, and the Politics of ERA: A State and the Nation (New York: Oxford University Press, 1990), 175. How proponents and opponents viewed the Bible, history, and culture defined the meaning behind their symbols and principles. 113 Florida Senate, ERA Debate (SCR 18), Secretary of the Florida Senate, (April 10, 1974), series 1238, box 1, tape 1, Florida State Archives, Tallahassee, Florida.

84 Senator Wilson introduced the resolution by explaining that in preparation the previous night she read the U.S. Constitution and Dale Carnegie’s How to Win Friends and Influence

People. She emphasized the fulcrum in the history of the nation that the ERA vote represented.

Wilson argued that “time is a very important thing in all lives and all time. The coincidence of timing has dramatically affected the course of people and the course of mankind.” She listed famous contemporaries that affected the course of history including Edison and Bell, and

Jefferson, Paine, and Henry. Quoting from the Bible, Wilson stated: “To everything there is a season and a time for every purpose under the heaven; a time to be born, and a time to die; a time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak” (Ecclesiastes 3:1-7).

Closing the introduction, she asserted: “The time is now for the Senate of the great State of

Florida to speak to the question of human dignity and true equality under the law for all people.”114

Although in the previous year the military draft ended and the last American troops left

Vietnam, America’s involvement in war had a personal effect on most people. The ERA opponents employed a moral frame to argue that women belonged in the kitchen by divine rite rather than on the front lines of combat. They stirred prospects that women would be subject to the military draft and combat duty should the resolution be ratified. For example, ERA opponent

Senator W.D. Childers said that it was his religious conviction that women should have a separate and distinct role as a homemaker and should not serve in the military. Additionally,

Senator James Johnston said that he prayed about his vote on the ERA and was still concerned about women and military service. He said: “As you know, the Christian religion as we know it is based on the family unit and the man being the head of the household.” Johnston asked for assurance that the ERA would exempt mothers from being drafted into military service.

114 Ibid.

85 Otherwise, he said the situation would be: “Take her off to combat, take her off to fight for the country, and leave her husband at home to watch the child which he probably could not do.”115

Interestingly, several proponents who debated the women in the military/combat issue used the Bible to support the ERA and argued from a Jewish ethic. Like Wilson, although the proponents were arguing from a limiting frame of equality they used moral rhetoric and Scripture to support their position. For example, Senator Jack Gordon, who would become the sponsor of the ERA during the later years, was clear about the impact his religious belief had on motivating his senate actions and quoted Scripture to make his point.116 He addressed the question of women serving in the military and referred to “the Book of Judges … the story of Deborah, who was not only a judge but led her people in battle.” Gordon noted that Deborah was also a married woman:

“There are very ample historical precedents from biblical days that women, when necessary, served as defenders along with men.”117

Further, ERA proponent Senator George Firestone, also of the Jewish faith, said that in

“biblical times, a woman who is in a certain time of the month was not allowed to sleep in the same room as her husband because she was considered to be unclean.” He argued that so much change had occurred since those days. Firestone said that women were the victims of war just as

115 Ibid, tape 4. 116 Jack Gordon to Mike Vasilinda, (October 10, 2002) Florida Legislative Research Center and Museum, Tallahassee, Florida. Gordon described his Jewish faith and how it affected his political positions: I quoted from Isaiah about the necessity to remember the widow, the fatherless, and the poor. You have those kind of obligations. I think really that my politics derives from my religion. If you read the prophets more than anybody, in that part of the Bible. So in a sense I am a prophetic (small “p”) liberal. Because that’s what they talk about and look at a Jewish prayer book there is an even stronger emphasis on those kinds of things. The obligation that you have to concern yourself with people who are less fortunate. That’s pretty well established that that is a strong value in general. 117 Florida Senate, ERA Debate (SCR 18), Secretary of the Florida Senate, (April 10, 1974), series 1238, box 1, tape 3, Florida State Archives, Tallahassee, Florida.

86 men and children suffered from war. Since women were the ones to “carry life” they probably should be the ones to fight wars since they were more aware of the value of human life.118

Senator Dan Scarborough, a proponent, argued that, “the foundation of our religious society is based on the fact that women stay home and men go to war.” Yet, if males were unable to fight, he said, women would “fight like hell and we know it! So I’m not too concerned about the draft aspect.”119

Referring to his Jewish heritage in advocating for the ERA, Senator Sherman Winn discussed how important equality was for people who had experienced discrimination. He read from The Talmud: “God did not create woman from man’s head that he should command her, nor from his feet, that she should be his slave but rather from his side, that she should be near his heart.”120

Moving from the concern about women in combat, several legislators debated the central issues of equality and discrimination. Proponents claimed that opponents were being too emotional and needed to be more rational. Opponents declared that proponents were ignoring serious ramifications of ERA ratification.

Senator Kenneth Myers added his voice to proponents calling for legislators to use reason rather than emotion in examining the ERA. He contended that eliminating discrimination between the sexes does not erase the God-given distinctions between the sexes. Myers said that arguments against the ERA were based on unfounded emotional and legal grounds.121

Senator Robert “Bob” Graham was a member of the “Dog House Democrats,” most of who were from South Florida. They were a group of progressives that often challenged the north

118 Ibid, tape 4. 119 Ibid. 120 Ibid, tape 3. 121 Ibid.

87 Florida “Pork Chop Gang,” who were in power. Graham later became Governor in 1979, and was elected as U.S. Senator in 1986. He was known for his superb intellectual abilities and coalition building. Graham placed the struggle for equality in historical context in his advocacy for ratification. He explained that the first sentence in the U.S. Constitution and the Florida

Constitution, “We the people,” was an evolving concept in American society. Graham said the phrase had evolved from voting rights for white male property owners to voting rights for non- property-owners, black males, and females, over the past 200 years. He said that each time rights were extended in an “era of uncertainty. The question … is whether ‘We the people’ is going to be extended based on sex?” Defining the moment as an historic opportunity, Graham said senators could either be labeled “disdainful” like their predecessors who refused to ratify the 19th

Amendment, or “join 200 years of American history to move toward the phrase of ‘we the people’ as a total people of respect and equality.”122

Focusing on the issue of equality, Senator Richard Pettigrew argued that without a national mandate for the “principle of equality of rights, for people regardless of sex” it would be a much slower process toward justice. He contended that if the principle in the U.S. Constitution were established, then legislative policies would produce fairness.123

122 Ibid. Senator Graham later was elected Governor in 1978. He was a continuous supporter of ratification throughout his term. However, unlike Governor Reubin Askew, he changed his perspective in later years. In 2005, responding to a question asking about the fate of ERA, Graham said: Florida is a socially and culturally conservative state. There were a lot of people who had not reached the point that they thought we should amend the United States Constitution to ensure that there should be no discrimination based on gender. It would be interesting if the ERA were to come up today whether there would be a different result. In fact, in the interim there have been so many laws passed–not constitutional amendments–that have rendered the ERA a relatively a moot point. Bob Graham interviewed by Mike Vasilinda, (February 14, 2005), Legislative Research Center and Museum, Tallahassee, Florida. 123 Florida Senate, ERA Debate (SCR 18), Secretary of the Florida Senate, (April 10, 1974), series 1238, box 1, tape 4, Florida State Archives, Tallahassee, Florida.

88 Challenging the equality argument, opponent Senator Louis de la Parte contended that it took many years to assimilate minorities into American society. He distinguished the ERA from civil rights and suffrage issues by maintaining that women were a majority not a minority group:

“The majority who, within the framework of our Constitution, have the right to shape and form all rights and all privileges to their own image.” Insisting that there was “no wrong to be corrected,” de la Parte maintained: “There is still a large section in this country of women who have committed themselves to the home, unglamorous and difficult as it is.”124

Homosexuality, not equality, would define society, reasoned ERA opponent Senator

W.D. Childers. Using a moral frame, he contended that ratifying the ERA would lead to homosexual marriages. Childers said homosexual marriages would be an enormous campaign issue. “Women control 90% of the wealth and they control 100% of the beauty in this country,” he averred. Childers countered Attorney General Shevin’s contention that if ERA were adopted there would be no homosexual marriages. Reading a court order from Hillsborough County denying an application for marriage, Chiders said: “On Friday, December 4, 1970, Jeanette

Louise Spires and Thelma Jean Harris applied for a marriage license.” Seemingly appalled, he complained that if ERA were ratified that men and women would be using the same facilities.

Childers concluded his argument by reading from a letter written by a psychiatrist about the horrors of homosexuality that would abound if the ERA were ratified.125

Childers’ closing remarks were calculated to persuade a few undecided senators who embraced conservative religious ideologies. Homosexuality was much more of a controversial

124 Ibid. 125 Ibid. Childers served for 30 years in the Florida Senate, until term limits forced him out of office. His nickname was “Banty Rooster.” Childers was convicted of bribing a fellow Escambia County Commissioner, Willie Junior, to vote for the purchase of a defunct soccer complex in 2001. Childers gave Junior a cooking pot full of cash. Later Junior was found dead under a porch in downtown Pensacola. Childers, after many judicial appeals, went to prison and served three years of a 42-month sentence until 2009. Bill Kaczor, “Childers: Hula Hoops to Political Power but Jail May Be Next,” Jacksonville Times-Union, (May 10, 2003).

89 moral issue with uncommitted senators than the far-reaching chance that women would be compelled to enter combat or share bathrooms with men. Further, the specter of homosexual marriage was more closely linked to concerns of conservative religious people. Studies have shown that legislative voting behavior on the issue of homosexuality is shaped by religious affiliation, ideology, partisanship, and constituency preferences. Religious affiliation has been predictive on the issue because many denominations have labeled homosexuality as “immoral and a threat to religious values.”126

Senator Lori Wilson eloquently spoke from the limiting frame of equality and justice in her closing remarks. She clearly articulated her moral vision in a passionate speech. Wilson restated the spiritual arguments she used in the committee meeting, saying that she believed, “we live under one Providence, one God. The moral laws put forth rule the fate of nations;

Providence is the spirit of what is right and what is just – the Spirit which we all hope will one day govern our world.” Wilson’s vision of America was full of positive change with a new future of hope and equality for all women. She urged senators to search their consciences on the historic ERA vote.127

Wilson’s case for ratification flowed from a positive fountain of belief and faith in a progressive unfolding of history: “I think that the true fulfillment of our spirit, our people, our mighty and immortal land is yet to come.”128 She took exception to the assumption of the inevitability of war in opponents’ remarks, saying: “Why not assume that peace is possible?”

Reflecting the classical dichotomy of reason versus emotion, Wilson described the work of the

126 Donald P. Haider-Markel, “Morality in Congress? Legislative Voting on Gay Issues,” in Christopher Z. Mooney, The Public Clash of Private Values: The Politics of Morality Policy, (New York: Seven Bridges Press, 2001): 115- 129. 127 Florida Senate, ERA Debate (SCR 18), Secretary of the Florida Senate, (April 10, 1974), series 1238, box 1, tape 6, Florida State Archives, Tallahassee, Florida. 128 Ibid.

90 early Greeks to argue for the application of reason to the political process: “One of the main, and most revolutionary, assumptions in The Republic by Plato was that the right kind of government and politics could be the legitimate object of rigorous, rational analysis, rather than the inevitable product of muddling through with fear and faith.” Finally, Wilson urged legislators to embrace the political change that comes with changing ideas, attitudes, and ways of life. She closed by saying: “Senators, I urge you, each in your own way, to reflect upon this great heritage and join with me in helping the great and progressive State of Florida hold up the torch of light for the rest of the nation to follow in becoming the 34th state to ratify the 27th amendment to the

Constitution of the United States.”129

There was an element of sadness in Wilson’s voice as she uttered her final words. After jubilant cheering and shouting following her speech, Senate President Horne admonished the senators and the people in the gallery to refrain from shouting. The senate voted on the ERA, which failed in a close vote of 19 yeas to 21 nays.130

Figure 1.8. Senator Lori Wilson after the ERA defeat in the Senate. Courtesy of State Archives of Florida, photo by Donn Dughi.

129 Ibid. 130 Journal of the Senate of Florida, (April 10, 1974): 11, 13, 88, 101, 110.

91 1974 No Action on the ERA in the Florida House of Representatives

In the House of Representatives, Rep. Elaine Gordon filed the resolution in addition to

Rep. Gwen Cherry. Gordon had been planning since the 1973 defeat in the house. She targeted

Dade legislators, who voted against ratification, for defeat in the 1974 elections. At that time, the

ERA was killed by ten votes and by the end of the day Gordon said that at least ten house members had promised her that they would vote for the ERA the following year, in 1974, “when it cools off.”131 Stakes were high and since the ERA failed in the house the previous year,

Gordon decided to work parallel to Cherry, collecting commitments to vote for the resolution and developing strategies to ensure passage of the resolution.132 Nevertheless, the house ERA resolutions died in the House Rules and Calendar Committee. The sponsors knew that it was a waste of effort to push the bills after the defeat in the senate.

By the end of 1974, only three more states ratified the ERA, and Nebraska and Tennessee voted to rescind their ratification. Florida was increasingly identified as the southern state most likely to approve ratification, so national and state organizations sent resources to the state.

However, ERA opposition was mounting like snowflakes in a blizzard.133

***

The ERA battle in Florida began quietly in 1972 with little debate and intensified as opposition grew. Religion was central to the ERA conflict. The debate in the house in 1973 and

131 Louis Salome, “ERA Dies in Legislature, Backers Vow Fight in ’74,” The Miami News (April 18, 1973): 1A. Google News. 132 Rep. Helen Gordon Davis said of the dual bill filing: “[Elaine Gordon] took the ERA away from Gwen Cherry. It was Gwen Cherry’s bill and she co-opted it.” Davis was not a fan of Gordon. Helen Gordon Davis interviewed by Mike Vasilinda, (June 18, 2004), Florida Legislative Research Center and Museum, Tallahassee, Florida. Most people who knew Elaine Gordon understood her tenaciousness and devotion to women’s rights as well as her willingness to step on toes to make progress. The issue was personal to her and she invested a great deal of energy trying to secure passage of the resolution. Gordon, a divorcee, had been unable to secure a mortgage without a husband’s signature on the loan. Margaret Lynn Duggar discussion at Albert’s Provence, (June 29, 2011), Tallahassee, Florida. 133 “The Sexes: The Start of an ERA?” Time (January 6, 1975).

92 the senate in 1974 was full religious language, references to Scripture, and passionate arguments from both sides. Committee testimony and legislative chamber debate mirrored the limiting and moral frames designed to motivate individuals to action for or against the ERA. Arguments made in the press and state capitol where framed using moral language and rhetorical flourishes to place certain images in the mind of the public. For the first time, opponents linked the ERA to homosexuality while proponents tried to debunk their claims. Both sides sought to define the

ERA in the public sphere either as a solution or as a problem. Apolitical women were mobilized on both sides of the ERA struggle, entering the political arena for the first time. Different sources of moral authority, and views of womanhood, equality, family and the future, were revealed in the debates. ERA proponents realized that they had to work hard to get the amendment ratified, whereas ERA opponents realized they had the power of a “vocal minority” to exercise a “moral veto.”

93

CHAPTER 2

MARCHING AND MEDIA WARS: RELIGIOUS RHETORIC, MORAL FRAMING, AND THE EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT CONFLICT IN FLORIDA, 1975 – 1976

“I say to the women of America, we gotta stop being so ladylike.”1 ~ Betty Friedan “Some of us are becoming the men we wanted to marry.”2 ~Gloria Steinem

“What I am defending is the real rights of women. A woman should have the right to be in the home as a wife and mother.”3 ~ Phyllis Schlafly “There needs to be a homemaker exercising some measure of skill, imagination, creativity, desire to fulfill needs and give pleasure to others in the family.”4 ~ Edith Schaeffer

A devout Presbyterian homemaker was being taped by Tallahassee’s WCTV television station as she proclaimed her support for the Equal Rights Amendment. Donna Lou Askew discussed how she chose to be a homemaker and was very happy in her work. Mrs. Askew said that she was “more and more aware of the problems facing women who chose to work outside of their homes or are forced by circumstances to support themselves and their families.”

Advocating for “a right to equal opportunity and protection against discrimination,” Mrs. Askew proclaimed: “Equality and freedom are America’s highest ideals.” Concluding, she argued that the time had come for these basic rights for women to be guaranteed in the American constitution.5

Calling on the legislature to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), her husband,

Governor Reubin Askew, followed her lead and declared to a joint session of the Florida

1 Betty Friedan quoted in “The Sexes: The Unmaking of an Amendment,” Time (Monday, April 25, 1977). 2 Gloria Steinem, “Speech at Yale University,” (September 23, 1981), New Haven, Connecticut. 3 Phyllis Schlafly, “Quotes about Equality,” Say Hello to Your Very Own Book of Quotes, Quotations.com. 4 Edith Schaeffer, What is a Family? (Old Tappan, N.J.: F.H. Revell Co., 1975). 5 Donna Lou Askew, taped by Channel 6, WCTV, Tallahassee, Florida. (March 21, 1975). Elaine Gordon Papers, box 1, Special Collections, The Green Library, Florida International University, Miami, Florida.

94 Legislature on opening day that the ERA would not “outlaw individual choice in social customs, endanger domestic institutions, nor undermine personal values.” Askew said: “The women of this state and of this nation have already waited far too long for the equality that is their rightful inheritance by birth.”6 Loud boos, hisses, and thumbs down came from female ERA opponents in the gallery of the Florida House of Representatives, when Askew asked the legislature to ratify the ERA. Undaunted by the block of jeering ERA opponents, Askew continued describing his other policy priorities.

Figure 2.1. ERA Opponents cause a stir in the house gallery by booing and hissing at Askew’s request to ratify the ERA. Courtesy of State Archives of Florida, photo by Donn Dughi.

Why was Governor Askew confident? The 1974 fall elections changed the composition of the legislature, giving hope to ERA proponents. ERA supporters believed that prospects for passage of the ERA were good and the optimism of proponents abounded.7

6 Governor Reuben Askew, “Governor’s Address to the 1975 Joint Legislative Opening Session,” April 8, 1975, Journal of the House of Representatives of Florida, (April 8, 1975): 6. 7 “The Sexes: The Start of an ERA?” Time (January 6, 1975).

95 1975: The House Passes and the Senate Kills ERA

Proponents and opponents mobilized for the 1975 Legislative Session. This would be the first year that the ERA was heard, debated, and voted on, in both the house and the senate.

Representative Don Tucker, a proponent of the ERA, was the Speaker of the House of

Representatives. Senator Dempsey Barron, an opponent, was the Senate President.

Church groups were mobilized on both sides of the issue. Evangelicals and conservative

Catholics were urging defeat for religious reasons. The Catholic Church did not have an official position on ratification, so Catholic women were testifying on both sides of the issue.

Importantly, moral framing connected the issues of abortion and homosexuality to the ERA and exacerbated fears concerning ratification.

Proponents were wearing green and distributing literature about the benefits of the ERA.

Opponents were wearing aprons with red Stop signs, carrying small loaves of bread, and warning of dire consequences if the ERA passed. A group called “Women’s Right to be Women” disseminated leaflets warning that ERA ratification would result in women being drafted and cautioned wives that their military husbands would have to share “sleeping quarters, restrooms, and foxholes” with females in the armed services.8

Intensifying in 1975, the ERA battle was entwined with mounting religious and moral ideology, language, and symbolism. Escalating emotion and moral rhetoric while using religion as a springboard for grandiose declarations was central to the rising animosity between proponents and opponents. While proponents continued to use the limiting frame of equality and opponents used a moral frame, both pro-ERA and anti-ERA leaders realized the importance of religion in the ERA conflict. As opponents increasingly used religious rhetoric in pamphlets,

8 Ibid, and Louise Cook, “What Went Wrong on the Way to ERA Ratification,” Lakeland Ledger (April 26, 1975): 1A.

96 letters, and debates, proponents countered with pamphlets, letters, and language using the Bible to support ERA ratification. Both sides also used religious and moral speech and references to

Scripture in advocacy efforts. Additionally, both legislative proponents and opponents cited the

Bible as a source of moral authority in the legislative debates.

1975 Florida House of Representatives ERA Debate

In the House, Rep. Gwen Cherry and others filed House Concurrent Resolution (HCR) 2, which was sent to the Select Committee on Human Rights. Additionally, Rep. Elaine Gordon and others filed House Concurrent Resolution (HCR) 68. The Select Committee on Human

Rights combined the two resolutions into a Committee Substitute for HCRs 2 & 68 and recommended it favorably.9

On April 10, 1975, the ERA was debated on the house floor in a rare televised evening session, with proponent Speaker Donald L. Tucker presiding. Rep. Elaine Gordon took the lead for proponents in the debate.

Gordon started the debate and concluded the debate by placing the ERA in a progressive historical context. Using a civil rights limiting frame, she based the need for ratification on the moral necessity of ending discrimination and promoting equality. Gordon proclaimed:

“Historically the United States has defended people’s rights to liberty, freedom, equality around the world at great personal sacrifice and enormous cost in money and lives.” Declaring that

“51% of citizens” were refused equality under the law, she reminded legislators that the only way that Florida’s women received the right to vote was through an amendment to the U.S.

Constitution, since Florida never ratified the 19th Amendment. Gordon contended that there were over 100 statutes in need of revision in Florida because of sex-based references. Further, she said

9 Journal of the House of Representatives of Florida, (April 8, 1975): 11, 17, and 92. Unfortunately the committee records were not available in the Florida State Archives, and the committee tapes were damaged and inaudible.

97 that the U.S. Supreme Court “has never held that sex, unlike discrimination based on race, is inherently suspect and therefore subject to close judicial scrutiny.” Specifically, Gordon asserted that the U.S. Supreme Court in its decision in Frontiero v. Richardson explicitly indicated that they were waiting for states to ratify the ERA.10

Framing the ERA struggle as a justified effort to obtain equality under the law, but in a way that allowed the moral values supporting this framing fuller expression, Gordon insisted that ratification would assure “first-class citizenship [for women] … across state boundaries.”

Women would no longer have to rely on federal or state legislative bodies to correct inequities.

Gordon argued: “Virtually all of the civil liberties now held by racial and religious minorities, and others, cannot be modified or abridged by the caprice or desire of even an overwhelming majority.” Her voice rising, Gordon concluded: “Certainly considerations of conscience and right compel and demand that these liberties be extended to all men and women … and by amending the Constitution, to state that men and women are equal before the law, once for all reject the outdated concept of female inferiority and instead give to the women of our country tangible evidence of our commitment as a nation to true equality.”11

Gordon stepped out of the limited frame rhetoric and ventured into moral frame rhetoric, effectively evoking cheering and outbursts, making the debate emotional. This is because the policy debate had become a more fundamental religious debate, over which profound difference

10 Floor Debate, Florida House of Representatives, Series 3, Box 152, tape 1, Florida State Archives, (April 10, 1975). Gordon declared: The [U.S. Supreme] Court has never held that sex, unlike discrimination based on race, is inherently suspect and therefore subject to close judicial scrutiny. Furthermore, the present [U.S. Supreme Court] in its decision in the Fontiero [Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U.S. 677 (1973)] case, stated: “It is unnecessary for the court in this case to characterize sex as a suspect classification with all the far-reaching implications of such a holding by acting prematurely. The court will assume decisional responsibility at the very time when the state legislatures functioning within the traditional democratic processes are debating the proposed amendment.” 11 Ibid.

98 did exist and could not be arbitrated calmly with reasonable discourse in the context of legislative debate.

Amid the cacophony of voices, cheering, jeers, clapping, and shouting that followed

Gordon’s opening speech, the house clerk read a proposed amendment that would strike out all of the ERA language. Rep. Dick Clark offered an amendment to delete the ERA language and insert straw ballot language for March 9, 1976 asking voters whether they approve ratification of the ERA.

Raising reason and emotion as dichotomous, straw ballot proponent Rep. argued that the ERA, “is not the kind of issue where reason, or logic, are going to move us any closer toward a comfortable course of action here tonight.” He said that honest and informed people would reach entirely different conclusions concerning the impact of the ERA. “So no debate is going to move any people here tonight.” Mixson maintained that there was a wide variation in how people in different regions of the state felt “on an emotional issue like this.” He concluded that without the straw ballot amendment, the “‘rule of two’ will kill it – Dempsey and

Lew.” Mixson was referring to ERA opponents Senate President Dempsey Barron and Senate

Rules Committee Chair Lew Brantley.12

ERA opponent Rep. Billy Joe Rish spoke in favor of the straw ballot amendment, which would obliterate the ERA. Reflecting southern resentment about the impact of judicial rulings and federal civil rights laws that were not subject to legislative vote or a straw ballot referendum,

Rish argued that a straw ballot had been considered on other matters except “prayer in schools and busing.” Amid hooting and hollering in response to his remarks, Rish closed, saying: “So it really depends on whether you are for it or whether you are against it as to whether or not you

12 Ibid.

99 think the people ought to speak [through a straw ballot referendum] I suppose; at least that’s the way it appears to me.”13

After additional debate between ERA opponents and proponents, the straw ballot amendment was defeated 56 yeas to 63 nays.14 After the vote was tabulated, the proponents in the House gallery erupted with cheers and clapping. Debate continued on the ERA resolution.

Moving from Gordon’s opening remarks, past the straw ballot amendment defeat, proponents orchestrated a strong religious argument to try to persuade any undecided house members. Rep. Karen Coolman had been an early National Organization for Women (NOW) organizer and was elected to the National Board of Directors in 1972. She lobbied for the Equal

Rights Amendment in 1973 and 1974. The reason she ran for the legislature was because a male legislator challenged her by saying that “no one like you could ever get elected.” Coolman was elected in 1974 as the first woman from Broward County to serve in the house.15 Like Rep.

Gwen Cherry, Coolman was prototypical of a religious woman who was also a leader in the feminist organization NOW, while maintaining a religious worldview. Coolman used Scripture, and in doing so shed light on an interpretation that diverged from the conservative fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible. She asked legislators to “put aside all the hysterics, and the rhetoric, and the legal gymnastics” and ask “one question: is it right or is it wrong?”

Waving the Bible in the air, Coolman argued that the answer to the question could be found within its pages, saying:

I think that if you look at the central figure in that book – look at Jesus – look at his teachings; look at his actions. You will find that he broke the rules of his time that kept women down. You will find that he broke these rules during the most

13 Ibid. 14 Journal of the Florida House of Representatives, (April 10, 1975): 109. 15 Karen Coolman Amlong, “Attorney Profiles: Karen Coolman Amlong,” Located at: http://www.theamlongfirm.com/Bio/KarenAmlong.asp. Coolman was only 27 years old. Her campaign slogan was: “It’s time.”

100 important events of his life and during the most important events in the Christian religion.16

Then Coolman provided an historical biblical interpretation concerning Jesus’ progressive treatment of women. “Every day men got up and thanked God that they were not created women,” Coolman said. She asked house members to “take a look at some of the Bible stories that we are all very familiar with, we will find that Jesus broke with these rules.” Coolman systematically described in detail the stories of Jesus’ unusual encounter with the Samaritan woman, the women in the streets, sisters Mary and Martha, and Mary Magadalene. She stressed how Jesus went against culture and tradition in the honorable treatment of women. Coolman argued that the heart of the issue in the Christian religion is the resurrection, and described how women played a central role, sending an important message. Women were commissioned “to go out, bear witness, give testimony – that they were prohibited by law to give in court,” according to Coolman. Concluding the interpretive biblical history, Coolman passionately declared that the

Bible was clear about the answer to the question and that the ERA should be supported: “I’d like to just briefly read to you from the statement in Galatians by Paul: ‘But there is neither Greek nor

Jew, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Jesus

Christ.’”17

Reacting angrily to Coolman’s Bible history and interpretation, ERA opponent Rep.

Chester Clem refused to tolerate Coolman’s introduction of a disagreeable moral framing of the issue. Thus he proclaimed: “We did not come here tonight to be preached to, and frankly, as an attorney and as a legislator, [I who] have stood for women’s rights, rather resent that.”18

16 Floor Debate, Florida House of Representatives, Series 3, Box 152, tape 2, Florida State Archives, (April 10, 1975). 17 Ibid. 18 Ibid.

101 Rep. Gene Campbell, identifying himself as a history teacher, supported Coolman’s religious historical narrative and listed additional reasons to support ERA ratification. He said that Jesus also preached change. In the history of the world and of America, change was always challenging and the current situation was no different. Campbell discussed the struggle for change from the American Revolution, the adoption of the U.S. Constitution and subsequent Bill of Rights, the end of slavery, the ratification of women’s suffrage, and finally the expansion of women in the workforce. As he closed, Campbell said: “This is the proudest vote that I will ever cast – this ‘yes’ vote for the ERA.”19

Proponents Gordon, Coolman, and Campbell reflected a continuing refrain in the legislative disagreements over the ERA. The house and senate debates became forums for interpretation of American history. There was a certain worldview that affected the framing of historical events in the house and senate chambers. Value systems were employed in the framing and interpretation of history, reflecting legislators’ worldviews. Clearly, the legislators offered views that were “radically selective” narratives of American history designed to elicit support for their positions. In the telling of history as part of the debate, legislators were emphasizing a meaningful past that led to the point in history in which the ERA emerged.20 Moreover, the articulated view of history revealed a moral vision with a dream or nightmare of the future, depending on whether they were supporting or opposing ERA. For example, legislators such as

Reps. Gordon, Cherry, Coolman, Campbell, and others, envisioned and framed a positive future

19 Ibid. 20 See Joyce Appleby, Lynn Hunt, and Margaret Jacob, Telling the Truth About History, (New York: W.W. Norton & Company): 10; Georg G. Iggers, Historiography in the Twentieth Century: From Scientific Objectivity to the Postmodern Challenges, (Hanover, CT: Weslyan University Press, 1997): 10. Appleby and others note that objectivity in historical interpretation is fostered by “public discussions of the meaning of historical facts.” See also George Marsden, “A Christian Perspective for Teaching History,” in A Christian View of History? Eds. George Marsden and Frank Roberts (Grand Rapids: Wm. Eerdmans Pub. Company, 1975): 32 quoted in Maxie B. Burch, The Evangelical Historians: The Historiography of George Marsden, Nathan Hatch, and Mark Noll, (New York: University Press of America, Inc., 1996): 43.

102 with expanded freedom and liberty. Supporters perceived the ERA as just another step in a long established process of legal reform, consistent with how America was changing for the better.

They also invoked Scripture to support ratification as part of the debate rousing the anger of opponents. Indeed, Reps. Clarke, Mixson, Rish, and other opponents, on the other hand, angrily framed an orchestrated battle between good and evil, and protested proponents’ use of Scripture and version of history. The future could be “darkest before the dawn.” Their apocalyptic interpretation of history was consistent with traditional views of gender roles and conservative interpretations of Scripture.

Continuing the debate, two doctors in the Florida House of Representatives disagreed on women’s nature, women’s moral superiority, and the necessity for ratification of the ERA. Rep.

Dave Smith said that he had practiced medicine for 33 years and argued that women were more emotionally needy than men so the ERA should not be ratified. “Emotionally, women need more support than men do,” Smith said. “I have counseled thousands of women in my office and … the women need help.” Alluding to the “moral superiority of women,” Smith said: “I think the greatest thing is moralistically [sic] only a woman has the level of morals that we’ve lost and that’s what I’m afraid ERA will do through Congress and the Supreme Court.”21

Contrasting Smith’s statement, physician-legislator Rep. Richard Hodes argued from a limiting frame for the necessity of ERA ratification to eliminate discrimination based on sex, which was needed in the medical profession. He said that it was extremely difficult, and required great courage, for a man to become a nurse. Further, Hodes argued: “The reason women don’t find it comfortable to go into surgery is because of the serious sex bias that exists in practicing

21 Floor Debate, Florida House of Representatives, Series 3, Box 152, tape 2, Florida State Archives, (April 10, 1975). Later Smith became the chief anti-ERA lobbyist when he left the legislature. The Miami Herald labeled Smith “Florida’s number one male chauvinist pig,” which he earned by casting the first legislative “No” vote against the ERA in 1972.

103 surgery.” He said that until sex bias is eradicated, “the skills of those marvelous female surgeons and those excellent male nurses cannot be fully utilized.” Hodes shared the pragmatic philosophy and moral vision behind his arguments. Referring to Walter Lippman’s discussion of the “public philosophy,” he said that a constitutional amendment was necessary to remove sex bias from

American thinking. Hodes concluded that the ERA would stimulate the “gradual evolution of the public philosophy of the United States, to the point where the sex biases that we carry in our minds [will be eliminated].”22

Harkening back to arguments against women’s suffrage, several opponents referred to maintaining the “elevated status of women” and sought to keep it from being changed by ERA ratification. For example, Rep. Ed Blackburn said: “I think that women are better than men and I don’t think the constitutional amendment will change it.” Additionally, the first woman legislator to oppose the ERA, Rep. Nancy O. Harrington, indicated that she wanted to keep her privileged status as a woman. Arguing that she represented not only her constituents, but also many thousands of other women in the state opposing ERA, Harrington said: “I am an extremely liberated woman and a mother and do not wish to change my favored status.” Further, Rep.

George Grosse also proclaimed that women held an esteemed place in society. Saying that he held his wife up on a pedestal and did not want her “down on a level with me,” Grosse asked

House members to “keep ladies where they should be … so that they do not have to go through the things we have to go through.” Arguing from a religious perspective, Grosse said he was worried that churches would be forced to allow women to be preachers, deacons, and priests, because of a forced judicial ruling. Finally, Rep. R.W. “Smokey” Peaden maintained that no woman would support the ERA who was “left by some man to raise the family, without the

22 Floor Debate, Florida House of Representatives, Series 3, Box 152, tape 2, Florida State Archives, (April 10, 1975).

104 assistance of a man, who is raising [children] on alimony.” Cascading cheers and clapping followed each legislator’s remarks.23

Contrary to opponents, Rep. Don Hazelton contended that ERA ratification would not

“insult women’s femininity.” Further, he countered that he would not vote for ratification if it would result in any negative consequences for women. Hazelton concluded: “I say I’m going to vote for this amendment woman, because I love you.”24

Throughout the rancorous house debate, the shouting, jeering, and yelling were often followed by the thunderous pounding of the Speaker’s wooden gavel, leveled in an attempt to create order out of the chaos and conflict.

Contending that he received instructions from his wife to vote against the ERA, Rep.

Gene Hodges asked legislators to “not take the American way of life away from the ladies of the state and the nation.” Countering that her husband and daughters asked her to vote for the ERA,

Rep. Elaine Bloom provided a reference to the evolving history of women’s rights. Bloom credited increased numbers of women legislators to national passage of the ERA.25

Figure 2.2. Rep. Elaine Bloom and Rep. Elaine Gordon. Courtesy of State Archives of Florida.

23 Ibid. 24 Ibid. 25 Ibid.

105 Ardent and faithful ERA supporter Rep. Gwen Cherry, using a limiting frame of equality, made a passionate oration criticizing discrimination against black women. She aroused response from the house gallery by invoking civil rights images, asking: “Where would we have been as blacks, if we didn’t have the 14th and the 15th [constitutional amendments]?” Invigorated by loud clapping, Cherry continued, shouting her remarks above the legislative din that although the

ERA would not be a panacea, it would start the effort toward providing equality to the women who “cannot come up here for this legislative session; did not have the money to come.” Black women, Cherry said, who did not have “places to leave their children.” Women who also

“reached the golden years of their lives only to find that the social security laws and the income tax laws discriminated against them.” Cherry asked the legislators to “bring black women into the mainstream of society.”26

Several legislators supporting ERA moved from the limiting frame of equality and secularized rights language to argue directly that ratification was a moral issue. For example,

Reps. Barry Kutun and Walter W. “Willie” Sackett, Jr. said voting for the ERA was the “right moral position.” Also, Rep. Tom R. Moore explained how a “moral issue” could be viewed from different perspectives. He said, “that we can argue on every occasion and come away as friends after hotly debating an issue. On this moral issue, each of us has looked at the pluses and minuses for a long time.” Moore declared that legislators have the ability to make decisions on legislation and yet maintain friendships despite holding different “moral positions” on the

ERA.27

Additionally, the idea of political representation was raised by Rep. Moore and became a common theme throughout the ten-year ERA battle. Were legislators elected to determine the

26 Ibid. 27 Ibid.

106 will of their constituents and vote accordingly or were they elected to vote according to what their moral consciences dictated? Either way, religion was part of that equation. Legislators would often refer to a style of representation in explaining their position on the ERA, as Rep.

Cherry and others explained previously. Historically, styles of representation fell within a continuum between “free agency” or “trustee” and constituent “mandate.” Having lived in the districts and by sharing constituents’ values, concerns, and beliefs, there was an underlying classical assumption that legislators knew how they felt on issues. As political scientist Jane

Mansbridge wrote: “In the ‘mandate’ version [of representation], the representative promises to follow the constituents’ instructions or expressed desires; in the ‘trustee’ version [of representation], the representative promises to further the constituency’s long-run interests and the interests of the nation as a whole.”28 Indeed, reflecting the “mandate” model of representation in the current house debate, legislators would often cite a poll taken of their constituents or enumerate the quantity of letters on an issue. Later, in the senate debate, Senator Bob Graham would actually cite the author of the “trustee” model of representation, Edmund Burke, in his advocacy for the ERA. Moore explained the tension between obeying personal conscience contrasted with using polling to determine and follow the desires of constituents. Moore argued that no one could take a poll to determine “what is right.” Contending that constituents send

28 Jane Mansbridge, “Rethinking Representation,” The American Political Science Review, 97:4 (Nov. 2003): 516. Mansbridge attempts to narrow the gap between normative theory concerning what constitutes “good” representation and current empirical work. She lists four forms of representation. First, promissory representation is the traditional model of representation in which representatives made campaign promises and kept them or failed to keep them. Second, anticipatory representation in which representatives perceive what their constituents will approve in the next election. Third, gyroscopic representation in which representatives look within and focus on “common sense” and conscience as the foundation of voting. This type of representation was more likely to be influenced by religion or moral vision. Fourth, surrogate representation in which representatives represent constituencies outside of their local districts. This was especially true in the current ERA conflict involving the concerns of women across the state. Mansbridge notes the overlap of models in action. Over the course of 36 years of observing Florida’s legislative process, I believe that the gyroscopic and surrogate representation models have been used together most frequently by activist women legislators. Mansbridge analyzed the forms of representation and developed normative criteria for democratic accountability.

107 legislators to “do what they feel is right,” Moore stated that he would vote for the ERA, quoting

Abraham Lincoln: “Let us do what is right as God enables each of us to see the right.”29

Returning to Rep. Gordon’s opening remarks about the numerous discriminatory Florida statutes, Rep. Arthur Rude said: “I would like to get with Rep. Gordon and fix all those 100 statutes that need to be fixed.” Angrily, Gordon ended the ERA debate by challenging Rude and reminding him that he voted repeatedly against anti-discrimination bills that she had sponsored.

Raising her voice in the noisy and busy house chamber, Gordon listed specific bills that she had sponsored, which Rude and other house members voted against. Assailing him in debate, Gordon discussed recent legislation that she introduced “to extend dower rights to men. Women have not lost them!” Further, Gordon proclaimed: “Who brought protection against sexual battery of men in this State?” Sarcastically, answering her own question, Gordon stated: “Yes, I introduced that bill, too.” Gordon asked how Rude voted for that bill but continued without giving him a chance to answer: “I don’t know how you feel about protecting men – all I ever hear from you is about protecting women!”30

Embracing a common theme, Gordon discussed the evolution of law and the U.S.

Constitution in American history. She said: “We have a living Constitution … so that the laws under which we live … are going to be properly and appropriately applied from year to year.”

She said: “When the Constitution was formulated there were no airplanes, buses, or cars so the question now of whether or not women could be in the Air Force did not come up.” Continuing, she added: “But the Constitution was framed in a way that there would be flexibility except for women.” Gordon reiterated that the U.S. Supreme Court was waiting for state legislatures to ratify the ERA. Closing, she said that discrimination against women in Florida, “is a sincere and

29 Floor Debate, Florida House of Representatives, Series 3, Box 152, tape 2, Florida State Archives, (April 10, 1975). 30 Ibid.

108 a serious matter and I don’t know of any other class or group of people that would be treated with such frivolity as we have over the discrimination of women.”31

Figure 2.3. Rep. Elaine Gordon asks the house to pass ERA. Courtesy of State Archives of Florida, photo by Donn Dughi.

After several rounds of loud clapping the vote was called for and the ERA resolution passed by a vote of 61 yeas to 58 nays.32

After the vote, newly elected, former League of Women Voters President, Rep. Helen

Gordon Davis, who made her first legislative debate speech in favor of ERA was jubilant. Davis said that she walked out of the legislative chamber triumphantly down the hallway toward her car and was “accosted by these hundreds of red-shirted STOP ERA people.” Some of the women were screaming at her, “Baby Killer!” Davis said she was prepared for opposition concerning unisex bathrooms, pay equity, military service for women, “but I never heard about being a

‘baby killer,’ and they started to spit at me; I’ll never forget it.” Davis said she winnowed her

31 Ibid. 32 Journal of the House of Representatives of Florida, (April 10, 1975): 108-109.

109 way into the elevator and down to her car, and explained, “I just started to cry; I just could not believe that people could be so mean.”33

In fact, ERA opponents were making a stronger link of ERA to abortion and it was in clearer evidence during this Legislative Session. Although the Roe v. Wade decision occurred in

1973, it took some time for conservative religious organizations to fully connect it to the ERA and oppose it. Southern Baptists were polled as overwhelmingly supporting “therapeutic abortion” in the early 1970s and blocked a discussion of an anti-abortion resolution in 1974. Part of the reason was that the Supreme Court decision used conservative reasoning and rhetoric in the decision that included protecting personal privacy rights and beliefs. As Gene Burns noted in

The Moral Veto, abortion proponents used a limiting medical frame concerning physicians protecting the health and welfare of women, which prevailed until opponents instituted a moral frame of abortion with “images of dead babies,” leaving the issue in perpetual conflict in the public policy arena. Additionally, Protestants were reluctant to join a Catholic movement to oppose abortion, until the later part of the 1970s.34

If ERA opponents were making a stronger connection of ERA to abortion, then ERA proponents were making a stronger link of ERA to providing equal pay. Rep. Helen Gordon

Davis cited pay equity as the real reason for ERA opposition in the Florida Senate. “People did not want to pay women the same as they paid men and it was just as simple as that,” Davis averred. “They did NOT want to pay women the same.” She said that Jon Shebel, the head of the major business lobbying group, Associated Industries of Florida, “was the most vociferous

33 Helen Gordon Davis interviewed by Mike Vasilinda, (June 18, 2004), The Florida Legislative Research Center and History Museum, Tallahassee, Florida. 34 Seth Dowland, “‘Family Values’ and the Formation of the Christian Right Agenda,” Church History 78:3 (September 2009): 606-631. See Gene Burns, The Moral Veto: Contraception, Abortion, and Cultural Pluralism in the United States (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 245.

110 against any kind of equal pay for women – for equal wages; jobs.”35 Proponents used the “wages for housework” formula developed in 1970 by Pat Mainardi in which they determined that a typical Wall Street employee’s wife worked 99.6 hours at home and a fair weekly wage would be $257.53.36 Moreover, ERA supporters began wearing political buttons that said: “59¢.” This amount was based on statistics indicating that women earned only $.59 for every dollar that men earned. They believed that ERA ratification would help narrow the wage gap.37

1975 March by Equal Rights Amendment Proponents

Figure 2.4. ERA march from the Governor’s mansion to the capitol. Courtesy of State Archives of Florida, photo by Donn Dughi.

Immediately, attention and lobbying efforts turned to the Florida Senate. Supporters organized a march to urge the senate to ratify the ERA. Nine-year-old Kelly Bloom of

Jacksonville who carried a picket sign showing a suffragette–era woman with the inscription

“E.R.A. N.O.W,” led over 2,000 marchers. Representatives Elaine Gordon, Gwen Cherry, Gwen

Margolis, and Karen Coolman, walked behind a large banner with television actor Alan Alda,

35 Helen Gordon Davis interviewed by Mike Vasilinda, (June 18, 2004), The Florida Legislative Research Center and History Museum, Tallahassee, Florida. 36 Sheila Tobias, “The Faces of Feminism,” The 1970s, Mark Ray Schmidt, ed., (San Deigo, CA: Greenhaven Press, Inc., 2000): 256. 37 Jane J. Mansbridge, Why We Lost the ERA, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1986): 36. See also Pat Mainardi, The Politics of Housework (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: Know, Inc., 1970), also located at: http://www.uic.edu/orgs/cwluherstory/CWLUArchive/polhousework.html.

111 actress Marlo Thomas, author Betty Friedan, and the National Organization for Women

President Karen DeCrow.

The parade of marchers was not only loud but also colorful and attracted many observers.

For example, many marchers were braless and wore thin ERA t-shirts, moving one male spectator to remark: “I usually don’t like parades, but this one is okay.” Also attracting stares from onlookers, the “Lesbian Feminists” distributed lavender armbands marching behind a banner that read: “An Army of Lovers Shall Not Fail.” Other signs had sayings such as: “We’ve

Shoveled It Long Enough,” and “Vote for the ERA or Get Cut Off.”38

Governor Reubin Askew, despite having laryngitis, made a passionate speech telling the chanting crowd from the capitol steps: “The women of the state and of this nation have already waited far too long for the equality that is their rightful inheritance by birth.” He said that he was hopeful and confident “that the members of the Florida Legislature will do their part this year in acknowledging that inheritance.” Askew said his support of the ERA was based on the belief that

“unless we are willing to affirmatively say in our Constitution that women should be discriminated against, we should not oppose a constitutional amendment that seeks to eliminate discrimination.”39

In several speeches to legislators, reporters, and the crowd of marchers, Alan Alda and

Marlo Thomas directly addressed ERA opponents’ threats. Prior to Alda’s statement to the ERA marchers, an airplane hired by STOP ERA with the banner, “There is a Difference – STOP

ERA,” flew over the crowd. Alda criticized the tactic saying: “They weren’t too well organized; they had it pointed at the backs of your heads.” He declared that ERA supporters were not concerned about conservatives like Phyllis Schlafly, who contended that ratification would mean

38 “2000 Marchers Call on Senate to Approve ERA,” St. Petersburg Times, (April 15, 1975): 1-A. 39 Ibid.

112 combining men’s and women’s bathrooms, drafting women into combat duty, and freeing fathers from the requirement to support their families. Proponents’ had threatened to boycott Florida citrus. Alda took an orange out of his pocket … peeled it, ate a piece, and said, “See, we’re not boycotting anything. … This is an ERA orange, good for you.”40 Moreover, Alda positively framed the ERA debate saying that the opposition generated a wave of “irrational fear” against the ERA, which was good in that it meant having a “great national debate” over amending the

U.S. Constitution. “The next wave will be one of rational answers to those irrational fears,” he said. “It’s better to have this great national debate than to wake up next morning and say, ‘What have we done?’”41

Figure 2.5. Governor Reubin Askew speaking at an ERA Rally with Actress Marlo Thomas, Rep. Elaine Gordon and Senator Lori Wilson. Courtesy of State Archives of Florida, photo by Donn Dughi.

40 Anecdote from Bill Cotterell, newspaper journalist, posted to John Van Gieson’s (retired journalist) Facebook page in response to a message concerning this project. (April 14, 2012). 41 “2000 Marchers Call on Senate to Approve ERA,” St. Petersburg Times, (April 15, 1975): 1-A.

113 Actress Marlo Thomas, a popular public figure because of her national television show

That Girl, was given the opportunity to speak to the full senate. ERA opponent Senator Lew

Brantley introduced her to the senate, without mentioning her name, as “Danny Thomas’ daughter.” Later they had a passionate exchange. Senator Brantley indicated that the ERA would die in the committee unless two opponents switched their votes to allow it to pass and go to the senate floor to be debated. Thomas said: “I think it’s outrageous that we have to be here in 1975, pleading for our basic rights.” Thomas asked: “Are there laws in Florida that discriminate against women?” Brantley, reflecting opponents’ imperviousness to debate, responded: “None that I know of.” Thomas directly addressed legislative opponents’ consistent discourse against the

ERA in the name of not lowering women from an “elevated status on a pedestal.” She said: “I think ‘elevated’ is a strange term for second-class citizenship.” Further, Thomas proclaimed:

“Women are not elevated, they are isolated.”42

1975 Florida Senate Legislative Hearing Testimony

The ERA faced an uphill battle in the senate. An Associated Press poll prior to the legislative session listed 18 senators against the ERA, 16 supporters, and six undecided. Senate

Concurrent Resolution (SCR) 8 by Senators Scarborough, Wilson, and others was referred to the

Senate Rules and Calendar Committee.43 The Chair of the Committee was Lew Brantley, an ardent opponent of the ERA, and nine of 17 committee members were opposed to the resolution.

However, Senate President Dempsey Barron, an opponent, had agreed to ensure that the resolution would pass the committee in order to be heard by the full senate.44

42 Ibid. 43 Journal of the Senate of Florida, (April 8, 1975): 4. 44 “2000 Marchers Call,” 1A, and “Senate Approval of ERA Doubtful,” The Evening Independent (April 25, 1975): 2.

114 Jamming the room, crowding the hallways, lining the walls, and waving signs, women in red and green were in full battle mode chanting and shouting before the Senate Rules and

Calendar meeting was called to order on April 23, 1975. Because of the limited time available and the vast numbers of people wanting to testify, each side carefully selected individuals to speak.

Reflecting a conservative religious fundamentalist viewpoint and using a moral frame,

Mrs. L. F. Cody connected the ERA to the abortion and homosexual issues and destruction of the traditional family. She said that ratification of the ERA would “repeal all the anti-abortion laws” and “prevent the enactment of any anti-abortion laws in the future.” Cody maintained that the purpose of ERA was to “get women out of their homes, so that they will not be tempted to have any or many children.” She argued: “The social planners expect to accomplish this by wiping out the legal rights, social prestige, and institutional and economic safeguards that persuade a woman to make a home life her career.” Cody declared that proponents had the legal rights they desired through the Equal Employment Acts and Education Amendments, concluding: “Only the permanent legalization of abortion and homosexuality can provide the motivating force for the well-financed campaign for ERA.”45

Countering these arguments, proponent Attorney General Bob Shevin argued that the

ERA had nothing to do with the abortion issue. He said the abortion decision was decided under the 9th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Shevin said the Equal Rights Amendment would not affect abortion in any way and was necessary because “the 14th amendment does not provide full protection to women.”46

45 Committee on Rules and Calendar, The Florida Senate, (April 23, 1975) series 625, box 817-7, tape 1, Florida State Archives, Tallahassee, Florida. 46 Ibid.

115 Signaling the split over the ERA for Catholics, two representatives of different Catholic women’s organizations provided contrasting testimony at the hearing. They used contrasting sources of authority and frames: proponents used an equality frame based on several sources of moral authority and opponents used a moral frame relying on traditional family values. On the one hand, Catholic proponents framed equality and as a moral necessity for social justice.

Demonstrating flexibility in interpretation of Scripture, church encyclicals, and religious practice, Sister Maureen Finland representing NETWORK, a national organization of Catholic

Sisters with more than 100 individuals and convents in Florida, testified in favor of the ERA. She said that the purpose of NETWORK was to provide leadership, “lending moral and theological guidance to issues that are a matter of essential justice.” Sr. Finland argued that NETWORK supported the Equal Rights Amendment, and ironically that it was not “a religious issue but an issue that is based on justice. It is not even a political issue although it sometimes it takes on that appearance.” She said: “It is an issue of basic moral justice.” Finland said that there was no official Catholic position on the Equal Rights Amendment. Quoting Pope Paul VI’s encyclical

Pacem in Terris (“Peace Throughout the World”), Finland said that women were gaining “an increasing awareness of their natural dignity. Far from being content with a purely passive role or allowing themselves to be regarded as a kind of instrument, they are demanding both in domestic and in public life the rights and duties which belong to them as human persons.” In

Scripture, Finland argued, “God is with the humble and the oppressed.” She said that Vatican II documents included support for the fundamental rights of a person. Finland declared that all discrimination, “whether social or cultural, or based on sex, race or color, social condition, language or religion, is to be overcome and eradicated as contrary to God’s intent where he says:

116 ‘There is neither Jew nor gentile, slave nor free, male nor female, but all are one in Jesus

Christ.’”47

On the other hand, Catholic opponents employed a moral frame to memorialize ERA’s potential threat to traditional womanhood and family. Opponents argued against the ERA based on traditional family values without citing Scripture or Catholic teaching. For example, Marie

Palmer, testified that she was the STOP ERA chairman for the Florida Council of Catholic

Women, with 30,000 members, affiliated with the National Council of Catholic Women, with 11 million members. Palmer said that they were concerned that sex was devalued in society and social values were declining. Declaring that God created women to fill an “exalted place,”

Palmer concluded: “No woman in history has enjoyed the privilege or freedom of the American woman.” She complained that the ERA would “invalidate all state laws, which require a husband to support his wife.” Finally, Palmer reasoned: “The stability of the family will be undermined by this drastic change.”48

Furthermore, several women testified that traditional roles for women were divinely dictated and the ERA would eradicate what they believed were normative societal values. For example, Dolores Jones maintained, “that the mothers should stay in their home … and do some work that God has laid out for them to do. So we can raise our children up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.” Similarly, Maxine Roman (carrying a baby) indicated that as a medical student she was not discriminated against and that women were designed to have children.

Connecting childlessness to the spread of breast cancer, Roman argued: “We will lose more organs if we use them as a man would or deny their use,” concluding: “As an educated woman, the Equal Rights Amendment scares me.” Loud clapping followed her remarks. Finally, Sheila

47 Ibid. 48 Ibid.

117 Hill, identifying herself as a teacher from First Baptist Church in Jacksonville, claimed that women were different than men, “physically, socially, and emotionally … I want to be protected by men.” Turning to members of the audience she proclaimed that fulfillment does not come from passage of the ERA: “Your fulfillment lies in being the total woman that God wants you to be.”49 Religion was the prime motivation for these women, as political scientists David W. Brady and Kent L. Tedin found in a study of female ERA opponents in Texas. In fact, like the women who testified in the Senate Rules and Calendar Committee, all of the fundamentalist women that

Brady and Tedin interviewed claimed that religion was very important. Moreover, it was the principal source of the political attitudes of the female ERA opponents. Their political beliefs were extensions of their religious beliefs.50

Taking religious opposition further, opponents Doug Cook and James Medlin, both pastors, framed the issue in terms of a fundamentalist religious worldview. Rev. Cook warned that since the nation was founded on Christian principles by forefathers who taught, “our whole duty is to fear him and keep his commandments. When we do not fear God and keep his commandments then we have placed ourselves in jeopardy of his judgment.” He argued that the nation “stands in such jeopardy if it approves the ERA amendment. There is no room in a society for Christians when they come to understand that this amendment places the government between himself and God.” Moreover, Cook argued that the ERA would “allow women to take positions over men that God has forbidden. And God will not have us leaving his

49 Ibid. 50 David W. Brady and Kent L. Tedin. “Ladies in Pink: Religion and Political Ideology in the Anti-ERA Movement.” Social Science Quarterly 36 (March 1976): 565, 574. In the study, each respondent was asked how important religion was in her everyday life. The result was that 92% of the fundamentalist women claimed it was very important. Brady and Tedin also cite the nexus in the popular media between ERA opponents and support for books teaching the benefits of submission of wives to husbands such as The Total Woman by Marabel Morgan (San Luis Obisbo, Cal.: Pacific Press, 1966), which is likely behind the final statement made above by ERA opponent Sheila Hill.

118 commandments to take such a course of life.” Whether or not people agreed, Cook insisted,

God’s will was “for women to be in subjection to the man.”51

Similarly, opponent Rev. James Medlin, indicating that he represented more than 400

Church of Christ congregations, claimed that opponents were not using scare tactics. He contended that court interpretations resulted in events “that we never would have dreamed would happen” such as busing, pornography, and obscenity. Medlin said, “I am opposed to the Equal

Rights Amendment because it will interfere with Bible doctrine.” He said that the “strongest proponent of the Equal Rights Amendment is demanding that women be ordained in religious bodies where the right is still denied. God’s Word teaches to the contrary.”52

Religious rhetoric in the political debate often reflects a particular vision of God. Cook and Medlin offer a perspective of God as judgmental and vengeful. Actually, political scientist

Amy Caiazza explains that politically active conservatives tend to focus on being accountable to an intervening and judging God who mandates that they fight to maintain traditional moral standards.53 Furthermore, conservative religious ERA opponents like Cook and Medlin believed in fixed and universal patterns of behavior, reflecting earlier segregationists’ arguments about race. Additionally, Donald G. Mathews and Sherren De Hart, in Sex, Gender, and the Politics of

ERA, identify a close connection between the politics of gender and the politics of race, as represented in Medlin’s remarks. Festering resentments led many opponents to symbolically connect the issues of integration to ERA ratification through language such as “desexegration.”54

51 Committee on Rules and Calendar, The Florida Senate, (April 23, 1975) series 625, box 817-7, tape 1, Florida State Archives, Tallahassee, Florida. 52 Ibid. 53 Amy Caiazza, The Ties that Bind: Women’s Public Vision for Politics, Religion, and Civil Society, Institute for Women’s Policy Research (June 2005): 55-76. Located at: http://www.iwpr.org/publications/pubs/the-ties-that-bind- women2019s-public-vision-for-politics-religion-and-civil-society. 54 Donald G. Mathews and Jane Sherron De Hart, Sex, Gender, and the Politics of ERA: A State and the Nation (New York: Oxford University Press, 1990), 172-174.

119 Generally, those testifying in support of ERA used limiting frames stressing the need for equality and the importance of ending discrimination. Dr. Elizabeth Metcalfe, President of the

League of Women Voters emphasized the need for equality and presented petitions with thousands of signatures, saying: “We are here and we care.”55 Also, 85-year old Marjory

Stoneman Douglas, the great lady of Florida who saved the and wrote The River of

Grass, spoke as a proponent of the ERA. She told the story of when, on April 16, 1917, she was one of the five women who travelled to Tallahassee to speak for the original suffrage amendment, which did not pass. Douglas urged the senators to pass the ERA, rather than continuing the sad legacy of denying women’s rights.56 Loud clapping followed Douglas’ remarks to the committee.

The last proponent to speak at the Senate committee meeting before Senator Wilson offered closing remarks in the debate was Don Reed, a lobbyist for the Business and Professional

Women of the United States of America. Reed was a former Republican leader in the House of

Representatives and was very popular with legislators. He was revered for his brilliant oratorical skills and wit. He served in the House from 1962 to 1972 and was Minority Leader for nine years. As a lobbyist, Reed had enormous clout. Several ERA supporters drafted Reed to lobby for the ERA because he was effective and had close friendships with legislators in leadership roles in the house and senate. As a respected Republican, he was one of the most effective lobbyists among the coalition of ERA proponents, chiefly because he was a friend to the members of the “Pork Chop Gang” and “Good Old Boys.” Crowds parted for Reed and legislators showed great deference when he testified before legislative committees. At the

55 Committee on Rules and Calendar, The Florida Senate, (April 23, 1975) series 625, box 817-7, tape 1, Florida State Archives, Tallahassee, Florida. Dr. Elizabeth “Betty” Metcalf, President of the Florida League of Women Voters (1975-1977), was later elected to the House of Representatives and served from 1982 to 1988. 56 Ibid. See also Interview with . Videotaped at the Douglas House in Coconut Grove. June 16,1983. Located at: http://everglades.fiu.edu/two/transcripts/SPC956_6.htm.

120 committee hearing, Reed had one major request – which he lobbied vigorously to acquire – asking for a favorable vote: “I hope that you will put this issue before the full senate.” Closing,

Reed stimulated a round of laughter by saying: “Some of you represent me in Boca Raton; I voted, and hopefully I will continue to vote for you, to come up here and make these decisions.”57

Closing for the proponents, ERA sponsor Senator Lori Wilson stated that her campaign slogan was “She’s Different.” Wilson said that the ERA issue was an emotional and controversial subject affecting eight million citizens of the state. Placing the ratification effort in historical context, Wilson said that the nation was founded on the “notion of equality and freedom for all.” However, it had taken 200 years and a series of constitutional amendments to secure certain legal rights. “This is not a radical right-wing, left-wing, revolutionary, atheistic, or communistic idea,” Wilson said, citing the recent Gallup poll that indicated 58% of the American people favored the ERA.58

Loud applause, cheers, and boos followed Wilson’s impassioned closing remarks. It took awhile to count votes and several members changed their votes, indicating that they wanted to ensure that the resolution went to the Senate Floor but that they would ultimately vote “no.” The

ERA resolution passed by a vote of 9 to 7. Accordingly, on April 23, 1975, the resolution was reported favorably and placed on the Senate Special Order Calendar to be debated two days later by the full senate.59

57 Steve Wilkerson conversation, May 10, 2010, Tallahassee, Florida. See also Committee on Rules and Calendar, The Florida Senate, (April 23, 1975) series 625, box 817-7, tape 1, Florida State Archives, Tallahassee, Florida. 58 Ibid. 59 Journal of the Senate of Florida, (April 23, 1975): 127. Committee on Rules and Calendar, The Florida Senate, (April 23, 1975) series 625, box 817-7, tape 2, Florida State Archives, Tallahassee, Florida.

121 1975 Florida Senate ERA Debate

Senators ignored last-minute appeals from Republican First Lady , Governor

Reubin Askew, and the National Republican Party chairman, Mary Louise Smith. Senator Jim

Glisson was one of several senators who did not return Betty Ford’s call. He said he was voting against the ERA because his constituents were opposed to it. Senator Chester Stolzenburg also ignored the First Lady’s call, saying that she could offer him no new information since she was an ERA supporter. Senator Warren Henderson did speak to the First Lady but told her he would not change his vote opposing the ERA. He said Ford told him she had a deep personal commitment to the ERA.60

The senate debate shifted as proponents undergirded their equality limiting frames with religious, moral, and Biblical rhetoric. However, since the ground rules for reasoned debate about conflicting moral values were weaker than the moral passions themselves, proponents’ arguments were not persuasive.

On April 25, 1975, SCR 8 was taken up and CS/HCR 2 & 68 was substituted and debated. Senate President Barron had to admonish the visitors in the open-air gallery to “refrain from reacting to the debate in any kind of boisterous way.”61 Senator Dan Scarborough, a prime sponsor of the ERA, thanked Senate President Barron and Senator Lew Brantley, the Rules

Committee chairman, for allowing the ERA to be brought to the senate floor for a debate by the full senate: “We recognize that even with the position in opposition to it that you both have, you

60 “Rights Amendment Rejected by Florida Senate Second Time,” New York Times (April 26, 1975): 16; “Senate Approval of ERA Doubtful,” The Evening Independent (April 25, 1975): 2; and “Senate Vote on ERA Slated Today; Mrs. Ford Tries Some Persuasion.” St. Petersburg Times (April 25, 1975): 21. 61 Florida Senate, ERA Debate (CS/HCRs 2 & 68), Secretary of the Florida Senate, (April 25, 1975), series 1238, box 10, tape 1, Florida State Archives, Tallahassee, Florida.

122 have been abundantly fair and you have not placed any barriers in front of it and we appreciate the opportunity to debate it fully.”62

The senate debate began with Senator Vernon Holloway saying that he had been "up soul searching” until 1:00 AM reading the over 5,000 pieces of literature on the ERA that had been mailed to his office. Holloway said he decided to oppose ratification because the Kennedy

Commission on the Status of Women opposed it in 1963.63

Senator Jack Gordon was an eloquent orator and great intellect in the Florida Senate for three decades. A liberal Democrat from Miami, he was responsible for many progressive policy changes in Florida's laws. With a keen intellect and a ready wit, Gordon decided to use the rhetoric of religious ERA opponents to argue for ratification. Reflecting opponents’ use of history, tradition, and Scripture, Gordon contended that the ERA was another manifestation of the many freedom movements in American history. He discussed the evolution of civil rights from the colonial era. Gordon framed the ERA as "only one part of a longtime historical struggle for human freedom and for the expansion of human opportunity." Early restrictions on voting, such as property ownership, race, and gender, were dissolved over the course of 200 years, with very positive results, according to Gordon. He explained that during the legislative hearing on the ERA he recorded “immediate impressions of the people who were appearing” in a letter to his 19-year old daughter who was away at college. Gordon said he could not imagine taking a position that would deny her any opportunity.

Deftly invoking Scripture to support a limiting egalitarian frame, Gordon used two Old

Testament examples of women receiving equality. He said: “Deborah … was the chief of the

Israelites, who was the leader of the army, a married woman – she had fantastic opportunity in

62 Ibid. 63 Ibid, tape 2.

123 biblical days in spite of what some of the people have been saying about the fact that the [ERA] contradicts our biblical heritage.” Further, Gordon emphasized the story in Exodus where Moses was bargaining with Pharaoh. Moses refused Pharaoh’s offer to let the men go and leave the women behind, saying that the men cannot go to freedom without the women and children.

Gordon closed by saying: “I think that we ought to make that opportunity available to women and not leave them behind.”64

Senator Pat Thomas said that he opposed the ERA because it would exacerbate societal moral decay and the expansion of government.65

Senator Robert “Bob” Graham’s speech focused on both of the key themes in the proponent’s debates. He discussed the role of legislators as representatives and the importance of that moment in progressive history. Citing Edmund Burke’s notion of representation, Graham proclaimed that legislators were elected to vote according to their particular convictions about policy issues, and the ERA was no exception:

I would like to speak to this issue in the context of what our role should be. Clearly we are representatives of the people. But I would suggest that we are more than representatives of the people. We are also in a very real sense trustees of the people. As Edmund Burke said: “We were elected by the electorate … not just to be the conduit for the immediate passions of the moment. The people did more than just elect a cipher. They elected a person with judgment, discretion, with the opportunity to search and make judgments which the average citizen might not be able to do.” It was from that assessment of his responsibility that he labeled himself as the “trustee of the electorate.” But I think that today we are standing clearly in that position a trustee. Not only of the current time, but also of the future.66

Continuing, Graham contended that if the ERA were adopted it would have added a 27th amendment addressing the power of government to affect the personal rights of citizens.”

Countering Thomas, Graham contended “that rather than the moral decay being a function of

64 Ibid. 65 Ibid, tape 3. 66 Ibid.

124 adoption of legislation which prohibits government discrimination and interference in the personal lives of our citizens, that moral decay has come more correctly, from excessive governmental interference and attempts to abrogate the responsibilities of the individual citizen.”

Graham said it was time to accept personal responsibility, which meant that individuals were going to decide a variety of issues, which in the past were “decided by government, as they relate to the relationships of men and women.” He argued that America’s government was built upon the individual’s capability to accept responsibility. By ratifying the ERA, another step would be taken on the long path of placing responsibility on the individual and “saying to government that these are issues which we are going to reserve not to the states, but we are going to reserve to the citizens. By saying that, ‘no state nor the United States Congress shall have the legal power to discriminate because of sex.’”67

Senator Lew Brantley argued that the ERA would negatively change the traditional family and cultural norms. He passionately concluded: “Allowing the woman to keep her maiden name will result in the breakup of the family unit and what will the children be called?”68

Senator W. D. Childers complained about the many “history lessons” that were presented by proponents. He said that his concerns about the ERA were the same fears that church groups had about the future. Childers said that the Gay Liberation Movement was fervently supporting the ERA. He complained: “So the thing that bothers me is what happens when a man is allowed to marry a man or a woman is allowed to marry a woman?” Loud clapping followed Childers' pronouncement. Persisting, he argued that the U.S. Supreme Court would likely approve homosexual marriage and adoption of children if the ERA passed. Warning that “the hearts of

67 Ibid. 68 Ibid, tape 4.

125 America will bleed and there is nothing you can do about it because we’ve chiseled in stone; it is in the Constitution and you cannot change it,” Childers concluded his opposing remarks.69

Closing the rancorous debate, ERA sponsor Senator Lori Wilson gave a passionate speech about historical events leading to the ERA and why passage was necessary. Wilson said she was “talked out, prayed out, and worn-out.” Wilson declared that she analyzed all of the literature on both sides of the ERA “as a rational person, looking for a rational argument,” against ratification. Addressing opponents’ concerns about women serving in combat, the loss of state’s rights, and explaining the evolution of the constitution, Wilson asked, “where would our black citizens be” without the “evolution of the U.S. Constitution?”70

Furthermore, Wilson said that there was a recurring pattern in the mail that she received in opposition to the ERA. Bringing religion into the debate, she said that three-fourths of the mail from opponents focused on “a religious issue.” Wilson held up a stack of preprinted opposition postcards, speculating that they were “probably in the vestibule as people were leaving the church service.” She read the message on the cards, which stated:

Dear Senator Wilson: Please be reminded the Bible teaches that all elected government officials are God’s appointed servants through our ballot. God’s word is very specific about the difference He has made between the sexes not because of discrimination but because of the part each sex shared in the Garden of Eden. As my elected representative and as God’s appointed servant, I appeal to you to vote against the Equal Rights Amendment.71

Wilson cleverly shifted the debate to apply the limiting frame of equality to argue for religious rights. She passionately declared: “I will fight as viciously and as long to defend those rights that we adopted in the First Amendment of religious freedom that was an amendment to our

Constitution as I will to defend the right for people to have equality under our law on the 27th

69 Ibid, tape 3. 70 Ibid, tape 4. 71 Ibid.

126 amendment.” She said that the ERA would not interfere with the rights of religious congregations.72

Finally, identifying herself as “a somewhat nebulous descendent of the Scarlet O’Hara’s of the world,” Wilson showed senators a poster of the United States indicating which states ratified the 19th Amendment. Most of the southern states did not ratify the Women's Suffrage

Amendment. Wilson told the story of the Florida Senate's failure to ratify the 19th Amendment, drawing parallels to the present debate. She said: “I urge you, deeply and sincerely, to vote for ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment for all people to the Constitution of the United

States.” Thunderous applause followed Wilson’s speech, as the Senate President banged the gavel trying to bring order back to the proceedings.73

When the vote was taken, the ERA failed to pass the senate by of vote of 17 to 21.74 Five senators had been undecided but at the end of the three-hour debate, only two voted for the ERA.

Of the uncommitted senators, senators Don Childers and Phil Lewis voted for the ERA. Senators

Vernon Holloway, Richard Renick, and William Zinkil voted against the ERA. Senator Jim

Glisson switched his vote to oppose the ERA saying that 75% of his constituents opposed ratification.75 Opponents in the galleries stood and cheered while proponents left in tears. Female

House members observing from the back of the senate chambers filed out sorrowfully. Rep.

Elaine Gordon said through tears: “It was the deepest disappointment I have ever experienced.”

Senator Lori Wilson said, “I am really rather numb.” Senator Lew Brantley proclaimed victory

“for the people,” and said: “The effect of the ERA on society would be almost like repealing the

72 Ibid. 73 Ibid. 74 Journal of the Senate of Florida, (April 25, 1975): 161. 75 Joan Carver, “The Equal Rights Amendment and the Florida Legislature,” The Florida Historical Quarterly, 60:4 (April, 1982): 467, fn. 41.

127 law of gravity.” Later Wilson said that the ERA fight was not over: “We have to come back again and again and again until it passes.”76

Florida became the tenth state to turn down the ERA in 1975. An eleventh state killed the ratification by a parliamentary ruling.77 Supporters of ERA said that the amendment faced its toughest challenges in the South and Midwest where tradition and fundamentalist religious views on a woman’s role conflicted with the idea of equality in all areas of life.78

***

What does the Equal Rights Amendment battle in 1975 reveal about the place of religion in the conflict? In the house and the senate, whether in committee testimony or legislative debates, both sides framed issues for public debate using religion in order to persuade listeners – the public and fellow legislators – to support or oppose ERA. As proponents voiced the moral dimensions of their limiting equality frame, opponents reacted angrily because they refused to subject their moral frame to reasoned debate. Since there could be no policy alternative or legislative amendment to the language of the ERA – although legislators still unsuccessfully tried to add a straw ballot provision – both sides were polarized. Ideas about what constituted

“true womanhood” were central to the debate. Opponents insisted that they were elevating women and placing them on a pedestal in opposing ERA, while proponents argued that they were promoting equal status for women by supporting ERA. Both sides invoked Scripture to support their arguments within either the limiting frame of equality and rights that reflected secularized moral values of progressive Jews and Christians or the moral frame emphasizing moral threats against the traditional roles and responsibilities of the family. Moreover, viewing

76 Virginia Ellis, “Senate Kills ERA,” St. Petersburg Times, (April 26, 1975): 1-2B and “Cheers, Tears Mark Rejection of ERA,” Daytona Beach Morning Journal, (April 26, 1975): 2. 77 “Rights Amendment Rejected by Florida Senate Second Time,” New York Times (April 26, 1975): 16. 78 Louise Cook, “What Went Wrong on the Way to ERA Ratification,” Lakeland Ledger (April 26, 1975): 1A.

128 history as a progressive enterprise, proponents argued that equality was a natural component of societal evolution toward a prodigious future. Conversely, viewing history as trending toward moral decay, opponents fought against social and political change leading toward an immoral future allowing unconstrained abortion and boundless gay rights. Offering collective identity, a meaningful purpose, and a noble cause, both limiting and moral frames provided women with incentives for participating in the political arena. Mobilized around these alternative visions,

ERA proponents and opponents streamed into the political arena in Florida.

1976: The ERA is Not Considered by the Legislature

“I doubt it … it’s gonna be in the senate and I doubt if they’re gonna do anything with it;

Florida has never passed a constitutional amendment and I guess they won’t start now,” responded ERA sponsor Rep. Gwen Cherry to a question concerning whether the resolution would be a priority in the 1976 Legislative Session. Cherry understood the difficult reality of passing the ERA. She said the ERA would benefit blacks as well as whites, but they “just never have been able to get it passed up to this point.” Cherry said she was considering not running for the legislature again indicating, “six years is long enough.”79

Figure 2.6. Rep. Gwen Cherry debating. Courtesy of State Archives of Florida, photo by Donn Dughi.

79 Gwen Cherry Interview with Dr. James Button. Tallahassee, Florida. Samuel Proctor Oral History Program, Department of History, University of Florida (November 7, 1975), http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00005808/00001. However, Cherry did run for the Florida House of Representatives and again and was reelected.

129

1976 Florida ERA Efforts

In 1976, the ERA was introduced, but the resolution did not receive a hearing in the

House or the Senate. Again, Reps. Elaine Gordon and Gwen Cherry each filed separate resolutions in the House of Representatives. Senator Wilson and others filed the ERA resolution in the senate.80 Governor Askew again asked the Florida Legislature on the opening day of session to pass the ERA. He asked the legislature not to wait to see what happened in other state legislatures, but to move forward without being “a bystander in the struggle to assure equal rights for more than half the people of this Nation.”81

Despite Askew’s plea, the legislature did not act during the 1976 Legislative Session. The

ERA had been characterized by the news media as “probably the most emotional issue to come before the Florida Legislature during the past two years.”82 Indicating that the same Florida

Senate was in place that defeated the resolution in 1975, ERA sponsors shifted their battleground focus to the 1976 elections. Rep. Elaine Gordon lamented that she did not think three senators were likely to change their vote to support the ERA in 1976. Gordon, a self-proclaimed pragmatist, asserted that trying to pass the ERA in the senate would be futile: “I see no point in wasting our time.” She declared that the issue was not dead, “we just have to change our strategies.” Gordon indicated that proponents would focus their resources on unseating senate

ERA opponents. Likewise, Senator Lori Wilson pronounced: “Elaine and I are both able to count.” Wilson agreed with Gordon: “The battleground will be November 1976.” The reaction among legislative leaders was relief. For the four previous years, the Florida House of

80 House Concurrent Resolution (HCR) 2351(Gordon & others) and HCR 2352 (Cherry & others) and Senate Concurrent Resolution (SCR) 1 (Wilson & others) ultimately failed respectively in the House and Senate Rules Committees because they were not considered as the 1976 Legislative Session ended. 81 Governor Reubin Askew’s Opening Day Speech, Journal of the House of Representatives, (April 6, 1976): 18. 82 Mary Ann Lindley, “NOW Works on Compromises,” , (May 9, 1976): B9.

130 Representatives and Florida Senate spent many weeks of their annual 60-day legislative sessions being lobbied, participating in numerous emotional hearings, and making speeches in chamber debates.83

Figure 2.7. The 1976 Florida Senate did not consider the ERA. Courtesy of State Archives of Florida, photo by Donn Dughi.

1976 Media Wars

Although the ERA was not heard during the 1976 Legislative Session, proponents and opponents intensified their debates in the media, thereby exacerbating the ERA battle in the realm of mass communications. Media messages by both sides framed the ERA for a mainstream

83 Robert D. Shaw, “ERA Dead In Florida Until 1977?” St. Petersburg Times, (November 8, 1975): 13B. However, the sponsors and interest groups continued their work on various social issues during the session. See Mary Ann Lindley, “NOW Works on Compromises,” The Palm Beach Post, (May 9, 1976): B9. Instead of lobbying the legislature and battling opponents “in pink dresses and aprons,” the National Organization for Women (NOW) Florida Chapter decided to work to elect senators and representatives who would vote for the ERA in 1977. Additionally, NOW lobbyist Alyce McAdam worked with ERA opponents who promised to change discriminatory state laws “statute by statute.” NOW legislative priorities included: authorizing equal pay for women in faculty salaries, supporting displaced homemaker programs, permitting married women to keep their maiden names, expanding domestic violence programs, allowing women to sit on coroner’s juries, and supporting spouse abuse programs. See also “Lawmakers Still Battle Askew,” Ocala Star Banner, (December 10, 1976): 8.

131 audience. Moreover, the media galvanized religious and political division by sensationalizing the

ERA ratification effort as a “catfight” or “war between women.” Female religious opponents labeled the well-publicized conflict “spiritual warfare.” Newspaper reporters quoted inflammatory religious language and reported on conflicts between female proponents and opponents in the legislative and lobbying arena. Focusing on religious women’s physical appearance turned out to be a way to dramatize the debate and sell more newspapers. As

Kimberly Wilmot Voss documented in an excellent study of the theatrical media portrayal of the

ERA battle in Florida, newspaper and television coverage of the ERA conflict depicted women’s hair, clothing, and appearance in comical detail for their audiences. Justifiably disappointed in the media coverage of the ERA battle, Voss faulted the lack of analysis of the substantive policy claims that were made concerning the impact of the ERA: “Instead of truly analyzing the issues, more attention was paid to whether protestors wore bras or the future status of public bathrooms.”84

Moreover, understanding the importance of the communication media, ERA proponents, led by a group of California businesswomen, hired large advertising firms such as Ogilvy &

Mather to use the airwaves and enlist 32 magazines to promote the advantages of the ERA.85 The newspaper and radio advertising campaign began in Miami and Ocala on May 3, 1976. The ads were targeted to change the minds of key senators opposed to ratification. Two of these senators were Miami’s Democratic senators Vernon Holloway and Dick Renick. Another was Ocala’s

Democratic Senator Buddy MacKay. As part of the effort, Virginia Carter, President of a

California media relations company, TOT Communications, asserted that the ads were designed

84 Kimberly Wilmot Voss, “The Florida Fight for Equality: The Equal Rights Amendment, Senator Lori Wilson and Mediated Catfights of the 1970s,” Florida Historical Quarterly, (Fall 2009): 200-205. See also See also Donald G. Mathews, “’Spiritual Warfare:’ Cultural Fundamentalism and the Equal Rights Amendment,” Religion and American Culture, 3:2 (Summer, 1993): 130. 85 “Madison Avenue Equality,” National Review, 28:23 (June 25, 1976): 666.

132 to ensure that the three key senators had “a substantive reason to believe they’re being watched.”

She said that ERA proponents “want them to change their votes, and, if not, we want to throw them out of office. It’s all part of the democratic process, which I believe in.”86

The television ads featured actress Jean Stapleton who was best known for her role on All in the Family as a timid housewife, Edith Bunker. In the ad, Stapleton said:

As Edith Bunker, I don’t have equal rights. As Jean Stapleton, I don’t either. I’m a woman. And like all women, I am not treated as a man’s equal. My life insurance rates are higher. My social security benefits are lower. As a widow, I’d have to pay a big inheritance tax on my very own home. And there are hundreds of jobs that pay one salary to men, a lower salary to a woman. I say it’s plain unfair. I say something should be done about all this inequality in our society. I say there oughta be a law. It’s the only way we can be sure that men and women will be treated equally in the future. The Equal Rights Amendment can be that law.87

The television ad concludes with Stapleton asking women to write to senators to convince them to vote for ERA ratification. The ad campaign ran for two weeks in Miami at an estimated cost of up to $145,000, and then moved to other battle ground states.88 Additionally, during the summer of 1976, Redbook’s editor-in-chief, Sey Chassler, coordinated an effort of

U.S. women’s magazines -- including Cosmopolitan, Woman’s Day, Ms., Glamour, and

McCall’s – to publish articles on ERA in their July issues simultaneously.89

There were no state ratifications of ERA in 1976. However, after the November 1976 elections, ERA proponents were optimistic. An additional five women were elected in the

Florida House of Representatives totaling 16, and one additional woman was elected in the

Florida Senate. The senate victory of St. Petersburg schoolteacher Donald Chamberlin over

86 Beth Dunlop, “Advertising Blitz Aimed at Florida to Pass ERA,” Miami Herald (April 22, 1976), Section C, Page 1. In response, Holloway was undeterred and said he would “face the issue broadly” when it was before the senate. Renick insisted that a poll of voters in his district indicated opposition so he would continue to vote against ERA. 87 Beth Dunlop, “Advertising Blitz Aimed at Florida to Pass ERA,” Miami Herald (April 22, 1976), Section C, Page 1. 88 Ibid. 89 John A. Conway, “An ERA Media Blitz,” Newsweek (January 26, 1976): 15.

133 conservative Richard Deeb was a hopeful sign for proponents.90 Senator Lori Wilson speculated that chances for ERA passage in the senate were strong, since they picked up one vote in the senate and eleven votes in the house. She said that despite the 19-21 senate margin, “we’ve got

19 sure votes for it, but I only see 13 sure votes against it. I think there are eight question marks.”91

1976 Conflict and Consensus

“Many, many more of our members will be baking biscuits than burning bras,” said

Senator Lori Wilson as she announced the creation of a new national “family organization” to promote the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) called “People Power.” Wilson said that new methods were needed in the 15 states that were yet to ratify the ERA: “Homemakers have felt left out of the women’s movement; so have most husbands and fathers.”92

Wilson and some of her feminist colleagues were adjusting the limiting frame of equality to “fit well with prevailing cultural assumptions.” As Gene Burns, in The Moral Veto warned:

“New participants may find that an existing, limiting frame is incapable of addressing their central concerns built on a collective identity that is very strong.”93 Wilson and other proponents were attempting to align with existing cultural frames and mobilize the importance of equality for traditional women working in the home. Political debates were not going to successfully assail prevailing cultural assumptions, so new strategies were imperative for proponents. Wilson was shifting emphasis to appeal to a new audience, while trying to maintain backing from

90 Robert D. Shaw, Jr., “ERA” Miami Herald, (November 4, 1976): 3. See also “New Florida Legislature: More Women, Democrats,” Ocala Star Banner (November 8, 1976): 2A. The November 8, 1976 general election brought in four additional female house members, totaling 16, and one more woman in the senate, Senator Betty Castor, totaling two. The new women elected to the house included ERA proponents Fran Carlton (D-Orlando), Marilyn Evans (R-Melbourne) and Pat Frank (D-Tampa), as well as ERA opponents Toni Jennings (R-Orlando), Beverly Burnsed (D-Lakeland), and Dorothy Sample (R-St. Petersburg). 91 “New Florida Legislature: More Women, Democrats,” Ocala Star Banner (November 8, 1976): 2A. 92 “Biscuit-Bakers Now Target,” Lakeland Ledger (Nov. 16, 1977): 4A. 93 Gene Burns, The Moral Veto: Contraception, Abortion, and Cultural Pluralism in the United States, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 245.

134 existing supporters. This was risky because new members entering the debate from different factions could disrupt group unity around the notions of equality and expanded women’s rights unless the goals were clearly articulated and framed.

In fact, Wilson’s strategic move was representative of a division that was growing in the

Women’s Movement. At the core of the rift was a different religious or moral vision that affected proponents’ rhetoric and strategies. Reflecting national tensions over how to present feminism,

Wilson’s new organization, People Power, became an example of how Florida’s ERA proponents were trying to gain the broader support of housewives by expanding the egalitarian frame to attract homemakers. There were tensions between various organizations at the state level. Likewise, on the national level, National Organization for Women (NOW) founder Betty

Friedan was criticizing Gloria Steinem, co-founder of the feminist Ms. magazine. Friedan and some of the older leaders of the movement resented Steinem’s attractiveness, intelligence, and success. Further, as the decade progressed, the national women’s movement splintered into cultural group caucuses who were fighting for visibility. Proponents were splintering in an inter- women’s movement conflict that had an effect on the state level.94

While Senator Wilson and several ERA leaders wanted to reach out to homemakers and other women in the mainstream of American culture, others wanted to ensure that they represented all women, including Latinos, African Americans, and lesbians. Still others wanted to ensure that they also represented American women who were alienated from feminism.95

Bringing together women using a limiting frame emphasizing the necessity of equality and women’s rights was a challenge when the women had different ideas about how to secure ERA

94 Ruth Rosen, The World Split Open: How the Modern Women’s Movement Changed America, (New York: Penguin Books, 2006), 237-239. 95 Martha Weinman Lear, “‘You’ll Probably Think I’m Stupid:’ ERA,” New York Times Magazine (April 11, 1976): 192-197.

135 ratification. Some proponents not only fought for ERA ratification through lobbying but also waged war against discrimination on a case-by-case basis through litigation.96 However, limiting frames were capable of “bridging the concerns of different groups.” By avoiding specific policy details and sticking with the narrow ideals of equality for women, diverse groups could assemble to support the effort.97

Additionally, Kimberly W. Voss, in her study of the Florida ERA media coverage, explained the tensions between older and younger ERA supporters. Voss illustrated how feminist

NOW member “quit the organization in 1976 over what she viewed as the denigration of motherhood by the group.” Moreover, also reflecting the national conflict, Voss described and compared the media attention bestowed upon Gloria Steinem to coverage of

Senator Lori Wilson, the ERA’s prime sponsor. Wilson’s beauty was an element in the “new assessment of modern feminism,” according to Voss, who asserted: “The photogenic Senator

Wilson presented an attractive public face that appealed to mainstream men and women.”98

Friedan, Steinem, Wilson, Bolton, and other ERA proponents may have disagreed on rhetoric, strategy, and tactics, but they did use a limiting equality frame. They envisioned the role of women “as an emerging force destined to participate as a full partner in the business of running a social system; in the partnership, all distinctions establishing or even implying male supremacy [would] be obliterated.”99

In contrast to the conflict in the women’s movement that was reflected in the shift by proponents to appeal to homemakers using an egalitarian frame, opponents and their

96 “Equal Rights: Why the Amendment Appears Doomed,” U.S. News & World Report (March 28, 1977): 53. 97 Burns, The Moral Veto, 265. 98 Kimberly Wilmot Voss, “The Florida Fight for Equality: The Equal Rights Amendment, Senator Lori Wilson and Mediated Catfights of the 1970s,” Florida Historical Quarterly, (Fall 2009): 173-208. 99 Roger M. Williams, “Women Against Women: The Clamor Over Equal Rights,” The Saturday Review 4 (June 25, 1977): 7.

136 organizations were unified in their exclusive goal to defeat the ERA. They carefully crafted their message to facilitate cooperation, employing a moral frame, which elicited cultural resonance to

“bridge” ideological and theological differences. Groups like STOP ERA and Women for

Responsible Legislation brought together women and resources using grassroots networks and churches. The protection of the family frame bridged religious denominations usually at odds with each other by portraying noble reasons for political activism to fight against ratification. 100

In addition, religion united women of different faiths with women in established anti-

ERA organizations. The moral frame employed by opponents was effective in raising fears about mixed gender roles and destruction of the traditional family model. Focusing on the particular

ERA phrase, “on account of sex,” entailed a major set of worries for opponents especially those with religious worldviews. As political scientist Jane J. Mansbridge, in Why We Lost the ERA argued, the primary reason for the ERA’s ultimate defeat “was the fear that it would lead to major changes in the roles of men and women …” Thus, the seeds for opponents’ ultimate success were planted through changing the focus of the debate from discrimination based on sex

(the limiting frame of equality) to an imminent threat of cultural and social upheaval (the moral frame of traditional family gender roles being threatened). The opponents erected a common vision of womanhood as a rallying point. They expanded concern for traditional family roles to encompass religious concerns over homosexual marriage, abortion, same-sex bathrooms, combat service for women, and general societal moral decay.101

100 Deana A. Rohlinger and Jill Quadagno in “Framing Faith: Explaining Cooperation and Conflict in the U.S. Conservative Christian Political Movement,” Social Movement Studies 8:4 (2009): 343. See also Phyllis Schlafly, The Power of the Positive Woman, (New Rochelle, NY: Arlington House Publishers, 1977): 177-179. Moreover, embracing common ideals about traditional gender roles, conservative Catholics, Protestants, and other denominations joined forces with conservative organizations to fight the ERA. Furthermore, chief ERA opponent, Phyllis Schlafly, was more than happy to publicize that “radical feminists and lesbians” supported the ERA using graphic and unflattering photos in her books under the heading: “The Pictures the Press Didn’t Print.” 101 Jane J. Mansfield, Why We Lost the ERA, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1986): 5.

137 In sum, when ERA proponents tried to shift their rhetoric and strategies to appeal to homemakers and religious women, many long-term supporters were angered and felt abandoned.

The tension reflected national tensions that splintered the forces in the women’s movement.

Exacerbating the conflict was the media warfare, which was structured by the morally and religiously based utopian (and dystopian) visions of each side. For opponents, consensus developed, assisted by a religiously influenced moral frame, and for proponents, conflict developed for many reasons that challenged the limited frame because of the considerable multiplicity of viewpoints represented in the movement.

***

The ERA conflict in 1975 and 1976 intensified the rancor between the proponents and opponents. For the first time, the ERA was heard and debated in both the Florida Senate and

Florida House of Representatives in 1975. Religion was central to the frames, debates, and strategies in the legislative and public arenas. For the first time in the legislative debate, opponents attached abortion to ERA ratification. Although the Florida Legislature did not consider the ERA in 1976, proponents and opponents were actively engaged in the state election campaigns. Another shift began, with 1976 labeled as “The Year of the Evangelical” by

Newsweek. That year, Jimmy Carter announced that he was “born again,” and was later elected president. Thus, not only was religion inextricably entwined with politics in the state of Florida, but also in the nation.

138

CHAPTER 3

“LADIES AGAINST WOMEN:” FLORIDA’S SEXUAL COUNTER- REVOLUTION AND THE MORAL VETO, 1977 – 1978

I had been talking about the ERA opening the door to homosexual individuals marrying and adopting children for five years now. The idea is so offensive to the average citizen, they didn’t think it would happen. But since the passage of the ordinance, to many people who had been nonpolitical heretofore, all of a sudden my argument made sense. The connection between ERA and homosexual marriage didn’t seem so remote – even though people had accused me of using this as a scare tactic.1 ~ Shirley Spellerberg

People who care about the protection of rights won by unions and minorities, the well-being of children, the continuation of government policies to promote the social welfare and improve international relations, and those who want to prevent the right-wing take over of the Republican Party need to wake up and realize what is happening.2 ~ Rep. Elaine Gordon

This chapter analyzes how the tide turned against the ERA and galvanized religious conservatives. Religion became more central in the ERA conflict. Two dynamics came more fully into play in 1977 and 1978. First, the extensive organization of religious advocacy networks formed by both proponents and opponents generated large numbers of engaged religious people and churches. Proponents were organizing from national centers of advocacy and the state capitol, whereas opponents were working from the ground up with grassroots efforts through their local church networks. The second dynamic was the formation of a sexual counterrevolution around the defense of a religious vision of the family. This chapter shows how religious opposition to ERA came to define the terms of the debate in Florida as a key battleground state.

1 “Spellerberg: ERA Defeat is Her Triumph,” Miami Herald, (April 14, 1977): 2B. 2 Elaine Gordon Speech, (April 11, 1977), Tallahassee, Florida. Elaine Gordon Papers, box 5, Special Collections, The Green Library, Florida International University, Miami, Florida.

139 1977: The ERA Fails in the Florida Senate and is Not Considered By the Full House of Representatives

Signaling a culmination of several political and social upheavals, 1977 was a landmark year for the sexual counterrevolution, social conflict, and the ERA battle. A gay rights ordinance was repealed in Dade County, several senators switched their votes on the ERA, the Senate debated and defeated the ERA, the Florida Year of the Woman Conference that preceded the national Year of the Woman Conference melted down into screaming and shouting, the Florida

Constitution Revision Commission held sometimes acrimonious hearings across the state, and controversy surrounded the November elections. Female opponents continued to coalesce while proponents continued to fragment. Rising in influence, opponents were increasing their resources and gaining power by opposing the ERA. Actually, one reporter remarked that ERA opponents

“brought publicity and resources to right-wing organizations such as the John Birch Society, organizations that had long been isolated from the mainstream of American politics. Nothing has done more to fuel the resurgence of right-wing activism than the Equal Rights Amendment.”3

Dade County Gay Rights Ordinance

Linking the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) to gay rights in the Florida political battles turned out to be an effective strategy for opponents. Opponents framed a vision of an ideal social order centered on the traditional family and styled themselves as advocates on the side of God and godly people in the state and nation. Opponents used a moral frame to vilify gays and lesbians, declaring they were assaulting moral values. Also, circling their wagons, conservative

Christians identified “a parade of horribles” that would occur should the ERA be ratified.

Proponents were on the defensive, in a reactionary mode, as the cultural tide of negative sentiment toward the perceived decline of moral values began to engulf them. Persisting with the

3 John Herbers, “Equal Rights Amendment Is Mired In Confused and Emotional Debate: Backers Call Issues False,” New York Times, (May 28, 1978): 44.

140 limiting egalitarian frame, proponents argued that equality was a moral imperative. Setbacks did not deter proponents from trying to pass the ERA. They had not lost their swagger, yet.

In January 1977, in what would become a microcosm of the state level ERA battle, there was a local political battle in Dade County over a gay rights ordinance that had national ramifications for gay rights efforts and ERA ratification. Specifically, the Dade County

Commission considered an ordinance that banned discrimination in employment, housing, and public accommodation based on sexual orientation. Until the meeting, there was very little opposition to the ordinance. However, at the hearing, former Miss Oklahoma and

Runner-Up, Anita Bryant, expressed passionate opposition. She spoke on behalf of Catholics,

Baptists, and conservative leaders against the measure. Bryant was a celebrity in Florida, on contract to promote Florida orange juice, and living in Miami Beach. Bryant identified herself as a concerned Christian and mother who tried to raise her children according to her Baptist faith.

She used a moral frame to argue that approval of the ordinance would expose her children to homosexuality. Despite the testimony of Bryant and other religious leaders, the Dade County

Commission passed the ordinance on a five to three vote.

Bryant organized a coalition called “Save Our Children,” which included many ERA opponents, including Shirley Spellerberg, President of the Dade Women for Responsible

Legislation and STOP ERA-Florida. The coalition created a “moral crusade” against homosexuality, framing it as an apocalyptic threat to Florida’s children. By working through organized churches, they gathered enough signatures to force a public referendum and reconsideration of the ordinance.4

4 Fred Fejes, Gay Rights and Moral Panic: The Origins of America’s Debate on Homosexuality (New York: Palgrave McMillian, 2008), 1,2. In this excellent study of 1977 and 1978 public controversies over gay rights, Fejes traces the impact of the Dade Campaign and its effect on similar ordinances in several U.S. cities. The author is thankful to Gillian Frank who shared his knowledge and a draft of an article, “‘The Civil Rights of Parents:’ Race

141

Figure 3.1. Anita Bryant was active in fighting the Dade County Ordinance and the ERA. Courtesy of State Archives of Florida, photo by WCTV.

Spellerberg said that the Dade Ordinance “went a long way in shaking the church people out of lethargy.” She used the ordinance opposition to produce hostility toward the ERA. Both

Spellerberg and Bryant travelled back and forth from Dade County to Tallahassee to oppose both the ordinance and the ERA, claiming that they would authorize homosexual rights.5 Bryant and other opponents labeled homosexuals as “sick perverts, child molesters, and seducers of the innocent who deserved society’s scorn and stigmatization, not the law’s protection.”6

Like ERA proponents, Dade County Ordinance proponents employed the same limiting frames emphasizing equality and rights used to support the local law. “God created all equally and thus was in support of the legislation,” proponents argued. Other supporters said: “Christ

and Conservative Politics in Anita Bryant’s Campaign Against Gay Rights in 1970s Florida,” Journal of the History of Sexuality 22:1 (January, 2013): 126-160. This will be part of a forthcoming book entitled Save Our Children: Sexual Politics and Cultural Conservatism in the United States, 1965-1990 to be published by University of Pennsylvania Press. 5 “ERA Saga Tenses,” Lakeland Ledger (April 3, 1977) quoted in Kimberly Wilmot Voss, “The Florida Fight for Equality: The Equal Rights Amendment, Senator Lori Wilson and Mediated Catfights in the 1970s,” Florida Historical Quarterly XX Summer 2007): 189. See also “The Sexes: The Unmaking of an Amendment,” Time (Monday, April 25, 1977), and Myra MacPherson, “Florida Senate Rejects Equal Rights Amendment in 21-19 Vote; Cloudy Future Seen,” The Washington Post (April 14, 1977): A1. 6 Fejes, Gay Rights and Moral Panic, 1,2.

142 often challenged the prevailing custom of his time.” 7 Ordinance advocates believed that there would be an end to unfair harassment, and social, religious, and legal discrimination.8

The clash in Dade County raged for six weeks until the ordinance was repealed by a referendum vote of 69 percent to 31 percent.9 Most of the same proponents and opponents waged the war against the ERA concurrently. It was an example of morality politics that polarized the two sides in a cultural clash. The repeal of the Dade ordinance and similar ordinances in other

American cities that year was perceptively described by Fred Fejes, in Gay Rights and Moral

Panic: The Origins of America’s Debate on Homosexuality, as “a harbinger of the cultural politics that would dominate the rest of the century.” After seeing some success in gaining civil rights, Fejes indicated that the Dade County ordinance repeal reversed the trend and resulted in a backlash against gay rights that swept the nation. Fejes maintained that the dramatic media coverage contributed to disruption of Americans’ sense of a traditional moral order. Until the

Dade County campaign, most Americans were disregarding the issue of homosexuality. Framing it as a moral issue with negative meanings in the public mind, opponents managed to generate intense opposition against homosexuality and any connected policy issue. Fejes argued that the repeal campaigns were shaped by religion used to describe and condemn homosexuality. In addition, Fejes asserted that “politicians of all stripes” were affected by the repeal. “Liberal politicians … regarded the issue of gay rights as untouchable,” Fejes explained, and

“Conservative politicians saw it as an issue that mobilized the conservative religious population.”10

7 Rachelle Delaney, “Why Some Want It …” Times Union and Journal (March 27, 1977) quoted in Voss, “The Florida Fight for Equality,” 189. 8 Fejes, Gay Rights and Moral Panic, 3. 9 Delaney, “Why Some Want It,” 189. 10 Fejes, Gay Rights and Moral Panic, 4-9. Fejes argues that the Dade County Ordinance repeal campaign was set within the cultural and social backdrop for the general concern over societal moral decline as depicted by the national television broadcasting and press media. The media transformed homosexuality into a metaphor for many

143 Clearly, conservative religious worldviews and moral frames were central to the debate over the Dade County ordinance and condemnation of homosexuality. Residents of the state were inundated by news from the media, who embraced the sensationalist rhetoric and hysterical frames of social danger. On election night, television networks broadcast Bryant kissing her husband as he said: “This is what heterosexuals do, fellows.” Bryant said: “The ‘normal majority’ have said: ‘Enough! Enough! Enough!’”11 Opponents gleefully rejoiced in the repeal of the ordinance and set their sights on defeating the ERA in the state capital.

ERA Florida Senate Vote Switches Prior to the Legislative Session

“It’s really amazing,” Senator Warren Henderson declared, “several years ago busing was a very important issue here … [now] people seem more excited about [ERA].” Amused, he continued, “… and what interests me is the fact that you can’t predict who will come out on which side. Some of the most conservative legislators are in favor, and other people who you would expect to support it are on the other side.”12

Prior to the start of the 1977 legislative session, ERA proponents believed they had a 13- vote margin of support in the house. In the senate, the tight one-vote margin for or against ratification was constantly shifting. Several announced vote switches made it too close to call, with each side claiming they had the necessary votes. The continuing vote-switch drama caused many Florida legislators to say that it was the most contentious issue that they ever debated.13

of the nation’s anxieties. After the social upheaval of the sixties and seventies, homosexuality was viewed as part of societal moral decay. Fejes explained that the repeal of gay rights laws in Dade county and other cities “seemed to indicate a strong national trend of opposition to legal equality for lesbians and gay men.” 11 Nancy Cohen, Delirium: How the Sexual Counterrevolution is Polarizing America, (Berkeley, CA: Counterpoint, 2012), 57. 12 Charlie Huisking, “Entire Nation Awaits Outcome of Florida’s ERA Vote,” Sarasota Herald-Tribune (April 4, 1977): 9. 13 Lawrence Van Gelder, “After the Early Rush, the ERA is Now at a Standstill,” New York Times (April 1, 1977): 34; and MacPherson, “Florida Senate Rejects Equal Rights Amendment in 21-19 Vote,” A1.

144 Three senators created quite a media stir when they announced they would vote for the

ERA. Their switch was not explicitly attributed to religion. Switching to support the ERA, senators Sherrill “Pete” Skinner, Kenneth H. “Buddy” MacKay, and Jon C. Thomas, listed different reasons.

Lake City businessman Senator Skinner changed his position to support the ERA because his constituent mail was “three-to-one in favor of ERA.” He said that since the ERA is a national issue concerning all women in America, Florida legislators are actually representing the nation.14

Senator MacKay, an attorney and citrus grower, was known for supporting progressive policy issues such as education reform and no-fault insurance. He previously opposed the ERA because he was concerned about federal preemption of state powers. MacKay changed his position on the ERA after attending a small gathering of women hosted by Ann Marston, wife of the University of Florida president Robert Marston. The gathering was made up of “nonpolitical” women who quietly explained why the ERA was important to them and how they had personally experienced discrimination. MacKay was asked to “take into account the situation of other north

Florida women who supported the ERA, but found the situation too intimidating to speak out publicly.” After some research and reflection, he ascertained that Marston’s friends were correct.

The ERA was necessary because Southern states would not protect women’s rights. Despite the blistering reaction from his constituents who argued that he should represent their opposition to

ERA, MacKay changed his position to publicly support the ERA. Previously, he voted against the ERA twice, in 1973 and 1975.15

14 “ERA Only Needs One Vote,” The Miami News (March 3, 1977): 4A. See also “Necessary Last Vote ‘Committed’ to ERA,” Ocala Star Banner (March 4, 1977): 5A. “ERA Lacks One Vote to Pass,” Lakeland Ledger (March 3, 1977): 9D. 15 Buddy MacKay with Rick Edmonds, How Florida Happened: The Political Education of Buddy MacKay (Gainesville, Fla.: University of Florida, 2010), 43-45. See also Roger M. Williams, “Women Against Women: The Clamor Over Equal Rights,” The Saturday Review 4 (June 25, 1977): 13.

145 Retribution for vote switching in north Florida was swift. MacKay and Skinner were subjected to constant criticism and attacks in the media. MacKay said: “The Farm Bureau, with active chapters in each of my sixteen counties, as well as evangelical pastors in search of a rallying cry, proceeded to pack halls to oppose me whenever I spoke in the community.” Bumper stickers appeared with the message “Senator MacKay, Please Don’t Draft Our Daughters.”

Skinner was threatened with bodily harm. McKay’s wife, Anne, who opposed the ERA, was asked to put pressure on him by many opponents.16

Ft. Lauderdale Senator Thomas also switched his vote to support the ERA. He said that his concern for equality offset his apprehension about states’ rights. Thomas identified himself as

“a conservative Democrat concerned about the issue of states’ rights.” He said that the “horribles that have been raised in that area are not going to come to pass.” Previously, he voted against the

ERA in 1973 and in 1975.17

Religion prominently figured into a fourth vote switch. A previous ERA supporter,

Senator Alan Trask switched his vote to oppose ERA, using a moral frame to suggest that ratification would legalize homosexual marriages. Writing a column in his local newspaper,

Trask said: “The sin of homosexuality is one of the most vile sins in the eyes of God and there is simply no way that I can be a party to voting for legislation which is contrary to the will of God and the teaching of the Bible.” He said that if the ERA were ratified, courts would be forced to strike down laws banning homosexual marriages, would allow unisex bathrooms, and force women into combat duty.18 Previously, Trask had voted in favor of the ERA twice when the

Senate considered it in 1974 and 1975.

16 Ibid. 17 “Florida ERA Passage Assured,” The Evening Independent (March 10, 1977): 1A. 18 “Senator Switches to Vote No on ERA,” The Miami News (March 17, 1977): 1A.

146 Expressing concern and indecision where, in some cases, previously there was support for ERA, were senators Phil Lewis, Ralph Poston, Jim Scott, and George Williamson. Lewis, a good-natured West Palm Beach Catholic, aspired to the senate presidency and was seeking

Senator Dempsey Barron’s support. He had been under pressure from conservative Catholics to switch his vote. Also, Miami businessman and former ERA co-sponsor Ralph Poston, decided to oppose ERA, at the same time the Senate Ethics Committee was conducting an investigation on his business. Ft. Lauderdale senators Scott and Williamson were new and were elected as undecided votes. All four were pressured by Barron to oppose the ERA. Additionally, several senators were being coy by listing conditions that needed to be met in order for them to support the ERA. For example, Senator Tom Gallen, chair of the Senate Rules Committee, indicated that he would not let the ERA out of his committee until he was certain it would pass; Senator Henry

Sayler revealed he would support the ERA if he received enough guarantees of voter support; and Senator Don Chamberlain sought assurance that his campaign promise to support ERA had the approval of the majority of his constituents.19

Why all the maneuvering? Was it from the nature of the political process or was it the subject of the political process – the ERA? Did religion play a role? Examining the ERA vote switches that actually occurred over the entire ten-year period that the ERA was being considered in the legislature underscores the presence of political expediency and inherent self- interest in public policy voting. Vote switching was a means to an end and often indicated the legislator’s group affiliation change. This comports with the purpose of framing, which is to

19 Williams, “Women Against Women,” 46, and Jeanne Pugh, “She Supports ERA so people can have choice of Lifestyle,” St. Petersburg Times (February 26, 1977): 5D. Senator Poston was being investigated for using his public office to seek business. He was ultimately reprimanded and fined $500 in a December 1977 Special Session. See: http://myfloridahistory.org/library/flahistory/december. See also former Senator Bob McKnight’s commentary on his political blog located at: http://www.flpoliticalcommentary.com/2010/05/19/the-era-in-the-florida-senate/. Senator Sayler later stated that homosexuals were “mentally sick and I think we ought to cure them.” He co- sponsored legislation in 1977 with Senator Curtis Peterson prohibiting homosexual marriages and adoption. Joe Childs, “Sayler Wants Homosexuals ‘Cured,’” The Evening Independent, (May 31, 1977): 4A.

147 generate cohesion among groups. As psychologist Jonathan Haidt, in The Righteous Mind argued, individuals are “good team players,” that can rationalize policy positions to advantageously believe as others in the group believe. Moral ideas that include religion and family values, Haidt contends, appeal to individuals moving toward conservative policy.20

Indeed, many times the 1977 legislators justified and explained their vote switches by referring to either constituent preferences or a religious reason. Legislators switching their votes also blamed new polling data as a necessary reason for their shift in position. Furthermore, firsthand accounts and news reports indicated other reasons for the vote switches. Hence, there was political expediency to the decision changes in which the switch could accomplish many outcomes with one act. These outcomes could include gaining the favor of Senator Barron and the “Pork Chop Gang,” securing a committee chairmanship, avoiding censorship for questionable ethical behavior, obtaining editorial board support from the local newspaper, and gaining support and campaign contributions from special interests. It is part of the give-and-take and bargaining in politics, which is usually cloaked with noble or religious rhetoric and justified with data and statistics. Legislators never admitted that they changed their vote to further their self-interest, political career, or to live peacefully with a spouse.

20 Jonathan Haidt, The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion (New York: Pantheon Books, 2012). Haidt argues that once attached by emotion and intuition to the group and a set of ideas, individual reason acts more like a government press secretary. No matter how bad the public policy, individual reason marshals evidence to justify the policy position. He uses ethnography, evolutionary theory and experimental psychology to reveal that reason is not the basis of modern political motivations. Echoing Drew Weston’s emphasis on the power of emotion in politics, Haidt endorsed Scottish philosopher David Hume’s argument that reason is fit only to be the “slave of the passions.” Haidt identifies six basic ideas that undergird moral systems including: care, fairness, liberty, loyalty, authority and sanctity. Related themes that carry moral weight are: divinity, community, hierarchy, tradition, sin, and degradation. Republicans focus on themes that connect to all six moral foundations, according to Haidt, while Democrats focus largely on care, fairness, and liberty. Diverting from Drew Westen and George Lakoff, who infer that Republicans are better able to manipulate voters through the use of moral frames, Haidt insists that there must be something in the Republican messages that individuals find appealing. So for example, blue-collar workers who vote Republican, seemingly against their own interests, are voting according to their moral interests, which often include religion and family values.

148 Proponents Organize Religious Support

The battle in 1977 was an intensified version of previous skirmishes, and religion was central to the conflict. Since churches were spearheading much of the opposition, proponents realized that it was imperative that they also actively engage religious people and churches to support the ERA in a more visible manner. Proponents organized the “Religious Committee for the ERA,” consisting of many mainline Protestant, Catholic, and Jewish religious organizations

(Figure 3.2). Prior to the legislative session, the Religious Committee for the ERA State

Coordinator Diane Peterson wrote to each legislator, describing herself as “a Florida Christian who believes in God’s plan at creation, equality and justice and love.” She declared that state legislators had the opportunity to vote on behalf of every citizen in the nation: “This tremendous responsibility rests squarely on Florida and I only ask you pray with us for the understanding and

Christian conviction to vote for human rights on behalf of Americans.”21

Table 3.1. Religious Committee for the ERA

Protestant Catholic American Baptist Women Catholic Women for ERA Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) Catholic Caucus of the Task Force on Women Christian Methodist Episcopal Church Las Hermanas Church of the Brethren Leadership Conference of Women Religious Church Women United–USA National Assembly of Women Religious Evangelical Women’s Caucus National Coalition of American Nuns Friends (Quakers) Committee on Legislation NETWORK Lutheran Church Women St. Joan’s International Alliance Presbyterian Church–U.S. Sisters of Loreto, Denver, Colorado United Methodist Church Jewish Unitarian Universalist Association National Council of Jewish Women United Church of Christ National Federation of Temple Sisterhoods United Presbyterian Church–USA Union of American Hebrew Congregations Young Women’s Christian Association Women’s League for Conservative Judaism

21 Diane M. Peterson, State Coordinator, “Religious Committee for the ERA” to Senator Alan Trask, (February 9, 1977), Commission on the Status of Women, Box 1, Florida State Archives, Tallahassee, Florida.

149 The Religious Committee for the ERA attempted to claim religious ground and use an egalitarian limiting frame to support the need for the amendment. The committee spearheaded the effort to recover moral issues involving the family, homemaking, and religious commitment from opponents. They promoted traditional values and recruited homemakers such as Susan

Gamelin from St. Petersburg. Gamelin described herself as “a devout Christian and, by personal choice, a full-time homemaker and mother.” She had three young children and was the Pinellas

County coordinator for the Religious Committee for the ERA. Gamelin believed that “God intends that men and women share equal rights and responsibilities in the world.” Arguing against fears proffered by opponents, Gamelin assumed that the ERA would raise the value of the homemaking lifestyle as a choice for women. She referred to several Bible texts referring to male and female equality “under God” as well as the Gospel’s renditions of Jesus’ elevated treatment of women, disregarding the customs of his tradition and era. Understanding that the fate of the ERA for the 1977 Legislative Session was in the hands of a few senators, Gamelin said all of the groups connected to the Religious Committee for ERA were praying for passage, individually and collectively, as well as writing letters to key senators.22

Gaining support from religious homemakers like Gamelin was vital to countering opponents, many who were homemakers. As Nancy Wittenberg, Director of the Florida

Commission on the Status of Women explained, the female ERA opponents, especially homemakers, felt threatened. The looming disruption of a secure home life compelled many women into the political arena to fight the ERA. Wittenberg said it was much more than a

22 Jeanne Pugh, “She Supports ERA so people can have choice of Lifestyle,” St. Petersburg Times (February 26, 1977): 5D. Gamelin cited Galatians 3:28: “There is neither male nor female; for ye all are one in Christ Jesus,” in support of the ERA. Further, she said that Catholic proponents often cite Pope John XXIII’s Pacem in Terris to support human rights and equality. Gamelin explained that the conservative religious opponents could not be dissuaded from their theology. Negative frames and tactics used by opponents to ignite fear and concern about ERA ratification contributing to societal decay were wrong, Gamelin argued.

150 financial threat: “It’s deeply emotional, too – the threat of being taken off their pedestals.”23

ERA supporters identified homemakers and prepared a pamphlet for wide distribution, entitled

“Homemakers Need the Equal Rights Amendment.” The pamphlet was designed in reaction to opponents’ arguments about the loss of protective laws and of female status in society.

“Homemakers, they are trying to deceive us!” was the first line in the pamphlet.24

In addition to recruiting religious homemakers, ERA proponents decided to use a lobbying strategy to purposely avoid “excessive emotionalism” and to act in a “quiet and professional” manner.25 Furthermore, the League of Women Voters (LWV) took a dominant role in lobbying efforts, somewhat eclipsing the National Organization for Women (NOW). They expanded their intense lobbying efforts beyond the ERA. The LWV lobbying teams worked on legislation relating to child day care, election reform, tax structure, energy conservation, welfare, education, farmworkers rights, and juvenile justice.26

Proponents intensified the media campaign, aiming to bring in mainstream female support. The Religious Committee for ERA purchased ad time during an ABC Equal Rights

Amendment documentary.27 Proponents also publicized the support of all of the members of

23 Williams, “Women Against Women,” 7. 24 Lynn Budde and Joan Krauskopf, “Homemakers Need the Equal Rights Amendment,” (Housewives for ERA, Ann Follis, President, R.R. 3, Urbana, Ill. 61801, no date). It was designed to counter the STOP ERA fears and attract support for the ERA. Ironically, the well-intentioned pamphlet frames the debate in reaction to STOP ERA accusations and makes a complicated legal argument in the four-page leaflet. Stating that women do not have a right to financial support and ERA will not require wives to work, the brochure weaves complicated legal narrative to counter ERA opponents’ claims, concluding: “It is time for homemakers to blow the whistle on STOP ERA and begin to fight for their Equal Rights!” 25 Williams, “Women Against Women,” 13. 26 Mary Anne Sherman, “From Your Lobbyist,” Florida Voter (July/August 1977), vol. XXV, No. 3, page 4. Commission on the Status of Women, Box 1, Florida State Archives, Tallahassee, Florida. They worked out of Rep. Helen Gordon Davis’ Tallahassee apartment until they could find an office. Each week a different state board member and two local League members would accompany the League lobbyist, Mary Anne Sherman, to lobby legislators. 27 ERA Florida Newsletter (January 31, 1977): 2. Commission on the Status of Women, Box 1, Florida State Archives, Tallahassee, Florida.

151 Florida’s elected cabinet.28 Additionally, full-page ads were purchased in all of Florida’s major newspapers, which stated:

Twenty-one State Senators have already announced publicly in Florida newspapers their commitment to The Equal Rights Amendment. They are Senators Betty Castor, Don Chamberlin, Don Childers, Edgar Dunn, George Firestone, Jim Glisson, Jack Gordon, Robert Graham, Mattox Hair, Harry Johnston, Kenneth MacKay, Kenneth Myers, Ralph Poston, Henry Sayler, Dan Scarborough, Pete Skinner, Guy Spicola, Jon Thomas, John Vogt, Lori Wilson and Sherman Winn. We urge all other Senators and Representatives to join them in a clear signal to the entire United States that Florida is not 200 years behind the times.29

Finally, the Religious Committee for the ERA held a well-publicized prayer vigil at the capitol.

Providing brilliant coverage of the 1977 Florida Legislative Session, journalist Roger M.

Williams provided an example of proponents’ religiously-based tactics: “Senators Phil Lewis and Edgar Dunn, Catholics, were subjected to such heavy pressure the proponents periodically dispatched a pro-ERA Nun to pray with them and explain how a sincere Catholic would be devoutly in favor of the amendment.” 30

The efforts by ERA proponents to bring large numbers of homemakers into the battle to support ratification reflected a national trend and created tension in the women’s movement. The new strategy was designed to appeal to mainstream women rather than leaving the effort entirely to radical feminists who had repulsed southern legislators. Leaders believed that in Florida, and other southern states, homemakers and “feminine” lobbying efforts would be more effective with the white male southern “good old boy” legislative leadership. Did religion affect this strategy?

Absolutely. The religious vision of womanhood influenced this strategic shift by proponents.

28 A letter of support for ratification of the ERA was signed by Reubin O’D. Askew, Governor, Robert L. Shevin, Attorney General, Gerald A. Lewis, Comptroller, , Treasurer, and Ralph D. Turlington, Education Commissioner to Senate President Lew Brantley and Speaker Donald L. Tucker (April 8, 1977). Commission on the Status of Women, Box 1, Florida State Archives, Tallahassee, Florida. 29 “Will Our Legislators Really Protect Women? Or Just Keep on Patronizing Them?” The Evening Independent (April 7, 1977): 5. 30 Williams, “Women Against Women,” 11.

152 However, the success of the new strategy was limited due to the lack of widespread support.

Three out of five mothers were in the workforce at this time and the homemakers for ERA were not as fierce and numerous as the homemakers against the ERA.

Opponents Organize Religious Support, March, and Lobby

In 1977 while proponents were targeting homemakers to support the ERA, opponents were bringing churches into the battle in greater numbers. The Dade Ordinance battle that Anita

Bryant, Shirley Spellerberg, and others were conducting in south Florida also served as an impetus for church engagement in the ERA fight in Tallahassee. As with the Dade Ordinance, they were making accusations of imminent sexual immorality and unspeakable perversions from homosexuals if the ERA was ratified. As Nancy L. Cohen argued in Delirium, the common denominator in the early women’s crusades to defeat ERA, gay rights, and other equality issues, was “sexual fundamentalism.” Cohen identified religiously defined gender and family roles as a source of polarization: “Members of religious denominations that were most invested in women’s traditional subordinate role in the family were those who were most devoted to the sexual counterrevolution.” Conservative churches joined with Mormons and other churches that usually did not agree on doctrine because of their shared vision of women’s subordinate role in the traditional family.31

Churches offered vast financial resources and volunteer efforts in the anti-ERA effort. As journalist Roger M. Williams observed: “Although the fundamentalist churches took the lead, many other denominations were active also.” He described how churches, through sermons, newsletters, and meetings communicated opposition to the ERA by linking it to moral and

31 Cohen, Delirium, 57, 58.

153 biblical concerns such as homosexuality and the ordination of women. Williams also observed that more Catholics increasingly opposed the ERA.32

Mormon women and the Church of Latter Day Saints entered the fray in a commanding way in 1977. In 1976 the LDS First Presidency issued its first formal anti-ERA statement: “we recognize men and women as equally important before the Lord, but with differences biologically, emotionally, and in other ways…. ERA, we believe, does not recognize these differences.” Mormons lobbied the Florida Legislature to defeat ratification of ERA. Fighting the

ERA was a way for Mormon women to signify their acceptance of the church’s teaching about family roles. They were able to become public political activists on behalf of the Mormon

Church. Mormon women used political engagement “to serve their church, to secure their eternal fate, and to expand their own power within Mormonism by working to defeat the movement for equality for all women in the United States.” They also attended demonstrations in Tallahassee organized by Phyllis Schlafly and STOP ERA.33

Mormon Speaker of the House Donald L. Tucker, an ERA proponent, was aware of a

Mormon campaign to defeat the ERA. In fact, Mormon church members vigorously lobbied him at church services on Sundays. It became so disruptive that the Mormon bishop had to ask church members to leave him alone at church and instead make an appointment while Tucker was in the legislative office.34

32 Williams, “Women Against Women,” 7. 33 Martha Sonntag Bradley, Pedestals and Podiums: Utah Women, Religious Authority & Equal Rights, (Salt Lake City, UT: Signature Books, 2005), 315-320, 457-478. This excellent and thoroughly researched study is a comprehensive social history of the Mormon involvement in the ERA battle. In addition, most Floridians were unaware that the Mormon Church owns the largest cow-calf ranch in the nation, sprawling across three large central Florida counties. Deseret Ranch covers almost 300,000 acres and is valued at almost $1 billion, and is a productive revenue-producing enterprise home to 90 families. See also Cynthia Barnett, “The Church’s Ranch,” Florida Trend, (December 2001): 56-61. Located at: http://www.cynthiabarnett.net/clips/ChurchRanch.pdf. 34 Bradley, Pedestals and Podiums, 457-478.

154

Figure 3.2. House Speaker Donald Tucker with a gavel replacement. Courtesy of State Archives of Florida, photo by Donn Dughi.

Opponents organized a march on the opening day of the 1977 Legislative Session.

Roughly 2,500 chanting and singing marchers held a rally at the capitol. The demonstration was organized to persuade senators of the strong opposition to ERA. Speakers at the rally included

Phyllis Schlafly, the STOP ERA chairman; Mary Helm, a Republican state senator from

Oklahoma; Robert Kramer, a Green Beret captain from Lighthouse Point, and Shirley

Spellerberg from Miami, the head of the Florida Women for Responsible Legislation. The rally was, Schlafly gleefully shouted, “the most beautiful sight I ever saw.” Rousing the crowd, she said: “The only people who will benefit from the ERA are the homosexuals.” Kramer and his four-year old daughter were both in military uniforms. Pandering to the crowd’s displeasure with

President Jimmy Carter for supporting the ERA, Senate President Dempsey Barron indicated that

155 he received a letter from the President asking support for ratification but he refused to read it.

People chanted “Jimmy Carter Lies!”35

Figure 3.3. Demonstration by Anti-ERA forces. Courtesy of State Archives of Florida.

Invoking the frame of ideal feminine womanhood as normative, ERA opponents characterized the female proponents as women who looked like “truck drivers. They’re not like most women, gentle and sweet and feminine.”36 Williams, who covered the rally, distinguished between the style and dress of the proponents and opponents:

The women at the Florida capitol displayed the characteristics, bold or subtle, that distinguish ERA “pros” from “anti’s” across the nation. The ranks of the anti’s included both plainer and more carefully turned out women. Large numbers wore acrylic pantsuits. Out-of-fashion hairdos predominated, from the “artichoke” of the early Sixties, still very popular in the South, to a nondescript roll-it-yourself bob. A handful bore the look of Saks or its Florida equivalents. The pros had much less makeup, simpler hairstyles, and more casual clothes – jeans and T- shirts in which the antis, one knew, would not be caught dead. 37

35 “ ERA opponents chant and sing on Capitol steps,” St. Petersburg Times (April 6, 1977): 6D. 36 Williams, “Women Against Women,” 7. 37 Ibid, 11. Williams quoted an opponent who was concerned about homosexuality who explained: “homosexuals cannot reproduce, they can only recruit – that’s a known fact. The ERA would open the door to legalizing their lifestyle and allow them to approach young children openly.”

156 After the rally, dozens of female opponents, sometimes escorted by church ministers or

Spellerberg, visited legislators’ offices. A group of women from a Jacksonville Baptist church carried red roses to give to legislators. Marching into Jacksonville Rep. Tommy Hazouri’s office, they listed a litany of concerns about ratification of the ERA. Hazouri told the rose-carrying opponents that he supported the ERA. Dissatisfied, they took their roses and left his office. The last girl to depart left a tract entitled “God’s Simple Plan of Salvation.” Hazouri told a reporter that dozens of women had lobbied him, “Baptists, Catholics, Mormons, you name it.”38

In addition, not only did opponents increase church outreach and political organizing efforts, they also intensified the media campaign with expanded talk radio appearances and direct mail efforts. Evangelicals were at the vanguard of radio and television talk show development, and ERA opponents took full advantage of a growing enterprise. For example, fundamentalist ministers, such as Rev. Bob Clark, declared on a Florida radio talk show that Section 2 of the

ERA provided: “Congress shall have the power to enforce the article. There’s Big Daddy Fed again. … When you start getting the federal government in on it, that’s where the trouble begins.’”39

Furthermore, the Conservative Caucus conducted mass mailings from Virginia against the ERA. Opposition to the ERA was an effective recruitment tool for their organization, and the direct mailings had an impact on the conservative senators.40 In addition to the sizable mailings

38 Ibid, 7-13, 46. Oftentimes legislators tried to evade these hoards of women, but some invited them into their offices. Freshman Rep. R. Dale Patchett was thoroughly amused by the women and since he agreed to listen to them, the line to his tiny office stretched all the way down and around a corridor and down a stairwell in the Old Capitol building. After many weeks of endless lobbying, when asked if he was a legislator as he was walking through the hallways, Patchett diverted these thundering groups toward a stately looking white-haired lobbyist, who “looked like a legislator,” and quietly slipped away. R. Dale Patchett conversation, (May 12, 2011), Tallahassee, Florida. [The author worked for former Rep. Patchett when he was House Republican Leader from 1985 to 1987.] 39 “The Sexes: The Unmaking of an Amendment,” Time (Monday, April 25, 1977). 40 “ERA Roundup,” Opinion Page, Gainesville Sun (April 5, 1977): 4A. “Equal Rights: Why the Amendment Appears Doomed,” U.S. News & World Report (March 28, 1977): 53. Myra MacPherson of the Washington Post wrote several informative stories about the 1977 Florida Legislative Session. She met Senator Jack Gordon on this

157 of the Conservative Caucus, other anti-ERA organizations provided extensive mailings to legislators and individuals. For example, the Conservative Union district director Mark Andrews of Cape Coral, sent material labeling the ERA “as a gimmick to set up a dictatorship,” and claimed that the ERA proponents were “militant Atheists.” He argued that “us white Christians of America” were threatened by “anti-Christian rulers,” who would enslave them.41 Finally, an old unsavory political practice in Florida was to send direct mail in the form of postcards designed to elicit outrage. There was an unclaimed post card campaign with pseudo-signatures, no return address, and the following message:

Dear [legislator’s first name]: As a lesbian, I want the right to marry your daughter or any of your other cronis’ [sic] daughter, so when the vote comes up on the Equal Rights Amendment, get out for our cause or we’ll cause you to get out in the next election.42

Thus, religious support was a central part of the struggle over ERA ratification in Florida.

Not only was there a massive effort in recruiting women, managing the media representations, and forging alliances, but proponents and opponents also were dependent on religious people for backing. Framing the ERA was an important part of setting the boundaries of the debate.

Proponents continued to use an equality and rights frame, yet emphasizing moral aspects of the

ERA, while opponents continued to engage a moral frame resulting mostly in a negative connection to abortion, gay rights, and other “moral evils” prevailing in society if ERA passed.

assignment and many years later they were married. MacPherson, “Florida Senate Rejects Equal Rights Amendment in 21-19 Vote,” A1. Also see “The Sexes: The Unmaking of an Amendment,” Time (Monday, April 25, 1977)., and Lawrence Van Gelder, “After the Early Rush, the ERA is Now at a Standstill,” New York Times (April 1, 1977): 34. 41 “ERA Roundup,” Opinion Page, Gainesville Sun (April 5, 1977): 4A. 42 “Bernie Levy” to Rep. Don Tucker postcard (March 1, 1977). Commission on the Status of Women, Box 1, Florida State Archives, Tallahassee, Florida. The author knows stories of other loathsome tactics; for example, individuals would dress like members of the Ku Klux Klan and distribute candidate literature.

158 1977: House Committee Approval; No Chamber Action

On the opening day of the 1977 Legislative Session, Governor Askew asked the

Legislature to address “Human Rights” issues, including ratification of the Equal Rights

Amendment, farmworker protections, and Human Relations Commission improvements.43

In the House of Representatives, Rep. Elaine Gordon filed the ERA resolution (HCR 1) after soliciting 61 co-sponsors, a majority of the 120- member House. Rep. Gwen Cherry also filed the resolution (HCR 2). Gordon was chair of the House Committee on Health and

Rehabilitative Services, where the resolutions were referred (instead of the Rules Committee) and considered on January 12, 1977.

The House HRS Committee meeting was quieter than previous committee meetings considering the ERA. The audience was relatively calm. Stating that the ERA had been thoroughly debated in past years, Gordon would not allow public testimony in the crowded committee meeting room.44 However, in a letter to the committee that frames the conservative religiously idealized family, the Florida Farm Bureau representatives voiced strong opposition to the ERA. Using religious reasoning, Mildred Rutherford, Coordinator of Women’s Programs for the Florida Farm Bureau Federation asked members of the House HRS Committee to defeat the

ERA. It was not necessary, she explained, because there would be a loss of states’ rights, and “it will bring about further destruction to the family unit.” Rutherford said the ERA would stifle

“God-given instincts” and strike at the basic institution of the family. Adding that although “men and women are equal before God,” Rutherford stated that there were “physical, biological, and emotional differences,” that the ERA does not recognize. Declaring that it was not possible to legislate “cultural or emotional attitudes,” Rutherford asserted that passing a “blanket Equal

43 Governor Askew Opening Address, Journal of the Florida House of Representatives, (April 5, 1977): 17. 44 “ERA Squeaks Through First Vote,” Boca Raton News, (January 13, 1977): 6A.

159 Rights Amendment could cause more rebellion than peaceful equality. Maybe there’s such a thing as TOO MUCH EQUALITY?”45

Despite extensive lobbying and letters like Rutherford’s missive, Gordon’s ERA resolution squeaked out of committee on a 6 to 5 vote, after only ten minutes of debate.46 After the close vote Gordon said: “I don’t view this narrow vote as a setback. It was about what we expected and it does not change our strategy any.”47 Gordon was excited and said: “This is our time.” She declared: “We can be an example for the nation with a statement that gives more than lip service to the concept of equal rights for men and women.”48

Gordon met with ERA supporters afterward to develop a strategy that focused on the

Florida Senate. All efforts concentrated on the undecided senators. Later, the house did not consider HCR 1 on the house floor, since it was defeated in the senate during the legislative session.

1977: Senate Rules and Calendar Committee Meeting

Senator Lori Wilson sponsored Senate Concurrent Resolution (SCR) 2, the ERA.

Previously, proponents had alternated ERA sponsorship between Wilson and male proponent,

Senator Dan Scarborough. In 1977, the pro-ERA coalition felt that a woman should be the senate sponsor. Senate proponents’ attempts to amend the senate rules in the early days of the session in order to bypass the Senate Rules and Calendar Committee failed. The ERA resolution was referred to the Senate Rules and Calendar Committee, chaired by staunch ERA opponent Senator

Tom Gallen.

45 Mildred Rutherford to Members of the House Health and Rehabilitative Services Committee (January 12, 1977). Commission on the Status of Women, Box 1, Florida State Archives 46 Committee on Health and Rehabilitative Services, The Florida House of Representatives, (January 12, 1977), Box 1, Florida State Archives, Tallahassee, Florida. Gordon’s handwritten notes indicate that she was sure of the six votes needed to get a favorable vote (two newly-elected female committee members voted against HCR 1). Reps. Beverly Burnsed (D-Lakeland) and Toni Jennings (R-Orlando) voted against resolution. 47 “ERA Squeaks Through First Vote,” Boca Raton News, (January 13, 1977): 6A. 48 “ERA Wins Approval in House Committee,” Daytona Beach News-Journal, (January 13, 1977): 9A.

160 In the senate committee only three individuals provided public testimony: Senator Wilson and former House Minority Leader Don Reed, for the proponents, and national opponent Phyllis

Schlafly. Senator Wilson provided brief opening remarks, lamenting that she knew there was no hope for changing any senators’ minds. After indicating that the issue would be debated before the full senate, Wilson asked simply: “Please move SCR 2 to the full body of the senate.”49

An eloquent and accomplished debater, Phyllis Schlafly, National Chairman of STOP

ERA, seized every opportunity to use a moral frame to expound upon the evils of the ERA.

Schlafly was responsible for channeling and mobilizing “all the simmering discontent among traditional women, working-class men, and conservative churches” to stop ratification.50

Unleashing passionate and morality-laced rhetoric, she spoke at length for the opponents.

Schlafly began by saying that she was using a justice frame rather than an equality frame to structure her case against the ERA. She claimed that equality for women was actually an injustice for women. Schlafly listed examples of “discrimination” including social security benefits for people over 62; public assistance for needy people, including welfare, food stamps, and housing; and scholarships for students based on income level. Arguing forcefully and providing examples, Schlafly insisted that the ERA did not give women any rights they did not already have in current law. Schlafly declared that the biggest effect of ERA would be a

“massive federal intrusion into those areas which have been traditionally been matters of states’ rights, states’ responsibilities, areas which have been litigated in the state court.” The consequences of federal bureaucratic and judicial intrusion, according to Schlafly, would be the undesirable impact on “laws pertaining to marriage and divorce and child custody, prison regulations, insurance regulations, protective labor legislation.”

49 Rules and Calendar Committee, Florida Senate, Series 625, B817-10, FSA, tape 1, (April 11, 1977). 50 Gail Collins, When Everything Changed: The Amazing Journey of American Women from 1960 to the Present, (New York: Little, Brown and Company, 2009), 220.

161 Pouring salt on the old wounds of many of the southern “Pork Chop Gang” senators,

Schlafly subtly raised the issues of race and integration. Citing court decisions, she listed six

U.S. Supreme Court cases since 1968 interpreting the 14th Amendment, including one that prohibited slavery and involuntary servitude: “For example, one of them said that you cannot discriminate on the basis of race even in private schools that get no public money whatsoever.”

Driving home the point, Schlafly proclaimed that the women’s rights lawyers followed “the same pattern of litigation and legal theories as civil rights lawyers.” Schlafly invited legislators to ask:

“How were we treated on the matter of race?” Answering the question, she said that ERA would mean “integration at every level,” including remedial action, federal control, and enforcement.

Backpedaling, Schlafly insisted: “I do not dispute in the slightest what we are doing on the matter of race, but we do claim that sex should not be treated the same way.”51

Finally, injecting religiously based concern into the debate, Schlafly concluded her remarks with a moral salvo. She declared that the only people that would benefit from ERA ratification were the homosexuals.52

Opponents in the crowded committee room jumped to their feet with a loud ovation and cheers. Senator Dan Scarborough said: “Mr. Chairman, I want to say that the statement that the only people the ERA will benefit is homosexuals, is untrue and offensive.” Proponents applauded and shouted agreement with his remarks.53

Senate Rules Committee Chairman Senator Gallen gave former Rep. Don Reed, on behalf of the proponents, the opportunity to present a closing statement. Reed, who was representing ERAFlorida, simply stated that he had no intention to debate Mrs. Schlafly. Reed

51 Rules and Calendar Committee, Florida Senate, Series 625, B817-10, FSA, tape 1, (April 11, 1977). 52 Ibid. 53 Ibid.

162 simply asked that the ERA be allowed to pass the committee so that it could be heard and debated in the full senate.54

Loud clapping followed Reed’s remarks. The vote on the bill took some time as senators were changing their votes back and forth to ensure that the resolution made it out of the committee. There was plenty of joking, cackling, and audience commotion. The resolution was passed nine to four (9-4), with opponents such as senators Trask, Barron, and others voting favorably.55 Afterward, Senator Gallen remarked: “It can be killed deader on the floor.”56

1977 Senate Floor Debate

Two days later the senate engaged in a four-hour blistering debate on the ERA.

Anticipating a close senate vote, President Jimmy Carter, Vice President Walter Mondale, former First Lady Betty Ford, and Governor Reubin Askew made calls to key Florida senators.

Proponents believed that a setback in Florida would damage the chances for ratification of the

ERA.57

The senate gallery was packed with women wearing red and green and carrying signs and flowers. Senate President Dempsey Barron was presiding. An attempt to amend the ERA to provide that it was not the legislature’s intent to give up its right to pass certain laws in the purview of women’s rights was ruled out of order. Generally, supporters used a limiting frame to discuss the importance of equality and the effect of constitutional language on specific legal situations. Opponents framed the ERA as a moral threat to gender roles and traditional family life.58

54 Ibid. 55 Ibid. 56 Williams, “Women Against Women,” 46. 57 “Carter and Mondale Lobbying for ERA,” New York Times (April 13, 1977): 29. 58 Editorial, “ERA in Florida,” The Washington Post (April 18, 1977): A18.

163 The senate debate clearly revealed the sexual counterrevolution accompanying the defense of a religious vision of the family and gender roles. If the debate was a “cultural process of sharing perspectives and attempting to privilege one frame over another,” it is clear that the

ERA opponents’ vision of the traditional family as a normative part of the social order resonated with a broader public audience than the ERA proponents who were arguing for equality and progress, more amorphous future ideals.59

Claiming that discrimination based on sex was “perfectly logical,” Senator David

McClain argued that mothers should be excused from jury duty and military duty. He declared:

“When it comes to physical strength the man has got it.” Continuing and invoking religious language, McClain proclaimed: “God decreed it; I didn't, you didn’t; and God decreed that women would have the children; I didn't.” He said that women did not need the ERA because he was in the senate to represent their interests.60

Another former ERA supporter and co-sponsor, Senator Ralph Poston, addressed rumors that he changed his vote because the Senate Rules Committee exonerated him for voting for a bill in which he had a business interest in the outcome of the legislation. Poston said he switched his vote because of “principle.” He said that the female ERA opponents consisted mostly of housewives who felt privileged to be supported by their husbands. Proponents, Poston argued, were mostly career women. Poston said: "I have trouble with women getting married and not taking their husband's names."61

59 Gene Burns, The Moral Veto: Contraception, Abortion, and Cultural Pluralism in the United States, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005). 60 MacPherson, “Florida Senate Rejects Equal Rights Amendment in 21-19 Vote,” A1. See also Williams, “Women Against Women,” 46. ERA Debate, Florida Senate, Office of the Secretary of the Senate, (April 13, 1977), s 625, B817-10, tape 1. 61 MacPherson, “Florida Senate Rejects Equal Rights Amendment in 21-19 Vote,” A1. Poston was charged with influence-peddling that arose over the issue of whether he was required to disclose his interest in a wheelchair ambulance service when he voted for a bill regulating those services

164 Senate President-designate Phil Lewis, who previously supported the ERA also said he changed his vote “based on principle,” and not because he wanted the support of senate leadership (especially Senator Barron) who were instrumental in helping him secure the next senate presidency. Lewis said that his new position was based on several recent anti- discrimination court decisions and the enactment of laws addressing areas of previous discrimination. He did not publically mention whether his strong Catholic faith affected his changed position on the ERA.62

Former ERA supporter Senator Alan Trask explained his newfound opposition to the

ERA, using a moral frame. Trask said that while campaigning he had a conversation with two female ERA supporters who wanted the amendment ratified so that they could get married to each other. As a religious conservative, Trask read Bible verses from Leviticus condemning homosexuality and sodomy to support his opposition to ERA and proclaimed: “We must never pass a law that is contrary to the teachings of God.”63

The most powerful oration came from staunch opponent, Senator Dempsey Barron, who, when he stood to debate, generated hisses from proponents in the gallery. They were angry that he stated: “Women don’t need anymore help” because “they have 50 percent of the wealth and

100 percent of the ‘other thing’ men need.”64 Barron stridently based his opposition on a religiously informed moral frame. His apprehensions focused on opponents’ central points of opposition including the loss of states’ rights through judicial interpretation, extension of

62 Myra MacPherson, “Florida Senate Rejects Equal Rights Amendment in 21-19 Vote,” A1. Insightfully, MacPherson wrote: “Barron, [was] referred to by some as ‘King Barron.’” Later, in 1979 Senate President Lewis agreed to allow a vote on the ERA in the senate. Reflecting on the ERA later, Lewis indicated that the reason he voted for the resolution in 1975 was because it was not fully explained the first time he voted for it. Senator Phil Lewis interviewed by Mike Vasilinda (October 10, 2001), The Florida Legislative Research Center and History Museum, Tallahassee, Florida. ERA Debate, Florida Senate, Office of the Secretary of the Senate, (April 13, 1977), s 625, B817-10, tape 1. 63 Williams, “Women Against Women,” 46. ERA Debate, Florida Senate, Office of the Secretary of the Senate, (April 13, 1977), s 625, B817-10, tape 1. 64 Ronald Wray Boyd, “The Up-and-Down Life of the ERA,” St. Petersburg Times, (October 17, 1979): D1.

165 homosexual rights, and exacerbation of societal moral decay. Barron explained the religiously centered circumstances that gave rise to his adamant opposition:

Let me tell you how I got so wrought up about this thing. I was asked to speak to a group of churchwomen – cross-denominational – about the Equal Rights Amendment. I told them my position in the beginning and said they should get someone to speak on the other side if they desire to do so. At that engagement they asked, “What can we do to stop the passage of the ERA? What can we do?” I said, “Nothing.” They said, “Can we vote on it?” I said, “No.” They said, “Can you rescind it if you make a mistake and it has a wrong effect?” I said, “No.” They said, “What can we do?” Since that time I’ve talked to every senator I could about the wisdom of defeating this amendment.65

Not caring if homosexuals married, Barron said that, however, he did not want to allow them to adopt children. Barron insisted that federal courts would rule under the ERA that homosexuals could adopt children. He referred to a recent television interview of two homosexuals who adopted a child together:

I saw an hour-long program on CBS or some other network that showed where two homosexuals were talking about how great it was. … They’ll go to the child- placing agency and make an application for a child. They’ll have a clean home and they’ll have money – that’s what the courts look at – they’ll have the ability to send them to school and … in Florida the court will say “no” but the United States Supreme Court will say, “Yes, you must let them do it.”66

Framing a future society fraught with moral decay should ERA pass, Barron berated the feminist conversation between Betty Friedan and Simone de Beauvoir. Referring to the dialogue, Barron declared:

Sen. Peterson furnished you this article, “Sex, Society and the Female Dilemma,” – a discussion with Ms. Friedan and her counterpart [Simone de Beauvoir] in France. The article recommends communes, places to keep children, taking them away from fathers and mothers so they can grow up independently, sexually. I don’t know that we are ready to do that. I am convinced to a moral certainty that we are not.67

65 Senator Dempsey Barron, SCR 2 Remarks, Journal of the Florida Senate, (April 13, 1977): 143-145. 66 Ibid. 67 Ibid. Senator Barron is referring to the article with the dialogue between Betty Friedan and Simone de Beauvoir, “Sex, Society and the Female Dilemma,” Saturday Review (June 14, 1975): 14-20, 56. Twisting the content of the dialogue and using a frequent legislative debate tactic of selectively interpreting phrases out of context, Barron only

166

Barron ended his passionate debate by asking his fellow senators to vote their conscience and “vote ‘no’ on the resolution referred to as the Equal Rights Amendment.”68 Jubilant cheering came from the women dressed in red sitting in the senate gallery.

Figure 3.4. Senator Dempsey Barron (right) and Senator Pat Thomas. Courtesy of State Archives of Florida, photo by Donn Dughi.

For ERA proponents, Senator Betty Castor, using an equality frame, argued that “in spite of the Equal Pay Act of 1973 and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act,” existing laws were not

“doing the job” of preventing discrimination. She said that 38.5 million women in the labor force were single, separated, divorced, widowed, or had spouses who were in low-paying jobs. Castor said most women in public office supported the Equal Rights Amendment.69

emphasized radical comments made by de Beauvoir. Left out of his remarks was the disillusioned summary of the dialogue by Friedan, who defended marriage, family, and women working in the home. The publication was being distributed by Schlafly to frame the argument that opponents wanted to destroy the family as an institution and end the role of women as homemakers. By detaching the dialogue article from the summary article the entire discussion was out of context. 68 Senator Dempsey Barron, SCR 2 Remarks, Journal of the Florida Senate, (April 13, 1977): 143-145. 69 ERA Debate, Florida Senate, Office of the Secretary of the Senate, (April 13, 1977), s 625, B817-10, tape 1, Florida State Archives, Tallahassee, Florida.

167

Figure 3.5. Senator Betty Castor. Courtesy of State Archives of Florida, photo by Donn Dughi.

Senator Lori Wilson gave an impassioned and stirring closing argument in support of ratification. Rather than focusing on opponents’ claims, Wilson rhetorically asked why the ERA was in trouble in the ten southern states. Answering the question, Wilson proclaimed: “ … the good old boys in the southern legislatures traditionally do not consider people issues like ERA on their merit. They consider only what it might do to their own manliness or their money-ness or their manpower.” She explained that historically “the good old boys in Southern politics refused to give up their slaves … [or] approve the 19th Amendment, granting women the right to vote … fought the 1964 Civil Rights Act … until the rest of this nation fought them in the courtrooms, and on the streets, and at the polls … with legal power, and … PEOPLE

POWER.”70 She described “people power” and how it would eventually prevail, even in the

South:

People Power is a strange and marvelous thing. It is often painfully slow to develop. But once it awakens and mobilizes, it is awesome, and it prevails. And so it must and will prevail on ERA. If not today, then certainly on another day.

70 Senator Lori Wilson, SCR 2 Closing Remarks, Journal of the Florida Senate, (April 13, 1977): 145-146. See also Williams, “Women Against Women,” 46.

168 Even throughout the South. Even in our beloved Florida. Even in these Senate chambers.71

Wilson proclaimed that senators had a choice between two turns on the road before them.

“We can take the same old southern pig trail, which leads to nowhere.” Scornful bellowing from

ERA opponents dressed in red in the senate gallery broke out when Wilson made this statement.

Ignoring the clamor, Wilson asked senators to “travel a brand-new superhighway being paved with People Power, which leads everywhere.” Wilson plaintively asked: “Wouldn’t it be nice this time to take the high road, and join our fellow Americans traveling in the right direction?”

Concluding, Wilson straightened her tall frame and declared that she had a dream in which a southern boy could grow up to be President [referring to President Jimmy Carter from Georgia] and “that our good old boys in the South can grow up to be men.”72

Figure. 3.6. Senator Lori Wilson debating the Equal Rights Amendment. Courtesy of State Archives of Florida.

71 Senator Lori Wilson, SCR 2 Closing Remarks, Journal of the Florida Senate, (April 13, 1977): 145-146. 72 Ibid. See also Williams, “Women Against Women,” 46, and “The Sexes: The Unmaking of an Amendment,” Time (Monday, April 25, 1977).

169 After some attempted parliamentary maneuvers, the vote was quickly called. The resolution was defeated 21-19. Screeching and applause came from the senate gallery and the nearby hallways. The women in red and green scattered through the hallways, either grieving or celebrating, depending on whether they wore red or green. The opponents cornered Senator

Barron, and an elderly lady handed him a red rose and hugged him saying: “Praise the Lord for you, Senator!”73

Figure 3.7. Senator Bob Graham and ERA proponents and opponents after the senate vote. Courtesy of State Archives of Florida.

Proponents consoled each other and the legislative sponsors, and then headed back to their headquarters in a decaying old downtown hotel. A few hours later they were making signs that said: “Men of quality aren't afraid of women with equality.”74

The Equal Rights Amendment was not brought to the house floor since it was defeated in the Senate. The real reason for defeat of the ERA in 1977 had very little to do with the actual public policy issues that the ERA represented. Supporters claimed that “arm-twisting” and

73 Journal of the Florida Senate, (April 13, 1977): 146. See also Williams, “Women Against Women,” 46. 74 MacPherson, “Florida Senate Rejects Equal Rights Amendment in 21-19 Vote,” A1.

170 “backroom deals” were the cause for the sudden change in decisive votes. President Carter’s staff member, Mark Siegel, explained that the senate leadership played “absolute hard ball” … threatening to take away committee chairmanships if senators did not oppose the ERA. Senator

MacKay said that fighting leadership meant, “committee assignments go to hell, your bills don't go anywhere.” Senate President Barron’s response was: “That's what losers always say.”75

Additionally, political personality conflicts with Senator Barron played a role in the defeat. Barron said he saw the vote as a victory against Gov. Reubin Askew, to whom he once said: “Get out of my Senate!” Barron also sparred with female house ERA sponsors and when one of them “threatened to expose an illicit affair of a senator if he did not change his vote,

Barron said, ‘I'll get five yes votes to switch just like that,’ and snapped his fingers, ‘if that happens.’” Confirming the personality clashes, ERA proponent Senator Bob Graham said: “It’s unfortunate that something of such fundamental importance as the ERA got caught up in almost undergraduate jealousy.”76

National ERA proponent Betty Friedan threatened Barron with a convention boycott. He replied: “That doesn't bother me. We got oceans, white sand, orange juice, and Anita Bryant, and that's enough for me.”77 Proponents launched the boycott, and ironically, Barron and the other north Florida legislators’ districts were not affected by the boycott. South Florida legislators, who were mostly in favor of the ERA, felt the boycott in their districts. Miami convention officials estimated that the boycott cost the area approximately $9 million. Hal Cohen of the

Miami Convention Bureau said: “The legislators in northern Florida aren’t hurt … by [the]

75 Ibid. See also “The Sexes: The Unmaking of an Amendment,” Time (Monday, April 25, 1977), and Lawrence Van Gelder, “After the Early Rush, the ERA is Now at a Standstill,” New York Times (April 1, 1977): 34. 76 MacPherson, “Florida Senate Rejects Equal Rights Amendment in 21-19 Vote,” A1. 77 Ibid. See also “The Sexes: The Unmaking of an Amendment,” Time (Monday, April 25, 1977). Senator Bob Graham was elected governor in November 1978.

171 convention boycott. It’s like getting mad at Russia and placing an embargo on bananas from

Nicaragua -- you hurt the wrong people.”78

Both proponents and opponents of the amendment believed that Florida’s action might have been a possible end for the ERA. The federal deadline was March 22, 1979 (it was later changed by Congress to June 30, 1982). Proponents said that unless there was a major change in the makeup of southern legislatures the following year, the amendment had almost no chance of being ratified. In 1977, Indiana ratified the amendment but it was defeated in North Carolina,

Illinois, Oklahoma, Missouri and Florida. Proponents said that the fall elections in southern states would be the next target.79

As early as 1977, the broader national strategy was clear to Florida’s ERA sponsor Rep.

Elaine Gordon. She claimed that beyond the ERA, the conservative groups were engaged “in a conscious strategy to build a national right-wing political machine.” Gordon said that opponents

Phyllis Schlafly, Shirley Spellerberg, and Dave Smith, were not only representing certain religious organizations but were also officers in the Conservative Union, which was expanding conservative influence and power in Florida. Gordon noted that at a statewide Conservative

Caucus meeting in Orlando, the organization’s director, Howard Phillips, urged participants to

“play into your STOP ERA movement … make them understand that they are less likely to win their battles by themselves than if they join with others.” Gordon angrily declared that Schlafly was spreading lies “to frighten well-meaning men and women into political action that has as its real goal their recruitment and involvement in activities as diverse and unrelated as opposition to

78 The boycott was conducted by over 55 organizations including the League of Women Voters, National Education Association, Democratic National Committee, American Psychological Association, United Auto Workers, National Organization for Women, and Common Cause. “ERA Costing Miami Convention Money,” The Miami News (December 27, 1977): 5A. See also “Women Urge Boycotts for Anti-ERA States,” The Sumter Daily Item (December 26, 1977): 7A. 79 MacPherson, “Florida Senate Rejects Equal Rights Amendment in 21-19 Vote,” A1. See also Nancy Hicks, “Florida Senate Rejects Equal Rights Proposal, 21-19; Backers Now to Focus Efforts on 1978 Elections,” New York Times (April 14, 1977): 18.

172 busing, support of right to work laws, opposition to the ban on Rhodesian chrome, and opposition to the postcard registration of voters.” Gordon presciently observed that the longer it took for ERA ratification, “the more time Phyllis Schlafly has to use it as an organizing tool.”80

Indeed, Gordon astutely understood the nature of the ERA opposition that she faced as a proponent. Concern about social issues was becoming the primary counterpoint to equality.

Further, the debate over social issues masked economic anxiety in the late 1970s when gas prices were skyrocketing, interest rates were high, and more than half of American women were in the workforce. The next conflict reflecting the clash of limiting and moral frames would occur only months later at what was supposed to be a harmonious celebration of the International Women’s

Year.

1977 International Women’s Year State Conference Meeting

In the summer of 1977, state conferences were meeting to select delegates to represent the state in the National Women’s Conference commemorating the U. S. International Women’s

Year (IWY). The national and state conferences were funded by federal legislation to make recommendations on federal action. Delegates selected through state conferences were to meet in

Houston, Texas on November 18-21, 1977. ERA proponents had prewired the nation’s state conferences with pre-determined rules concerning conference topics.

80 In a speech after the ERA was passed in the Senate Rules Committee and prior to the floor debate two days later, Elaine Gordon Speech, April 11, 1977, Tallahassee, Florida. Elaine Gordon Archives. P. 1. Defending a religious view of the family against the sexual revolution, ERA opponents were actively opposing child daycare and child abuse legislation, despite the fact that even conservative religious mothers were streaming into the workforce by economic necessity. Reacting to the religious opposition on the childcare issue connected to ERA, Gordon blamed Schlafly and her religious colleagues for “having an unusual definition of protection when it comes to children.” Several ministers joined with Schlafly and others in South Carolina, Indiana, and Florida to oppose child abuse legislation and kill legislation requiring private day care centers to meet certain health and safety standards, Gordon said. She maintained that the religious leaders opposed the legislation because they said that, “the Bible mandates corporal punishment and requires parents to break a child’s will because children are born in sin.” Despite extensive reports of child abuse, Gordon said, “A coalition of fundamentalist ministers who are a major part of the anti-ERA opposition killed the [private daycare] licensing bill. The same people also prevented strengthening of the state’s child abuse statute.”

173 In Florida, a storm was brewing between religious ERA opponents and the state conference organizers. Rep. Gwen Cherry was the conference chair. Cherry, also a woman of faith and leader of her church, tried to downplay the controversy: “It’s been my hope that we could stay away from differences if we could.” However, ERA opponents coalesced against the

ERA proponents. Opponents, including Shirley Spellerberg, organized inter-denominational religious-based opposition. Additionally, Freeman Baguette of Sanford, President of the Central

Florida area of the Mormon Church said that hundreds of Mormons, Baptists, Presbyterians,

Episcopalians, and women of other faiths, were going to the conference to “protect the family.”

Spellerberg opposed the use of tax dollars to fund the conferences: “I’m very upset about the $5 million they are spending nationwide … and Florida is getting $100,000 for the Orlando deal.”81

What happened when the two warring factions came together at the Florida Women’s

Conference? In several sessions, women shouted at each other and the conference was described as “stormy.” The 2,700 participating conference delegates selected 40 national delegates to attend the national conference, but there was no agreement on women’s rights issues, such as the

Equal Rights Amendment. Open forums and group meetings dissolved into “shouting matches,” with each side “booing and jeering,” and there were no unanimous votes on the Florida platform, especially ERA and abortion rights. However, ERA sponsor Senator Lori Wilson was elected delegation chair. Due to the conference meltdown, the state delegates were not bound to resolutions and would not vote as a bloc at the national assembly in Houston.82

81 Ike Flores, “Anti-feminist Challenge Brewing at State Women’s Convention,” St. Petersburg Times (July 15, 1977): 12B. The Florida committee already approved a slate of 47 nominees for 40 delegates and five alternate positions for the national gathering. Nominations from the floor were accepted but only under certain conditions and for only a brief period of time. 82 “Florida women Yell, Boo, End Stormy Conference,” The Miami News (July 18, 1977): 7A. See also “The Tide Swells Against ERA,” The Miami News (July 18, 1977): 7A. The conference participants voted on 33 resolutions hammered out in 50 workshops.

174 At the National Conference in Houston, over 130,000 women and some men assembled to draft a “National Plan of Action” including public policy proposals on behalf of women.83

Divisions among conference members were well publicized in the media. Also, to further sensationalize media attention of the National Conference, across town STOP ERA leader

Phyllis Schlafly organized a “counter-conference,” called the Pro-Family Movement. The alternate conference was the birthplace of an additional conservative religious women’s group,

Concerned Women for America (CWA), founded by Beverly LaHaye, wife of Baptist minister

Tim LaHaye. The CWA was formed as an explicitly religious political organization for women who could practice “kitchen table lobbying” and engage in prayer for the defeat of the ERA.84

***

In the Equal Rights Amendment battle in Florida, 1977 was a game changer. Proponents shifted strategies to include homemakers and appeal to religious women by creating the

Religious Committee for ERA. They developed an active coalition of religious women who were from the mainstream and deployed them in strategic efforts to build support for ERA ratification.

Proponents also focused on electing pro-ERA legislators and they succeeded in persuading three senators to switch their votes. Senator MacKay was an example of this effective persuasion, challenged by university women and homemakers to rethink his position. More women joined

83 The delegates included religious fundamentalists and conservatives who won a majority of seats in states such as Indiana and Kansas. Some state conferences had passed resolutions supporting the ERA. Others, like Florida, simply brought the resolution to the national conference without a consensus. In Utah 14,000 participants, mostly from Mormon churches, passed an anti-ERA resolution and sent delegates that were all Mormon except one woman. Mississippi sent seven white male delegates and one female black alternate. Ike Flores, “Anti-feminist Challenge Brewing at State Women’s Convention,” St. Petersburg Times (July 15, 1977): 12B. See also Marjorie J. Spruill, “Gender and America’s Right Turn,” in Bruce J. Schulman and Julian E. Zelizer, eds., A History of the Religious Right, Rightward Bound: Making America Conservative in the 1970s, (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2008): 71. See also Nancy E. McGlen, Karen O’Connor, Laura van Assendelft, an Wendy Gunther-Canada, Women, Politics, and American Society, 4th ed. (New York: Pearson Longman, 2005): 252. 84 Nancy E. McGlen, Karen O’Connor, Laura van Assendelft, an Wendy Gunther-Canada, Women, Politics, and American Society, 4th ed. (New York: Pearson Longman, 2005), 252. See also Susan E. Marshall, “Who Speaks for American Women? The Future of American Antifeminism,” Annals of the American Political and Social Science 515 (May 1991): 57.

175 the effort to pass the ERA. Proponents maintained the limiting equality and rights frame but were using moral language as they designed their pamphlets, structured their arguments, and engaged in debates.

Although both sides claimed enormous success in mobilizing and raising the political consciousness of women, when ERA opponents were galvanized, they became part of what would be a much larger social movement through tapping into cultural assumptions about how women should behave. Employing the broad moral frame with normative ideas about gender roles and family, opponents were gaining ground by raising fears and harnessing cultural assumptions about how women should behave. The Dade County Gay Rights Ordinance and

International Year of the Woman state conference activated more women and conservative churches. Reaction against feminism, abortion, and gay rights was an “ideologically powered, strategically organized, and well-financed political movement.”85 Consequently, the opposing views on gender roles and the family became the focal point for a “rightward turn in American politics.”86

1978: The ERA is not Considered by the Legislature; Proposed Florida Constitutional Amendment 2 Fails

1978 Legislative Session

The legislature did not take up the ERA during the 1978 legislative session, although the resolutions were filed in the House and Senate. Governor Askew’s last opening day address to the legislature noted that the Constitution Revision Commission would be finishing its work by

May 9, 1978 and submitting proposals directly to the people. Askew referred to the ERA: “The fact that we are not taking up the Equal Rights Amendment should not be interpreted by anyone

85 Cohen, Delirium, 3. 86 Marjorie J. Spruill, “Gender and America’s Right Turn,” in Bruce J. Schulman and Julian E. Zelizer, eds., A History of the Religious Right, Rightward Bound: Making America Conservative in the 1970s, (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2008): 71.

176 as a lack of commitment by those of us who remain determined that someday this amendment will be made a part of the United States Constitution.” Gazing at legislators, he declared: “We look to this year’s election to provide fresh direction on ERA.”87

Remarkably, other legislation and appropriations addressing women’s issues passed. For example, after two years of intense lobbying, in 1978, the legislature allocated generous funds for compliance with Title IX, designed to eliminate discrimination in women’s college athletics.

Barbara Palmer, then Director of Women’s Athletics at Florida State University, successfully lobbied the Florida House of Representatives and Senate for increased funding. She said that

Senator Dempsey Barron and others were so happy that she was not there to lobby for the ERA, that they cheerfully granted her request.88

Figure 3.8. Woman listening to Governor Askew’s speech. Courtesy of State Archives of Florida, photo by Donn Dughi.

87 Governor Reubin Askew’s Opening Day Speech, Journal of the Florida House of Representatives, (April 4, 1978): 12. 88 Barbara J. Palmer, conversation on April 25, 2011 at the Florida capitol. Palmer was honored for her incredible work by induction into the Florida Women’s Hall of Fame and with a Lifetime Achievement Award from National Association of Collegiate Women Athletics Administrators. See http://www.fcsw.net/halloffame/WHOFbios/palmer.htm and http://www.seminoles.com/sports/w-softbl/spec- rel/100507aaa.html. Currently, she serves as the agency director for Florida’s Agency for Persons with Disabilities.

177 1977-78 Constitution Revision Commission

Every 20 years, an appointed Constitution Revision Commission reviewed the Florida

Constitution and made recommendations for amendments. Miami attorney Talbot “Sandy”

D’Alemberte89 presided over 36 members of the Constitution Revision Commission.90 For 15 months the commission held public meetings throughout the state, debated over 800 issues, and made 87 proposals that were thoroughly debated. Eventually, eight proposed constitutional amendments from the commission were presented to voters in November 1978.91

89 Sandy D’Alemberte is an amazing figure throughout Florida’s modern history. A self-described “McGovern Liberal,” he served in the Legislature (1966-1972), chaired numerous commissions, was Florida State University’s Law School Dean (1984-1989) and President (1994-2002), was President of the American Bar Association (1991- 1992), and now handles dozens of pro bono cases as an attorney in private practice and as a law professor and President Emeritus. In an introduction to the 1997-1998 Constitution Revision Law Review Commentary D’Alemberte addressed concerns about appointments to that commission by the Republican Speaker of the House and the Republican Senate President, which show his political philosophy (by then Florida had a Republican majority in both the House and Senate). D’Alemberte wrote: Many commentators have said that the current Commission is largely a conservative panel. As I may be the last person in Florida public life who still thinks of himself as a liberal, I hope the reader will permit me a word from the left. Those who are familiar with my political leanings will be surprised to hear that I am enthusiastic about having a conservative commission. I do not fear a conservative panel, as long as its conservatism is a traditional one in the best sense of the word. I believe that true conservatives will be very careful to think about the long view of history and that they will have a high regard for the continuation of those freedoms that protect us against the excesses of the modern state. Talbot “Sandy” D'Alemberte "The 1997-98 Constitution Revision Commission: Reflections and Commentary from the Commission's First Chairman," Florida State Univ. Law Review 25 (1997-1998); 19. [The author had the pleasure of working for Mr. D’Alemberte while he was the President of Florida State University.] 90 The Constitutional Revision Commission members included: Edward R. Annis, James W. "Jim" Apthorp, DuBose Ausley, Thomas H. Barkdull, Dempsey J. Barron, Bill Birchfield, Lew Brantley, Yvonne Burkholz, William C. Clark, LeRoy Collins, John DeGrove, Dexter W. Douglass, William H. Gardner, Freddie Groomes, Lois Harrison, Mark C. Hollis, Charlotte Hubbard, Bill James, James W. Kynes, Jack Mathews, Jesse J. McCrary, Elliott Messer, Sybil Collins Mobley, John H. Moore, Richard V. Moore, Warren Morgan, Jon Moyle, Marcello Oliva, Ben F. Overton, Ken Plante, Jan Kaminis Platt, Nathaniel Polak, Donald H. Reed, Nathaniel Reed, B.K. Roberts, John L. Ryals, Robert L. Shevin, J.B. Spence, Stella F. Thayer, John T. Ware, Sandy D'Alemberte. State Archives of Florida, Florida Memory, http://floridamemory.com/items/show/2024. 91 Billy Buzzett and Steven J. Uhlfelder, “Constitution Revision Commission: A Retrospective and Prospective Sketch,” Florida Bar Journal 71 (April 1997) 4: 22. From August 18, 1978 to September 26, 1978, ten public hearings were conducted in the following cities: Pensacola, Jacksonville, Gainesville, Ft. Myers, Tampa, Orlando, Ft. Pierce, Ft. Lauderdale, Miami, and Tallahassee. The 87 proposed changes included 47 substantive and 40 procedural changes. The author attended meetings of the commission in 1978.

178 There was considerable debate through the year over the whether, and how to, draft a

“Little ERA” as a proposal for the Florida Constitution.92 Proponents on the commission were divided about strategy and engaged in constant conflict over an approach to a Florida ERA constitutional amendment. Several commissioners proposed an anti-discrimination clause, while others argued that it was not needed because the Florida Constitution already provided that all natural persons were equal before the law. Former House Minority Leader and ERA lobbyist

Don Reed said that many women believed they needed the words spelled out, “so why not give them this statement that we are opposed to discrimination?” Ultimately, the commission settled on a proposal to simply add the word “sex” to the current prohibition against discrimination based on race, religion, or physical disability.93

Months later, at the final meeting on May 5, 1978, some commission members who were

ERA supporters were concerned about placing the issue before voters because adding the word

“sex” was not the same as placing an ERA in the constitution, thereby confusing voters.

Commissioners Don Reed, Lois Harrison, and Yvonne Burkholz who had lobbied on behalf of the ERA were concerned about how the amendment would be framed. They were actually discussing the difference between limiting and moral frames. On the one hand, the limiting frame of equality was focused so that many Florida voters would agree that discrimination based on sex should be prohibited. On the other hand, proponents knew that opponents would use a broad

92 “State Constitution Panel Adopts ‘Little ERA’ Plan,” Lakeland Ledger (December 9, 1977): 1A. In December 1977, the Constitution Revision Commission approved the “Little ERA” proposal, which would add a provision barring sexual discrimination to the Florida Constitution. Proponents fought off amendments intended to kill the “the Little ERA” provision, including a proposal that would have repealed the current constitutional prohibitions against discrimination based on race, religion, or physical handicap. The amendment’s sponsor Commissioner Bill Burchfield said a provision that all persons are equal before the law protected blacks and women. Commissioner Freddie Groomes responded: “Let me tell you as a black woman being a natural person has not been enough for me.” 93 “Adoption of the word ‘sex’ would outlaw discrimination,” Boca Raton News (December 9, 1977): 5A.

179 moral frame designed to appeal to voters’ fears about sexual issues such as abortion rights and homosexual marriage.

Commissioner Harrison argued: “Heated emotions can overrule clear thinking and cloud decisions.” Agreeing with Harrison, Commissioner Burkholz said that the issue “is incapable of being treated not emotionally.” Juxtaposing emotion and reason, Burkholz continued:

It is incapable of being treated logically, even by logical women and men. I fear … that despite our protestations that this is not an equal rights amendment, that as Commissioner Harrison has pointed out, the press and the people will deal with it this way.94

Commissioner Attorney General Bob Shevin, also an ERA proponent, supported the move. Commissioner Shevin disagreed vehemently with the other proponents, stating that the people of Florida would be able to grasp the issue. He said that people would vote to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex, and concluded: “We are not talking about sexual preference.”95

The final Constitution Revision Proposed Amendment 2 would have added the word

“sex” to the Florida Constitution. Thus, the proposal stated: “No person shall be deprived of any right because of race, religion, sex, or physical handicaps.”96

Prior to the November vote, there was a major media campaign on the constitutional amendments that “barraged voters … with depictions of the utopias or the nightmares

[supporters and foes said would] happen if the amendments were passed.” On the one hand, the

94 Ruth L. Gokel, “One Small Word: Sexual Equality Through the State Constitution,” Florida State University Law Review 6 (1978): 952. Gokel reviewed the transcripts of the Constitution Revision Commission to analyze the development of Amendment 2 in light of the pending federal Equal Rights Amendment. Her brilliant analysis indicates that political concern is why the strong ERA proponents tried to remove Amendment 2 from the November ballot at the last commission meeting: “Between March 9 and May 5 [1978], some testing of the prevailing political climate appears to have taken place.” 95 Gokel, “One Small Word: Sexual Equality,” 52. The author was an intern in Attorney General Shevin’s office in 1978. 96 Joseph W. Little, “The Need to Revise the Florida Constitutional Revision Commission,” Florida Law Review, 52 (2000): 483. Emphasis added.

180 League of Women Voters framed a “utopia” where women would not be discriminated against if

Amendment 2 passed. On the other hand, Anita Bryant used a moral frame to argue that if the

“Little ERA” passed, the “nightmare” would be that homosexuals would be able to marry and adopt children. Opponents mailed flyers to “explain the sound basis for our concern about homosexual marriage,” according to Shirley Spellerberg. Florida’s Attorney General Bob Shevin countered opponents’ argument indicating that confusion came from the word “sex,” which was not the same as “sexual preference.” Again, proponents used limiting egalitarian frames to present the benefits of equality and women’s rights while opponents used a moral frame to portray a chaotic future if the “Little ERA” constitutional amendment was approved. The battle was waged in newspapers, on television, and on the radio.97

On November 7, 1978, the voters defeated all of the proposed constitutional amendments, including Amendment 2, “the Little ERA.” Did religion play a role in the defeat of the proposed amendments? Yes, in fact, masses of conservative religious voters were mobilized to vote on the amendments. Political observers and constitutional scholars believed Governor Askew’s war against casinos played an important role in the defeat of all the amendments.98 Indeed,

D’Alemberte said that Askew’s ferocious campaign against Amendment 9 permitting casino gambling hurt the chances of the other eight proposals: “His casino gambling campaign, which was very effective, brought out voters who were inclined to vote no on anything that had to do

97 Ardith Hilliard, “Rash of Commercials Adds to Confusion Over Constitution Revision,” St. Petersburg Times (November 7, 1978): 3B. See also Faye S. Joyce, “The Scare and the Vote Shouldn’t Sink the ERA,” St. Petersburg Times (November 11, 1978): 18A and “Women Voters Rap Anti-ERA Ad,” Daytona Beach Morning Journal, (November 7, 1978): 2B. Ads arguing that if Amendment 2 passed homosexuals would be allowed to marry were released in statewide media centers in the days before the November 7, 1978 referendum. The ads also stated that protections aimed at discrimination were already provided under the 14th Amendment. 98 Buzzett and Uhlfelder, “Constitution Revision Commission,” 22. The Casino Gambling amendment was defeated by a vote of 687,460, to 1,720,275. However, in hindsight more than 40 percent of the 1977-78 commission’s substantive proposals were ultimately enacted into law or approved later as ballot initiatives.

181 with changing the constitution.” Rep. Curt Kiser joked that even if the Ten Commandments were on the ballot they would have been defeated.99

D’Alemberte also said he was shocked by the wide margin of defeat for the ERA amendment. He blamed the defeat on opponents’ assertions that it would allow homosexual marriages. D’Alemberte said: “I think the whole scare campaign about homosexuals has been a lot more effective than I thought it would be.” Indeed, when asked what caused the defeat of

Amendment 2, chief ERA opponent Shirley Spellerberg stated gleefully: “It was God and the grassroots!”100 Despite positive polling numbers before the vote, the amendment lost by a 3-2 margin (58% to 42%). As proponents feared, Amendment 2 was seen as a “straw ballot” on whether Floridians supported the ERA.101

Proponents feared that the vote would solidify senate opposition. They felt that the voters were overwhelmed and confused about Amendment 2. For example, when proponents were making calls to garner support before the vote, many call recipients met them with confusion.

According to Susan Shulman of the League of Women Voters of South Palm Beach County, trying to explain the insertion of the word “sex” into the Florida Constitution was enormously challenging. For example, one person responded to a call: “I’m too old for sex;” another said, “I can’t talk about it right now; my wife is standing here;” and another person said: “That’s private and I can’t talk about it over the phone.”102

Not only did ERA opponents’ success at in the November election against the proposed constitutional amendments boost their efforts, they were also able to raise funds for political

99 Paul Tash, “Constitution Revision Proposals Fail; Republicans Sweep Pinellas Races,” St. Petersburg Times (November 8, 1978): 1B. 100 Faye S. Joyce, “The Scare and the Vote Shouldn’t Sink the ERA,” St. Petersburg Times (November 11, 1978): 18A. 101 Tash, “Constitution Revision Proposals Fail,” 1B. Amendment 2 was rejected 1,002,479 to 1,326,497. 102 Melinda Robinson, “It’s Not Really a Sexy Question,” Boca Raton News, (November 7, 1978): 11A.

182 candidates sharing their opposition to ERA. In fact, the Mormon Church contributed thousands of dollars to anti-ERA candidates in the waning days of the 1978 election. At least $60,000 was contributed to candidates in Florida in the last 17 days of the election. The funds were contributed to four candidates, a statewide advertising blitz, and printing and mailing over anti-

ERA 425,000 leaflets.103

Finally, ERA supporters were pleased that two ERA proponents replaced two ERA opponents in the senate in the November election. Additionally, the U.S. Congress passed a three-year extension for the ERA deadline, from March 22, 1979 to June 30, 1982. This relieved some of the pressure on proponents who were buoyed by their ability to lobby Congress successfully for the extension.

***

The years 1977 and 1978 reveal a growing polarization between legislative ERA proponents and opponents. The forces on each side also metamorphosed in different directions.

On the one hand, proponents from the Women’s Movement had to address conflict inherent in encompassing a “big tent” approach to politics and ERA ratification. The lack of rigidity concerning religious beliefs, moral vision, and ideology, enabled pluralistic and diverse viewpoints to be part of the ERA advocacy effort. The very strength of the movement with its inclusiveness and tolerance became a liability, and divisions arose over goals, priorities, and strategies. On the other hand, opponents were able to unite diverse conservative political and religious groups by focusing on narrow social concerns and a conservative moral ideology.

103 About $26,000 was donated to Families are Concerned Today (FACT) an anti-ERA Political Action Committee, and $15,000 was donated to the senate campaigns of ERA opponents Senator Van Poole, Senator John Ware, and candidates Billie Brooks and David Ray. The campaign was organized by a regional church representative in Florida, Jay N. Lybbert, who said he simply “talked to a few friends,” who may or may not have believed he was raising money for the Mormon Church. Indeed, Richard Chapple, President of the Tallahassee Mormon Church District, said that after Lybbert called him, he contacted several Mormon bishops to raise money for FACT Florida. “Paper Reports Mormons Aided ERA Foes,” The Press Courier (April 20, 1980): 3C. See also “Mormons Launched Anti-ERA Campaign in ’78, Paper Says,” St. Petersburg Times (April 21, 1980): 2B.

183 Parlaying fears and a “parade of horribles” into church activism, opponents were able to fuse women from diverse religious denominations together with declining conservative organizations to create a newly energized effort against the ERA. Opposition to ERA and the dystopian future that opponents painted should the resolution pass, offered a lucrative means of bringing attention and resources to the emerging Religious Right.

184

CHAPTER 4

UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES: THE RISE OF THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT, AND THE LAST FLORIDA ERA BATTLE, 1979 – 1982

The revolution of rising expectations of women of this … country will only be met by full equality – full equality of opportunity in employment, in education, and in the restructuring of all institutions and professions in the world outside the home that have up to now been fully structured as man’s world. This means, of course, also restructuring of the home and of marriage and of childbearing.1 ~ Betty Friedan

The Positive Woman rejects the ‘gender-free’ approach. She knows that there are many differences between male and female and that we are entitled to have our laws, regulations, schools, and courts reflect these differences and allow for reasonable differences in treatment and separations of activities that reasonable men and women want.2 ~ Phyllis Schlafly

Suppressing the genuine economic concerns of women at the end of the decade, the debate over the ERA continued to center on social issues. Several Harris Polls in early 1979 indicated that Americans were pessimistic about the U.S. economy; they felt the U.S. was in a recession; they were personally “hurting economically” and “having a harder time making ends meet;” and that “if women don’t speak up for themselves and confront men on their real problems, nothing will be done about these problems.”3 This common economic anxiety about money was sublimated as proponents tried to highlight the need for equality and opponents were successfully emphasizing abortion, homosexuality, unisex bathrooms, and other social issues.

Religion remained central to the conflict and in 1979 a pivotal shift led to an exacerbation of strength of opposition organizations. As historian Nancy Cohen observes in Delirium, the sexual counterrevolution was spawned by opposition of conservative women to women’s

1 Betty Friedan, “Women’s Rights and the Revolution of Rising Expectations,” in Miriam Schneir, ed., Feminism in Our Time: The Essential Writings, World War II to the Present, (New York: Vintage Books, 1994), 381. 2 Phyllis Schlafly, The Power of the Positive Woman, (New Rochelle, NY: Arlington House Publishers, 1977), 22. 3 “Economy,” Harris Polls, 1979, located at: http://www.harrisinteractive.com/Insights/HarrisVault.aspx.

185 equality: “In their campaign against the ERA, they developed the necessary tools to move beyond this single issue to forge a broad social movement: a coherent ideology; a communications network; a mass base of committed activists led by charismatic leaders with political know-how; and a viable political strategy to stop their enemies.” Cohen said the powerful grassroots movement, “initiated, led, and prosecuted by ordinary women, who were compelled to act by their belief that the American Way, true religion, and civilization itself all stood on the foundation of the traditional family and its biblically ordained submission of women.”4 New religious political organizations organized to battle what they perceived as an attack on religion. Shifting from a “vocal minority exercising a moral veto,” the ERA opponents became part of a larger social movement that would be called the Religious Right.5

This chapter demonstrates the continued effect of religion on the ERA debate, as well as the intensifying conservative religious opposition to the ERA. In 1979 the ERA was heard in both legislative chambers as an amendment to human rights legislation. There was no legislative action in 1980 and 1981 and not a lot of evidence of major state activity on the ERA, other than ads placed in newspapers. Why the lack of political movement on the ERA in those years? Most efforts were focused on the national level and conservative Republican Ronald Reagan was elected president. Perhaps ERA supporters, many of which supported Senator Ted Kennedy for

President over President Jimmy Carter in the Democratic primary, were exhausted from the long battle. There was also no action in the regular legislative session of 1982, which was consumed by legislative reapportionment. Governor Bob Graham called a special legislative session in

1982 just prior to the expiration date for final consideration of the ERA by states. There was a

4 Nancy L. Cohen, Delirium: How the Sexual Counterrevolution is Polarizing America, (Berkeley: Counterpoint Press, 2012), 54, 55. 5 Gene Burns, The Moral Veto: Contraception, Abortion, and Cultural Pluralism in the United States, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005).

186 surge of activity on both sides, and then the ERA was defeated, just days before the national deadline, and three states short of ratification.

1979: Parliamentary Maneuverings Enable the ERA Debate in Both Houses

Dressed in red and green outfits for the seventh year of the ERA debate, women paraded from office to office as the 1979 Legislative Session began. Newly elected and fresh from the state senate, progressive Democratic Governor Robert “Bob” Graham urged ERA ratification in his first opening day speech to the legislature: “The time has come also to do our part in amending the United States Constitution by including within that document a simple but necessary assertion: ‘Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the

United States or by any state on account of sex.’”6

Figure 4.1. Governor Bob Graham addressed the 1979 legislature asking for ERA ratification. Courtesy of State Archives of Florida.

6 Governor Bob Graham Opening Day Speech. Journal of the Florida House of Representatives, (April 3, 1979): 8.

187 The ERA resolution was introduced but did not receive a hearing in the house. House

Resolution (HCR 2 - Gordon) died in the House Rules and Calendar Committee. Rep. Cherry, who usually introduced an identical resolution in the house, was tragically killed in a one-person car accident in February.7

Continually frustrated by the senate obstruction of the ERA, legislative proponents sponsored other legislation addressing “sex issues,” often causing embarrassment to their male colleagues to make their points. Rep. Elaine Gordon, for example, sponsored a bill to allow minors to get contraceptives without the consent of their parents. Knowing that the bill would not make it to a full vote of the house amid criticisms that it would “destroy the family unit and condone promiscuity,” Gordon argued that legislators did not like policy addressing “sex issues,” unless “they’re on the side of what [was an] acceptable Christian ethic.” Church groups claiming they were “not being good Christians” unless they voted a certain way influenced lawmakers,

Gordon complained. She said that poor children on federally funded assistance programs could obtain contraceptive devices and birth control information without parental consent, so middle- class white girls were discriminated against from obtaining medical care, information, and contraceptives. Responding to Gordon’s bill, Rep. T.M. “Tom” Woodruff said he voted against the bill because he did not want someone “promoting promiscuity to my 10-year-old daughter without my permission.” The bill died a quiet death.8

7 Rep. Gwen Cherry was killed in a one-person car accident on the FSU campus on February 7, 1979. Cherry, who rarely attended events without a friend, was on the FSU campus to attend the Greek tragedy Oedipus. She was driving 25-30 mph across a grassy field apparently trying to take a short cut from the stadium parking lot to a road heading away from campus when the borrowed Volkswagen station wagon she was driving plunged into a 10-foot deep drainage ditch. The Grand Jury investigated her death because it was a “freak accident.” The report said that Cherry died instantly because the steering wheel ruptured her aorta. Cherry was only 55 years old when she died. “Equal Rights Leader Dies in Crash,” Boca Raton News, (February 8, 1979): 1A. 8 Marilyn Brown, “ Sex And the Legislature,” The Evening Independent (April 26, 1979): 2A. Gordon also sponsored legislation to exempt feminine hygiene products from state tax, since male jock straps were tax exempt. She managed to get 82 co-sponsors to sign on the bill. Gordon said this was because fellow lawmakers would “open

188 1979 Senate Rules and Calendar Committee Hearing

Figure 4.2. Committee meeting with standing room only. Courtesy of State Archives of Florida, photo by Donn Dughi.

Senator Jack Gordon from Miami was the new senate sponsor since Lori Wilson chose not to run again. Senate Resolution 2 was referred to the Senate Rules and Calendar Committee chaired by ERA opponent Senator Dempsey Barron. Over the din of the crowed room Barron announced, to proponents’ chagrin, that the resolution was having its first hearing since it failed as proposed Constitutional Amendment 2 on a statewide vote. Proponents grumbled in the background that Amendment 2 was not the same as the ERA resolution. Senator Gordon coordinated the proponents’ testimony before the committee bringing religious leaders forward to support the ERA.9

Mirroring previous arguments, proponents used a limiting equality frame to portray the need for ERA by reducing and simplifying the debate to focus on equality for women while

up the jacket of the bill and be too embarrassed to read it, so they signed.” Gordon finally had to amend the bill onto another bill relating to fuel oil tax exemptions to get it passed. 9 Senate Rules and Calendar Committee, The Florida Senate, Series 625, Box 817-11, Tape 1, (April 4, 1979). Florida State Archives, Tallahassee, Florida.

189 using moral sources of authority such as the Bible and Papal Encyclicals. Conversely, opponents used a broad moral frame to argue against ERA ratification by making sweeping statements about the danger homosexuality presented to families and society.

Sister Carol Coston, O.P., the founder and leader of NETWORK, a national Catholic social Justice lobby in Washington, D.C. was representing the pluralistic Religious Committee for the ERA in Florida.10 Using an equality frame, Coston passionately declared the ERA was an important means of obtaining equality for women. Indicating that her personal call to action was inspired by Pope Paul VI’s challenge to create more effective and systematic ways to offset the

“network of domination and oppression” within global politics. Placing religious authority in the words of Pope Paul VI’s statement that men and women were equal before God, Coston said that there were spiritual principles concerning equality and human rights that were important for public policy and law. She asked the senate committee members to pass the ERA.11

After other testimony, Senator Gordon asked Rev. William Lavender to conclude the testimony in support of the ERA. Lavender handed his 10-month old baby Brooke, (who was wearing an “ERA Yes” T-shirt) to his wife and cited the Bible to argue for support of the ERA.

He said that Jesus was ahead of his day, speaking to women and treating them with equality.

Lavender quoted Galatians 5:28 that, “in Christ, male nor female are not distinguished, but all are one.” Addressing conservative religious concerns, he maintained that the ERA would

10 See Table 3.1 in chapter 3 above. The group included the following state and national organizations: National Council of Churches, American Baptist Women, Catholic Women for ERA, Christian Church/Disciples of Christ, Church of the Brethren, Church Women United in the U.S.A., Evangelical Women’s Caucus, Friends Committee on National Legislation, Les Hermanas, Leadership Conference of Women Religious, Lutheran Church Women, National Assembly of Church Women, National Coalition of American Nuns, National Council of Jewish Women, National Federation of Temple Sisterhoods, NETWORK, Presbyterian Church in the U.S., Sisters of Loretto, the United Methodist Church, Union of American Hebrew Congregations, Unitarian-Universalist Congregations, United Church of Christ, Women’s League for Conservative Judaism, and National Board of the Young Woman’s Christian Association of the U.S.A. 11 Senate Rules and Calendar Committee, The Florida Senate, Series 625, Box 817-11, Tape 1 (April 4, 1979). Florida State Archives, Tallahassee, Florida.

190 guarantee equality to all and protect the family unit, while recognizing the important economic contributions of family homemakers. He asked the senators for a favorable vote “to eliminate discrimination and to promote equality under the law for all people.”12

For ERA opponents, former proponent and recently reborn Christian Senator Alan Trask argued that the Bible provided the basis for opposition to the ERA. He said the ERA would promote homosexuality. Trask, who sponsored numerous bills for conservative religious organizations, fell in line with the senate leadership with the change in his position on the ERA.

He argued in the senate committee – as he had in previous years – that the ERA would “open the door to homosexual marriages.” Homosexual marriages were “against the laws of God” in the

Bible, Trask contended. He cited the biblical story of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, arguing that legislators “must look back on history and learn from what has happened.” Asking senators to defeat the ERA, Trask concluded that the Bible must upheld because it included

God's plan with men and women connected in a "single plan of love." Loud clapping and cheering followed Trask's remarks.13

Closing the committee hearing, Chairman Barron reviewed several recently enacted laws prohibiting discrimination, contending that the ERA was not necessary. Senate Resolution 2 failed in the committee by a vote of 12 to 4.14 Proponents used the limiting equality frame, however, opponents’ moral frames portraying the threat to families posed by homosexuality prevailed. The sexual counterrevolution was pervasive in the Florida Senate and it became the context for killing the ERA.

12 Ibid. See also Marilyn Brown, “Rules Committee Vote is 12-4,” The Evening Independent (April 4, 1979): 1A. 13 Senate Rules and Calendar Committee, Tape 2, Series 625, Box 817-13, (April, 4, 1979) Florida State Archives, Tallahassee, Florida. 14 Ibid.

191 1979 House Chamber Action on the “Surprise” ERA Amendment: “Lady, You’re Slicker than Greased Owl Spit!”

ERA opponents thought the amendment was dead again for the year, however, they were caught completely off guard by a sneaky parliamentary maneuver. Rep. Elaine Gordon amended the ERA resolution onto a senate resolution (SB 267 by Senator Jim Scott) and ultimately both chambers voted on the ERA.

Here is how it happened: at the end of a day-long debate on the annual appropriations bill, when the legislators were weary from haggling over dozens of amendments, a few “non- controversial” bills were slated to be considered. One of those bills, Senate Bill 267 relating to

Human Rights by Senator Jim Scott, was brought up by the Rules Chairman, Rep. Sam Bell.

Speaker Hyatt Brown quickly approved the motion and called the favorable vote to add it to the daily Special Order Calendar for consideration.15

Swiftly, Rep. Elaine Gordon surprised most of the legislators by offering the ERA as an amendment to the bill. Gordon argued that supporting the ERA amendment to SB 267 was a way to express to the senate that the house favors ERA ratification. She said that “any expression, as long as it embodies the identical language of the constitutional amendment” and is passed by both legislative chambers would be acceptable.16

15 SB 267 Floor Debate, Florida House of Representatives, #196-317, #390-414 Tape 7, (May 16, 1979), Florida State Archives, Tallahassee, Florida. 16 Ibid. A further parliamentary maneuver was made to move the previous question on the bill and amendment and approved amidst yelling and shouting. The House was in clamoring chaos. The motion was approved 70 yeas to 41 nays. An attempted motion to adjourn failed 47 yeas to 64 nays. Shouting, arguing, and yelling filled the House Chamber. The ERA amendment passed by a vote of 59 yeas to 49 nays. Immediately, ERA supporters moved to reconsider the bill and made a motion to lay that motion on the table, which passed 59 yeas and 48 nays. These parliamentary motions were made to prevent the motions from being offered the next day after the surprise wore off and arm-twisting occurred. The motion to move to third reading and vote on final passage failed to get the two- thirds necessary by a vote of 59 yeas and 54 nays. Opponents tried to raise a point of order that the amendment was not germane to the bill but it was too late and it was not agreed to. At the end of the debate that day, Rep. said: “Mr. Speaker, I think this has been most fun day we’ve had this session!” Speaker Hyatt Brown responded: “Congratulations to us all!” And the long legislative day ended amidst cheering and shouting.

192 The following day, May 17, 1979, was the final vote for SB 267 in the House of

Representatives. ERA opponent Rep. Ralph Haben said that he was not upset about what happened with the surprise amendment the previous day. Smiling, he said to Rep. Gordon: “That was slicker than greased owl spit.” Senate Bill 267 passed with the ERA amendment 64 to 52.

ERA proponent Rep. Gwen Margolis moved to reconsider the vote and Rep. Roberta Fox moved to lay that motion on the table, which passed. The bill went back to the senate with the ERA attached.17

Figure 4.3. Rep. Gwen Margolis and Rep. Barry Kutun voting. Courtesy of State Archives of Florida, photo by Donn Dughi.

17 There was an attempt to offer an amendment that placed a straw ballot on the ERA on the next ballot. In support of the proposed amendment, Rep. Hodges reminded the house members that the prior November Amendment 2 was “overwhelmingly defeated”… and amending the ERA onto SB 267 was “kind of an underhanded way this was done yesterday.” Rep. Gordon moved to lay the straw ballot amendment on the table. The amendment was not laid on the table by a vote of 51 yeas and 60 nays. The straw ballot amendment was not adopted by the necessary two-thirds vote. Floor Debate on SB 267, Florida House of Representatives, 185, House Clerk’s Office, Tape 1 (May 17,1979), Florida State Archives, Tallahassee, Florida and Journal of the House of Representatives, (May 17, 1979): 591-592.

193 1979 Senate Consideration of the ERA Amendment to SB 267

After the house passed SB 267 with the ERA amendment, Senate President Phil Lewis and his leadership team had a decision to make. The ERA had already been killed in the Senate

Rules and Calendar Committee. Senator Lewis said proponents had, “some Mickey Mouse amendment type of way of doing [the ERA].” He said: “One time they were not going to hear it.

I said ‘No, let’s let it get heard.’ I said ‘Let’s just do it and get it over with – if it passes, it passes; if it don’t, it don’t…’” Further, Senator Lewis said there was a lot of pressure, “The vice president of the country [Walter Mondale] called … and Mrs. Carter called… That’s a lot of heat…” Asked why he took a chance that it might pass, Senator Lewis responded: “Well, I never wanted to run over people – they have their views and I had mine.”18 So when SB 267 returned to the senate it was referred directly to the Senate Calendar rather than the Senate Rules and

Calendar Committee where it faced certain defeat.

Similar to the brief house debate, the senate debate was also short and lacked the usual religious language and biblical references. Also, unlike previous legislative debates, there was no reference to the ideal family or normative gender roles, which is interesting since the Religious

Right was on the rise in the state and nation. Proponents employed a limiting frame of equality, while opponents’ emphasized governmental encroachment on states rights, the importance of following the dictates of personal conscience, and the constitutional amendment’s extension. The lack of moral framing in the almost spontaneous floor debate could have been due to the collective astonishment that the ERA appeared when it had previously been killed for the session in committee. However, it is most likely that Senator Lewis was correct in his assessment that there was weariness over debating the ERA, and being so intensely lobbied for seven years.

18 Senator Phillip D. Lewis Oral History, Interview with Mike Vasilinda, Oct. 10, 2001, Florida Legislative Research Center and Museum, Tallahassee, Florida.

194 On May 24, 1979, Senator Jack Gordon spoke briefly in favor of the ERA and thanked the senate leadership for allowing a debate.

Senator Dempsey Barron declared that Floridians had rejected the ERA when they voted down proposed Amendment 2 to the Florida Constitution the previous November. As proponents previously feared, Barron called the Amendment 2 proposal a “test vote on the ERA,” that was rejected by the people of Florida. Warning that the federal government would be able to encroach on state's rights, Barron asked senators to defeat the ERA.19

Calling herself the “token Republican speaking for the ERA,” Senator Mary Grizzle discussed the history of the ERA in Republican politics and thanked senators for many of the statutory changes made to address discrimination in recent years. Grizzle explained how the

Republican Party platform had included the ERA for “the past three conventions.” Additionally, she said that every president since President Eisenhower endorsed the ERA.20

Senators Guy Spicola, Pete Skinner, and Pat Neal switched their votes from support to opposition using various non-religious justifications that respectively included: “voting my conscience,” … “it wasn't fair that Congress extended the ratification deadline,” and there would be a “transfer of power from the state to the federal government.”21

Disagreeing with comments that the states “do it much better,” Senator Pat Frank said that in Florida there was “difficulty integrating in the South until the courts intervened pursuant to the 14th amendment to ensure equality among the races.”22

19 Senate Floor Debate, Secretary of the Florida Senate, tape 4, series 1238, box 51, (May 24, 1979), Florida State Archives, Tallahassee, Florida. 20 Ibid. After serving 29 years in the legislature, Grizzle was defeated by a conservative physician in the Republican primary. From her place in history she watched the Republican Party morph into a more conservative organization through the many years. She never changed and always fought for women’s rights, environmental issues, and education funding. 21 Senate Floor Debate, Secretary of the Florida Senate, tape 4, series 1238, box 51, (May 24, 1979), Florida State Archives, Tallahassee, Florida. 22 Ibid.

195 Senator Gordon said he had difficulty explaining to his daughter that she did not have the same rights as his son. “I don’t think anyone here wants to put themselves in a position to say to their daughter, ‘you really do not have the opportunity that your brothers have.’” Gordon said the

ERA was a way to expand freedom and personal liberty in America, and “ERA won't go away.”23

The bill with the ERA attached failed in the senate by 19 to 21. There was loud cheering and chaotic noise when the vote was announced. Senate President Lewis said: “Some of the ladies who were strongly for it came to me afterwards and thanked me for letting it go to the floor… I thought it was an excellent debate.”24

Thus, in the seventh year of the life of the ERA, the amendment was again defeated by the conservative state senate by only two votes. Opponents were thrilled and proponents disheartened, vowing revenge during the coming elections. However, a nationwide movement was afoot that would affect the outcome of national elections and provide a “coattail effect” on state elections.

Beginnings of the Religious Right

The ERA battle led to the cluster of events that incubated the “perfect storm,” which created the Religious Right. Indeed, the ERA opponents expanded their agenda to other social issues making them an attractive ally for conservative political activists. These secular conservatives devised a strategy to connect religious conservatives to conservative goals through a moral issues strategy.

Why pursue support from conservative religious groups? Conservative organizations sought to harness the political energy and resources that evangelicals demonstrated against the

23 Ibid. 24 Journal of the Senate (May 24, 1979): 551-552. Senator Phillip D. Lewis Oral History, Interview with Mike Vasilinda, Oct. 10, 2001, Florida Legislative Research Center and Museum, Tallahassee, Florida.

196 ERA, abortion rights, gay rights, and secular intrusion on religious institutions. The conservative political operatives wanted to expand the grassroots networks to conjoin religious groups with conservative groups in the structure of the Republican Party. A new coalition was formed to include social issues in addition to economic concerns. Southern evangelicals had supported

Democratic presidential candidate Jimmy Carter, a devout Southern Baptist, for president in

1976. But Carter alienated them through his education policies, Internal Revenue Service enforcement policies, and inclusion of homosexuals in the White House Conference on the

Families.

The alliance was also calculated to secure money and other resources. As political operative Richard A. Viguerie perceptively reasoned in The New Right: We’re Ready to Lead, restoring conservatism was “built on four elements – single-issue groups, multi-issue conservative groups, coalition politics, and direct mail.” Since the 1970’s religious groups used coalition politics and direct mail effectively to raise funds and mobilize their political efforts.

Viguerie’s organization claimed that it identified 4.2 million conservatives and predicted they would reach another 5 million people if they joined with the conservative churches. It was about the money, too. He said: “Most of these new $5 million conservative contributions will come from the conservative Christian community … because they want to stop abortions, do away with sex and violence on TV, bring voluntary prayer back to school, stop busing, etc.”25

Opposing the ERA was ideal for conservatives, who brought groups together and used the issue to build conservative resources and engage in media warfare. Their timing was perfect because evangelical leaders including Jerry Falwell, Oral Roberts, Rex Humbard, Jim Bakker, Charles

25 Richard A. Viguerie, The New Right: We’re Ready to Lead, (Falls Church, VA: The Viguerie Company, 1981), 3- 5, 90-98.

197 Stanley, and Tim LaHaye were upset with President Carter because of his support of the Equal

Rights Amendment.26

Consequently, with the urging and support of the conservative political activists, television evangelist Jerry Falwell created the Moral Majority. Falwell was the minister of

America’s largest independent Baptist church in Lynchburg, Virginia. He was assisted by Paul

Weyrich, a conservative political strategist and director of the National Committee for the

Survival of a Free Congress, Howard Phillips, director of the Conservative Caucus, and Edward

McAteer, who established the Religious Roundtable. Falwell established local moral majority groups using leaders from other independent Baptist churches. The goal of the Moral Majority was to activate conservative religious Americans to destroy “secular humanism” and restore

America’s religious heritage. The emergence of Falwell’s Moral Majority represented a new political and religious cleavage that cut across church affiliations, dividing people based on their level of fundamentalism.27

Also, Ed McAteer, a marketing specialist for the Colgate-Palmolive Company, created the Religious Roundtable, consisting of more than 150 Christian leaders. The goal of the

Religious Roundtable was to activate tens of millions of religious conservatives on the issues of abortion, higher taxes, forced busing, homosexual rights, drugs, pornography, private schools, prayer in the schools, sex in the media, and national defense. The first meeting was held in

September 1979. Speakers at the meeting included Phyllis Schlafly, Howard Phillips, Paul

Weyrich, Bob Billings, and other conservative religious leaders.28 This group represented large numbers of evangelical churches and conservative religious organizations with a large

26 Frank Lambert, Religion in American Politics: A Short History (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2008), 195-205. 27 Arthur H. Miller and Martin P. Wattenberg, “Politics from the Pulpit: Religiosity and the 1980 Elections,” The Public Opinion Quarterly 48:1 (Spring, 1984): 301-317. 28 Viguerie, The New Right, 129-131.

198 circulation of followers. For example, by 1979, Phyllis Schlafly’s monthly newsletter circulation had increased from 3,500 in 1972 to 50,000.29

These groups were part of the new Religious Right, which supported Ronald Reagan for president in 1980. The Republican Party offered a big welcome to the Religious Right. They included their issues in the Republican Party Platform, featured key religious leaders at the

Republican National Convention, and engaged religious groups in political activities.

Conversely, rather than obscuring economic realities by focusing on social issues, ERA proponents increasingly emphasized the gender pay gap in wages on a state and national level.

Rep. Eleanor Weinstock said that women earned an average of 57% of what men earned in 1979.

Not only were the proponents worried about women working outside the home through economic necessity, but also they were concerned about homemakers’ financial needs. “The economic issues, inflation, and the decline in the value of the dollar and all the other economic pressures that affect the American family today are absolutely forcing women out into the work force,” feminist Betty Friedan maintained. “In recent years, as enormous numbers of women, even the mothers of young children, have had to go out to work,” Friedan argued, “it increased the support in the demand for the Equal Rights Amendment.” She insisted that the ERA was an economic necessity for women.30

Countering Friedan and Weinstock, conservative religious activist Shirley Spellerberg argued that women had “special privileges” as homemakers. “Little girls in the formative years should view women as mothers and homemakers,” she said. “This is their ideal role in the

29 Daniel K. Williams, God’s Own Party: The Making of the Christian Right, (New York: Oxford, 2010), 110. 30 Ronald Wray Boyd, “There’s No ‘Mystique’ About Betty Friedan, She’s Tough, Dedicated and To The Point,” St. Petersburg Times, (October 17, 1979): D1 and Brynell Somerville, “Homemakers Rights: Just What Are They?” Boca Raton News, (March 25, 1979): 2B.

199 traditional family structure.” Spellerberg expressed concern that the ERA would force long-term homemakers into the job market.31

***

Cultural and political changes began in 1979, which reflected previous tectonic shifts from the prior years, as religious ERA opponents were empowered by political mobilization.

Women who felt called by God to be wives and mothers remained concerned about the ERA.

Clearly focused on traditional family roles, they successfully fought and defeated the ERA for seven years, while being empowered in their political roles. So on the one hand, the sexual counterrevolution generated by the ERA resulted in the formation and connection of diverse conservative religious coalitions, which emerged as the Religious Right. On the other hand, leaders of the women’s movement enjoyed vast increases of members in their national organizations, although the flame was dying down in the states. Bringing economic concerns to the forefront, ERA proponents began to drive arguments toward equality as a concrete issue affecting gender pay disparities, rather than focusing on the nebulous principle of equality and reacting against accusations that they were “anti-family.” As they entered the new decade, they encountered more resistance, which was also reflected in the Gallup and Harris polls showing decreased national support for the Equal Rights Amendment.

1980: ERA Not Considered

In 1980, no resolution was filed in the senate so it was not considered. The house resolution (HCR 14 - Gordon) died in the Rules and Calendar Committee, without being considered. ERA supporters decided to not take action because there was no change in senate

31 Ibid.

200 membership. Senator Jack Gordon said that the ERA would not be brought up in the 1980

Legislative Session unless at least two of the anti-ERA senators “come to their senses.”32

Although there was no action in the Florida Legislature on the ERA, forces for and against ratification were active in campaign fundraising, expenditures, and media campaigns. For proponents, the Florida Women’s Caucus spent about $40,000 for pro-ERA candidates.33

However, ERA opponents mobilized conservative evangelical church members, Catholics, and

Mormons to outspend proponents. For example, regional representatives of the Mormon Church

(Church of Latter Day Saints or LDS) called their bishops and asked them to ask members to make donations to Families Are Concerned Today (FACT) for campaigning for the ERA opponent candidates. Mormon Church members contributed $15,000 to four ERA opponent candidates, who claimed they did not know the money was from Mormons. Florida Secretary of

State George Firestone investigated FACT fundraising to determine whether they had violated

Florida’s election laws. The LDS public relations law office in Salt Lake City reported that

$60,000 was collected 17 days before the November 7, 1980 election. LDS missionaries were shifted from proselytizing duties to ERA opposition. For example, Maxine Hanks stated that she and other Mormon missionaries distributed anti-ERA literature prior to the election.34

32 “ERA Backers Scale Down Florida Hopes,” Sarasota Herald –Tribune, (March 31, 1980): 8B. The White House dispatched an aide, Linda Tarr-Whelen, to assess the situation in Florida. Admitting that the Florida Senate was not favorable, Tarr-Whelen indicated that supporters were “talking about a long-term strategy.” Tarr-Whelen offered assistance from President Carter to secure ERA passage to groups such as Governor Bob Graham, House Speaker Hyatt Brown, AFL-CIO, FTP-NEA, Common Cause, Women’s Political Caucus, and the League of Women Voters, and other supporters. However, she said, “no one asked for help.” “Carter Aide Offers to Help Pass the ERA,” Lakeland Ledger (March 27, 1980): 5B. 33 William R. Amlong, “Equal Rights Amendment Issue,” Miami Herald (August 10, 1980): 4:1. See also Viguerie, The New Right, 127. 34 Martha Sonntag Bradley, Pedestals and Podiums: Utah Women, Religious Authority & Equal Rights, (Salt Lake City, UT: Signature Books, 2005), 315-320, 457-478. Karen Torgeson, a Mormon from Tallahassee, was concerned about the involvement of Mormon bishops in requesting donations to political organizations. She called the Internal Revenue Service to ask whether this practice would violate regulations concerning tax-exempt organizations. Then she called the LDS Special Affairs Committee in Salt Lake City and proclaimed her disagreement with this practice. FACT records indicate that Florida was divided up along LDS stake boundaries to determine which congregations would assist which candidates. At times contributions were matched by funds coming in from California. Bradley

201 In addition, Jerry Falwell and the Moral Majority, which claimed they had registered 2.5 million voters and re-registered close to 1.5 million voters nationally, funded a media campaign in Florida. The Moral Majority spent $60,000 on a media blitz against ERA.35 Also, just days before the November election, at least $25,000 was spent on ads that stated that “militant homosexuals” support the ERA. Asking for a “no” vote, and “why ask for trouble,” the ads presented photos of embracing homosexuals.36

Despite ERA opponents’ efforts as part of a sexual counterrevolution, cultural patterns where shifting toward support for modern women’s roles. A Harris Poll indicated the patterns of change that were taking place in the status of women and structure of the family would continue through the decade. With 50 percent of women in the workforce and 11 percent contemplating entering the job market, the poll indicated by 96 to 2 percent, that all Americans believed that

“women will work.” By 65 to 23 percent, most Americans felt that in the next decade “fathers and mothers will take an equal role in keeping house and caring for children.” An 85 to 10 percent majority of Americans were concerned that “the American way of life is being seriously threatened by the energy and economic situations.”37 By forcing women into the workforce, economic conditions stimulated social and cultural change. The women for and against the ERA responded to these conditions differently. Proponents embraced the change, while some opponents channeled their anxiety into forms of political activism against issues such as homosexuality, abortion, government intrusion upon religious institutions, and unisex bathrooms.

also cites Linda Cicero, “Mormon Money Worked Against Florida’s ERA,” Miami Herald, (April 20, 1980): A1 and Linda Cicero, “State to Probe Mormon Contributions,” Miami Herald, (April 22, 1980): II-1. 35 William R. Amlong, “Equal Rights Amendment Issue,” Miami Herald (August 10, 1980): 4:1. See also Viguerie, The New Right, 127. 36 “ERA Ads Spur Charges From Proponents,” The Telegraph-Herald, (November 2, 1980): 20. 37 Louis Harris, “Americans See Recent Trends in Changes for Women and the Family Continuing Through the ‘80s,” Harris Polls, 1979, Harris Interactive, located at: http://www.harrisinteractive.com/Insights/HarrisVault.aspx.

202 Examining the political platforms of the Democratic Party and Republican Party, David

Domke and Kevin Coe argued that in 1980, morality politics became the central focus. Although

Newsweek called 1976 “the year of the evangelical,” they persuasively argued that 1980 was the year that morality politics emerged. The Republican Party switched its position from strong support of the Equal Rights Amendment to neutrality in an effort to gain religious conservatives’ support. Although the Republican Party had been the first political party to back the ERA, presidential candidate Ronald Reagan’s aides worked to remove the ERA, revising language to indicate that women should have “equal rights and equal opportunities,” but not the ERA.

Republicans advocated the major policy goals of religious conservatives, using their moral language, whereas Democrats were silent on many of the issues in their platform’s social agenda.38

Why was there no action on the ERA in Florida in 1980? Not only were ERA opponents’ realistic about their slim chance of passage with the conservative state senate, many judicial decisions against discrimination had occurred, ironically undermining the case for ERA passage.

Also, the Legislature made changes in state law to address several areas of discrimination that were supported by legislators who opposed the ERA.39

Eventually, the presidential election of 1980 placed the South securely in the hands of the conservative Democrats and Republicans. This signaled a realignment of political forces due to the votes of millions of conservative religious voters, who put the Republican Party over the top.

The November elections brought Republican President Ronald Reagan into the White House and other conservatives into elective office at all levels of Florida government. ERA proponents lost

38 David Domke and Kevin Coe, The God Strategy: How Religion Became a Political Weapon in America, (New York: Oxford University Press, 2008), 103. See also “Can the GOP Heal Its ERA Scars?” U.S. News & World Report, (July 21, 1980): 8. 39 Joan S. Carver, “The Equal Rights Amendment and the Florida Legislature,” The Florida Historical Quarterly 60: 4 (April 1982): 475.

203 two senators and four house members, while only one ERA opponent in the senate was defeated.40 Mormon Republican “housewife from Maitland,” , was the first (and only) woman elected to the U.S. Senate in Florida.

1981: The ERA was Not Considered

By 1981, Florida legislators were exhausted and disgusted with the ERA issue, as were other legislators in other key battleground states. Short tempers and rude threats in some instances demonstrated the fatigue. In an ERA debate, Betty Friedan said to Phyllis Schlafly,

“I’d like to burn you at the stake!” Phyllis Schlafly had a pie thrown in her face by someone paid by ERA supporters. Florida Senator Toni Jennings, an ERA opponent, said that she was threatened many times and accused of abandoning the interests of women. Likewise, a female legislator from Illinois said that the ERA proponents and opponents hassled her: “These people pull at you, yank you, yell, scream, threaten, they all look wild-eyed to me.”41

The elections produced a majority of senators opposed to ERA, therefore no resolution was filed in the senate. The house resolution (HCR 1 by Rep. Elaine Gordon and others) was not considered.

Although the ERA was not heard in the Florida Legislature, legislative proponents and opponents filed legislation on issues that they connected to ratification. For example, opponents addressed the issue of homosexuality using a moral frame emphasizing immorality, while proponents stressed economic issues using a limiting equality frame. Legislative ERA opponents, Senator Alan Trask and Rep. Tom Bush, successfully attached an amendment to the appropriations bill prohibiting state funding for any public university that recognized or loaned its facilities to any group that advocated or recommended “sexual relations between unmarried

40 Ibid. 41 Gail Collins, When Everything Changed: The Amazing Journey of American Women from 1960 to the Present, (New York: Little, Brown Company, 2009), 226.

204 persons.” It was specifically aimed at campus gay organizations. Bush argued that Florida State

University had “a homosexual organization” that was using public funds to publish material that

“promoted homosexuality.” Bush contended that as a constitutional attorney, he would normally defend free speech, “But I draw the line at any group using my tax dollars to promote ideas that are contrary to the laws of Florida.” The amendment passed the House of Representatives 71 to

37 and the Senate 24 to 12. As expected, Governor Bob Graham said he could not veto the language because of its placement in the Appropriations Act, but invited social action groups to challenge it in court. Instead, Education Commissioner Ralph Turlington filed suit against the language. Supporting the Trask-Bush amendment by arguing that it was a taxpayer issue, North

Florida Moral Majority leader, Baptist minister Rev. Rayburn Blair said: “It is simply a matter of the university not promoting sex between unmarried people, it isn’t a matter of it being done.”42

Later, the Florida Supreme Court ruled that the Bush-Trask amendment violated the First

Amendment rights of students. Reacting angrily to the decision, Rep. Bush said the Supreme

Court “perverted” the First Amendment into authorizing gay organizations to receive taxpayer funds for their activities: “How the public’s money is spent is none of the business of the

Supreme Court of Florida, it’s the business of the Legislature, and I think the Supreme Court and the federal courts would do well to butt out and let the people decide how their money is going to be spent.” Senator Trask reacted to the court decision by filing a bill to withhold funding for universities that “promote or advocate the violation of state and federal criminal statutes.” He said that would accomplish the goal without violating free speech. Bush blamed federal courts because previous decisions bound state courts to follow their precedents. “I don’t think the First

Amendment protects gays and gives them carte blanche to use public dollars,” Bush lamented.43

42 Ron Cunningham, "Despite Amendment, Gay Groups Remain Active," Lakeland Ledger, (July 8, 1981): 6C. 43 Ron Cunningham, "Court Rules Against Anti-Gay Amendment," Ocala Star Banner, (February 5, 1982): 2B

205 While ERA opponents continued to focus on social concerns about gay rights, ERA proponents increasingly identified economic issues as problems that the ERA would fix. Divorce rates were increasing and very few women were awarded adequate child support, and men were frequently not forced to pay the alimony and child support required for adequate financial support. To a greater extent women were thrust into the workforce “ – whether they liked it or not – to help support their families and pay their fast-rising mortgages.”44 Sensitive to female economic issues, ERA sponsor Senator Jack Gordon filed a bill to give women enrolling in state universities and junior colleges a 38% tuition discount. Gordon defended the bill because women with college degrees earned 38% less than men with degrees. Gordon admitted that he introduced the tuition bill for “educational purposes” because “for increasing numbers of women, constitutional recognition and equal rights aren’t academic exercises, they are economic necessities.”45

Additionally, Rep. Elaine Gordon emphasized the economic disparity between working men and women. She led an ERA rally at the capitol after the November elections. Gordon argued that the polls continuously indicated that ERA was favored in Florida by a margin of two- to-one. She said that proponents were targeting homemakers and working women for support.

Gordon charged that the real reason that senators opposed ERA was economic. “Women are a nice, cheap labor pool,” she averred. “They are paid $.59 for every $1 paid a man.”46 Indeed, the census indicated that nearly half of Florida women aged 16 or older were in the labor force,

44 Collins, When Everything Changed, 224. 45 Editorial: “Women’s Wages,” The Palm Beach Post (Nov. 4, 1981): A16. The Editorial stated” “The average woman today earns only $.59 for every $1 earned by a man – less than she earned in 1955 when the comparison was 63.9 cents per dollar.” 46 “New ERA Appeals Issued,” Sarasota Herald-Tribune, (Dec. 1, 1981): 4D.

206 either working or seeking work. Two-thirds of those women had children younger than 18 to support.47

Figure 4.4. Rep. Elaine Gordon tells homemakers to “Come out of the kitchen” and support ERA. (NOW President Eleanor Smeal is on the right.) Courtesy of State Archives of Florida, photo by Donn Dughi.

Women’s rights groups insisted that since Ronald Reagan was elected as President, the membership of their groups increased.48 National and state ERA proponents met and decided to shift strategies to use 1981 for grassroots efforts in an attempt to create a groundswell of support for the ERA prior to an all-out effort in three key battleground states, including Florida, the next year.49 Nationwide rallies were held in 180 cities across America at noon, on June 26, 1981.

Several cities in Florida participated. Proponents were attempting to reach women who had not

47 Cathy Lynn Grossman, “Florida Women in Profile,” Miami Herald (June 21, 1982): 1B. One in every ten white families had a woman head if household, and 53 per cent of those women were supporting children. 48 Pat Ireland, a Miami resident and southeast regional director of the National Organization for Women (NOW) said that, “since Reagan won the election, our support has tripled in this area. People in need of social programs he is cutting back are coming to help … women and children who the cuts are generally affecting, are getting scared.” Donald Scott, “Beaches Rally will spotlight ERA in start of the final thrust for okay,” The Miami News, (June 29, 1981): B1. “Feminists Don’t give up on ERA,” Sarasota Herald Tribune (August 27, 1981): 5C. Eleanor Smeal said that NOW added 9,000 new members a month instead of the usual 3,000 – 4,000 members. Fay S. Joyce, “ A funeral for ERA: With Passage Uncertain, Women’s Leaders Take a Look at What’s Ahead,” St. Petersburg Times, (August 22, 1981): 1A. Gloria Sackman-Reed, a National Organization for Women (NOW) field worker from Washington, D.C., sent to organize the Florida campaign said that President Reagan was the best recruiter. NOW’s membership increased by 12,000 in November, the largest jump in the history of the organization. 49 Douglas Kneeland, “Equal Rights Leaders Shift Plans for Surviving Conservative Tide,” New York Times (March 16, 1981): A12.

207 been engaged in the struggle. They involved politicians and celebrities including Helen Reddy,

Alan Alda, and Betty Ford. ERA opponent Phyllis Schlafly responded to the rallies by saying,

“ERA is a cadaver that we have to keep pushing back into the coffin.”50

Figure 4.5. ERA Supporters rally at the capitol after the 1981 election. Courtesy of State Archives of Florida, photo by Donn Dughi.

At the same time that ERA proponents were marching, rallying, and debating, opponents were actively increasing support, resources, and organization members on the state and national levels. On the state level church activists remained busy working against the ERA. Also, the

Moral Majority opened a Florida headquarters in Fort Walton Beach so they could actively prepare for the 1982 elections. Electing a junior high school teacher, Jim Harkins, as the

50 “ERA Backers Schedule Rallies in 180 Cities,” Ocala Star-Banner (June 26, 1981): 2A and “Twilight of the ERA,” Time (July 13, 1981).

208 Executive Director for Florida, the national Moral Majority was assembling a grassroots plan to advance their outreach efforts. Harkins described Moral Majority’s political position as being pro-family, anti-pornography, anti-ERA, and anti-abortion. “We’re going to insist that some judges be recalled,” he added, insisting that the courts needed to be “straightened out.” Harkins said he would be developing a list of 100,000 people.51

***

While significant numbers of women involved in the ERA battle embraced either a feminist vision of equality or held a traditional aspiration of a stable family aligned with biblical notions of gender roles, most women were in different circumstances, just trying to get by and pay their bills. Actually, ordinary women and their problems were far removed from the images that had been projected by ERA proponents and opponents through the ten-year struggle.

Working women struggled to care for their families and make ends meet, often on only one income. Entering the very last year of ERA consideration, their refrain was: “I am woman! I am invincible! I am pooped!”52

1982: ERA is Defeated in a Special Session

There was a flurry of lobbying activity as the last chance for ERA ratification rolled around. Marches were organized, media ads placed, letter-writing campaigns conducted, and telephone calls were made. The lull of 1980 and 1981 was over, and once again women jammed the halls of the state capitol in Tallahassee. This time there were thousands of women, traveling in groups and jamming the elevators. National news media pulled their large trucks with satellite dishes, motor homes, and vans, into the capitol courtyard, making it look like a carnival lot.

51 "Moral Majority To Open Florida Headquarters," Daytona Beach Morning Journal, (May 2, 1981), 5A. 52 Author Unknown, “Feminism,” Quote Garden. Located at: http://www.quotegarden.com/feminism.html.

209

Figure 4.6. ERA proponents and opponents fill the Florida capitol. Courtesy of State Archives of Florida, photo by Donn Dughi.

1982 Regular Legislative Session

The ERA ratification deadline for the necessary three remaining states was June 22,

1982. Outspoken ERA opponents Speaker Ralph Haben and Senate President W.D. Childers were colorful presiding officers.53 The ERA resolutions were filed (HCR 10 by Rep. Elaine

Gordon and SCR 618 by Senator Jack Gordon) and were not considered. A statewide Harris Poll

53 See Bill Kaczor, “Those Who Wield Tallahassee Power,” Daytona Beach Morning Journal, (April 1, 1981): 5A. Although Childers and Haben agreed in their opposition to ERA, they were very different in many respects. Haben was a bachelor lawyer who was tall, handsome, and athletic. He enjoyed flying his plane, jogging, skin diving, playing tennis, and fishing. Haben was an historical novel fan. Childers was a short businessman who had four daughters and two granddaughters. He drove a pickup truck, enjoyed working in his yard, fishing, and gigging frogs. Childers was a former teacher and store owner who moved into real estate investments. He was in office for 30 years. Both men said the demands of leadership forced them to give up their leisure pursuits. In Haben’s case, that meant female entanglements. Childers was known as the “banty rooster” of West Florida for his feisty behavior. Haben was more laid back and humorous.

210 showed overwhelming support for the ERA among the Florida voters surveyed. “The people of

Florida favor passage of the Equal Rights Amendment by a decisive margin of 57 to 37 percent,”

Harris said, “… this is a solid mandate to pass the ERA in this state.”54

Figure 4.7. ERA supporters at the capitol. Courtesy of State Archives of Florida, photo by Donn Dughi.

54 Patrick Riordan, “Harris Poll Shows Solid ERA Support,” Miami Herald, (June 10, 1982): 2D. The telephone poll asked 800 scientifically selected adults a series of questions about the ERA, including their opinion of arguments often used by its opponents – that it would result in unisex public bathrooms and place women in military combat. Even after hearing the anti-ERA arguments, Harris said, 57 percent of the respondents favored the ERA and 37 percent opposed it. Geographically, he said, the strongest support was found in Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach counties, where the survey found 65 percent in favor and 31 percent against the amendment. The weakest support came from the Central-Northeast area, including Jacksonville, Daytona Beach, Ocala and Orlando. Pro- ERA respondents outnumbered opponents by only 2 percent, with 48 percent in favor and 46 percent against. That's "too close to call," Harris said. The region is roughly triangular, with endpoints near Jupiter Inlet, Jacksonville and just north of Tampa Bay. The surprise was a 52 percent pro-ERA majority in the Panhandle, home of Sen. Dempsey Barron (D., Panama City), arch foe of the ERA, and other anti-ERA legislators. Harris counted inland counties as far east as the Jacksonville suburbs in his Panhandle zone, where 42 percent opposed the amendment. In the state's Southwest coastal region, Harris said, the poll found a 62 percent pro-ERA majority, with 30 percent against. That area includes Tampa, St. Petersburg, Fort Myers, Naples, and the Florida Keys. Statewide, 51 percent of those who said they voted for President Reagan in 1980 opposed the ERA, with 45 percent favoring it. Self-described conservatives split 47 percent for, 47 percent against. Among Republicans, 49 percent favored the ERA and 48 percent opposed it. But 61 percent of the Democrats favored it and 31 percent did not. Among Independents, 58 percent were for, 38 percent against.

211 During the regular legislative session, there was intense lobbying for and against the

ERA. However, the legislature was primarily focused on other issues than the ERA during the regular legislative session. Reapportionment was the most important issue to legislators because it determined their personal political future. Additionally, motorcyclists launched a massive lobbying effort to repeal helmet laws. In a surreal spectacle, the legislative hallways were filled with women in red and white (white because it was the suffrage color, replacing proponents’ green), and men and women wearing motorcycle gear.55

Figure 4.8. ERA demonstrators and bikers converge on the capitol. Courtesy of State Archives of Florida, photo by Donn Dughi.

Attempting to show that religious conservatives had misrepresented support for ERA by many American religious denominations, ERA proponents organized a public relations campaign

55 Sam Bell, former representative, conversation at the capitol, Tallahassee, Florida (February 15, 2012).

212 by “people of faith.”56 Additionally, Florida Impact, an organization that represented mainline

Protestant and Jewish groups, coordinated extensive lobbying efforts. They also organized a considerable letter writing campaign and public relations initiative. Persisting with the limiting frame emphasizing equality, rights, and justice, Florida Impact insisted that the ERA was a

“testing ground of values,” and their letter stated in part: “The Judeo-Christian faith not only affirms such values, it calls upon each of us to actively participate in the realization of such values in human life.”57

Also, national coordinator for the Religious Committee for the ERA and ordained

Methodist minister Rev. Delores Moss and Sister Maureen Fielder of Catholic Sisters for the

ERA held a press conference announcing religious support for ratification. They worked hard to convince legislators and the public that religious people wanted the ERA ratified. Moss advocated for ERA passage and then addressed misunderstandings, saying: “There is a great misconception in the state and throughout the country that the majority of religious people do not believe in equal rights for women, or they believe in equal rights but not the ERA.”58

56 The Florida Council of Churches launched a huge outreach to members. The Council members included: The Episcopal Church, Lutheran Church in America, Presbyterian Church in the U.S., United Church of Christ, The United Methodist Church, the United Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A., the African Methodist Episcopal Church, African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church, Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), Church of the Brethren, Christian Methodist Episcopal Church and the Fellowship of Community Churches. See Karen Woodall, “People of Faith Support the ERA,” (June 14, 1982). Elaine Gordon Papers, box 5, Special Collections, The Green Library, Florida International University, Miami, Florida. 57 These groups were Church Women United, Florida Lutheran Council, Lutheran Church in America, Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod, Florida – Georgia District, the Episcopal Church, American Lutheran Church, Presbyterian Church in the U.S., the United Church of Christ, the United Methodist Church, the United Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A., Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), the Church of the Brethren, the Unitarian Universalist Association – Florida District, and many Jewish federations. See Karen Woodall to Rep. Elaine Gordon correspondence, (June 15, 1982). Elaine Gordon Papers, box 5, Special Collections, The Green Library, Florida International University, Miami, Florida. This also includes information the author has from a 28-year friendship with Karen Woodall. 58 “ERA Battle Takes a Religious Twist,” The Miami News (Jan. 21, 1982): 11A and “ERA Adversaries Swap Accusations in Tallahassee,” The Palm Beach Post (Jan. 21, 1982): A18.

213

Figure 4.9. Rev. Delores Moss and Sister Maureen Fielder announce broad religious support for the Equal Rights Amendment. Courtesy of State Archives of Florida, photo by Mark T. Foley.

ERA Supporters March

On June 7, 1982, over 5,000 ERA supporters marched down Highway 27 leading directly to the capitol building, wearing suffrage colors of white, purple, and gold, and chanting, “What do we want? ERA. When do we want it? Now!” Governor Bob Graham and his wife, Adele, led the march that included women, men, and children. Marchers in white walked, biked, rode on horses, pushed wheelchairs, and carried banners and signs to the rally point at the state capitol steps.

214

Figure 4.10. ERA proponents march down Apalachee Parkway in Tallahassee, Florida. Courtesy of State Archives of Florida.

215 Speakers at the pro-ERA march included Governor Graham and the leaders of state and national women’s organizations. Interestingly, some speakers made reference to God as a female deity, as follows: “She is smiling down on us today,” Lillian Ciarrochi of the Tallahassee ERA

Countdown office, proclaimed. “God created the world in only seven days, and She was just one of us; imagine what we can do, with our brothers, in 17 [days until the last ERA vote]” shouted

Jane Wells-Schooley, national president of NOW.59 In addition, Dr. Thomas A. Downs,

Executive Director of the Florida Council of Churches, representing 19 major Protestant

Christian denominations, urged legislators to support the ERA. Quoting from C.S. Lewis’

Screwtape Letters, in which the devil Wormwood said he would tell people there was no hurry to pursue justice, Downs said” “There is a hurry! There is urgency! Where there is absence of justice, injustice spreads like an unchecked cancer!”60

Figure 4.11. Martha Barnett (ABA President, 2000-01), and her son Richard after the ERA march. On Richard’s Shirt: “A Boy of Quality is Not Threatened by a Girl for Equality.” Courtesy of Martha Barnett.

59 Stephen K. Doig and Patrick Riordan, “ERA Supporters Rally in Florida, 3 Other States.” The Miami Herald (June 7, 1982): 1A. Marches were also held in Springfield, Illinois, (8,000) and Raleigh, North Carolina (10,000), and Oklahoma City, Oklahoma (10,000). Rep. George Sheldon (D., Tampa) was one of six Democratic representatives who marched. They included Elaine Gordon, Mike Friedman, and Roberta Fox of Dade County, Tom McPherson of Broward County, Eleanor Weinstock of Palm Beach County and Arnette Girardeau of Duval County. Pat Frank of Hillsborough County was the only senator to make an appearance. 60 Thomas A. Downs, “ERA Address,” (June 6, 1982), Tallahassee, Florida. Elaine Gordon Papers, box 5, Special Collections, The Green Library, Florida International University, Miami, Florida.

216 Once again, opponents lobbied against ERA using moral frames to describe negative consequences of ERA approval. They railed against abortion, homosexuality, unisex bathrooms, and government intrusion. Opponents declared they were advocating a pro-family position by asking that the ERA be defeated again.

Proponents used a limiting equality frame to press economic issues such as the low wages paid to female workers, especially those who were single or divorced women. Most had children to support and had difficulty doing so in their low-wage “pink collar” jobs. “Women are second class citizens,” said Coral Gables ERA proponent Roxcy Bolton. “Look at who does the menial jobs; look at who cleans the toilets.”61

Why did the proponents return, in these later ERA years, to emphasizing wages paid to female workers? There was a sizeable earnings gap. Since the Equal Rights Amendment was first sent to the states in 1972, women in the workforce increased exponentially in the nation, climbing from 31.5 million (of 72.7 million women) to 47.7 million (of 90.7 million women). In

1982, average weekly wages were $203 for women and $302 for men.62

1982 Special Legislative Session

When there was vigorous conflict over a public policy issue, former U.S. Senator and

Governor would ask his staff members: “What would you do if you saw a train coming over the hill at 100 miles an hour from north to south and another train coming from south to north going 80 miles an hour and they were two miles apart on the same track?”

61 Charles Whited, “10-Year Battle Over ERA Ends in Bitterness,” Miami Herald, (June 8, 1982): 1B. 62 “Women in the Labor Force, 1970-2009,” U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, January 5, 2011, located at http://www.bls.gov/OPUB. See also Women in the Labor Force: A Databook, Report 1026, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, December 2010.

217 Answering his own question, Chiles indicated he would have said: “Go get your brother!” Why?

Because “he ain't never seen a train wreck!”63

Similarly, after the regular legislative session, Governor Bob Graham, did not “go call his brother.” However, as an ardent ERA supporter, he did call a special legislative session for June

21, 1982 to address the ERA and 11 other issues. There was yet another march of ERA supporters to the capitol with thousands of women in white chanting, carrying signs, and yelling

“ERA Yes!”

Figure 4.12. Equal Rights Amendment demonstration. Courtesy of State Archives of Florida.

As House Concurrent Resolution 1 was introduced in the Florida House of

Representatives, the scene was frenzied with loud chanting of “ERA Yes!” in the background,

63 This story likely came from President Lyndon Baines Johnson. Lawton Chiles was in the Florida House of Representatives from 1958 to 1966 and in the Florida Senate from 1966 to 1970. He was a U.S. Senator from 1971 to 1989. See also “Lyndon Baines Johnson, an American Original,” People, 27:5 (February 2, 1987) located at: http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20095549,00.html. The author worked for Governor Chiles.

218 from the hallways, outside the capitol, and the gallery. Rep. Elaine Gordon introduced the resolution, briefly explaining the need for women's equality.64

Rep. Tom Bush offered an amendment to include “unborn children from the time of conception” in the definition of “persons.” Bush argued that equality of rights should include the right of an unborn child to be born: “Who are we, killing a million and a half unborn children every year?” A parliamentary point of order was called by Rep. Lee Moffitt, and after some arguing at the Speaker's podium, Speaker Haben agreed with House Rules Chair, Rep. Sam Bell, that the amendment was not germane.65

Figure 4.13. House Speaker Ralph Haben with Reps. Elaine Gordon, Sam Bell, Tom Bush & Bill Sadowski discussing an amendment to the ERA. Courtesy of State Archives of Florida, photo by Donn Dughi.

The house debate retreated to earlier forms of arguments for equality, against discrimination, linking ERA to abortion and homosexuality, and using religion to justify rhetoric.

Religion, ideology, and moral worldviews affected the framing of the debate by proponents and opponents. Proponents used justice and equality limiting frames to explain their support and the

64 House Floor Debate, Office of the Clerk, Florida House of Representatives, Special Session “H,” Special Session “H,” Tape 1, Series 38, Box 72, 10884-A, (June 21, 1982), Florida State Archives, Tallahassee, Florida. 65 Ibid.

219 need for ERA. Opponents linked ERA to other issues such as homosexuality and abortion using a moral frame to position the issue as harmful. The scene was like watching a Shakespearean tragedy in its final act, with “players strutting upon the stage, who then are heard no more.”

Indeed, the last debate on the ERA was “full of sound and fury.”66

Rep. Sam Bell began the debate by passionately emphasizing the importance of equality and an end to discrimination. Discussing the need for equality for all people, Bell said that the alternative is inequality, which is contrary to what the nation stood for and were worth fighting to attain and defend: “Freedom, justice, democracy – these are difficult concepts to put into practice!” He said that equality was necessary for rich and poor, black and white, all religions, and regardless of sex. Bell concluded that voting for or against ERA was voting for equality or inequality.67

Linking ERA to abortion, Rep. Robert “Bob” Melby said he was voting against ratification. Melby said the federal judges who interpreted cases in areas such as integration and abortion concerned him. He declared that “the courts have said its a woman's right because she can control her body and essentially kill unborn children” Passing the ERA would do further damage and create a unisex society, Melby lamented, indicating that it was not in the nation's best interest.68

Complete silence moved over the chamber as former actress, model, and cover girl Rep.

Helen Gordon Davis gave her rendition of what former slave presented at the first women's rights convention in 1848, entitled “Ain’t I a Woman?” In a dramatic southern

African American accent, Davis’ melodic voice had legislators and observers in rapt attention as

66 William Shakespeare, Macbeth, Act V, Scene V.l. 67 House Floor Debate, Office of the Clerk, Florida House of Representatives, Special Session “H,” Special Session “H,” Tape 1, Series 38, Box 72, 10884-A, (June 21, 1982), Florida State Archives, Tallahassee, Florida. 68 Ibid.

220 she portrayed Truth's sad words of being discriminated against as a black and a woman: “That man in the back there says that women can’t have the same rights as men, because Christ was not a woman,” Davis cried. Continuing, she exclaimed: “Well where did your Christ come from?

From God and a woman!” Davis concluded her dramatic impersonation expressing gratitude,

“Obliged to you for listening to me, and now old Sojourner ain’t got nothing more to say.” The entire chamber exploded with applause for such a well-performed speech.69

Figure 4.14. Helen Gordon Davis debating. Courtesy of State Archives of Florida, photo by Donn Dughi.

Rep. Tom Bush used a moral frame to link the ERA to the abolition of the family and promotion of homosexuality. He declared that, “Being a housewife is a legitimate profession.”

Bush also warned that the ERA would “create homosexuality as an alternative lifestyle,” asking:

“Do we want to give to the gay community the right to adopt children?”70

Rep. Eleanor Weinstock ridiculed the “parade of horribles” listed by ERA opponents as

“far fetched” including “foolishness like coed toilets, homosexual marriages, women in the trenches, and forced labor.” Weinstock referred to the 19th Amendment granting women’s

69 Ibid. 70 Ibid.

221 suffrage as a necessary change to the U.S. Constitution and argued that the ERA was a necessary change as well. Addressing the idea of womanhood, Weinstock maintained that women were proud of their unique role as women, “but that role deserves and demands recognition in the

Constitution.” Women should not be discriminated against, Weinstock averred, and “must not be damaged in their lives because they are women.”71

Proponent Republican Rep. Marilyn Evans-Jones reminded House members that of the

120 members, 13 were women, ten of whom were in favor of the ERA. Three of the four female senators were in favor of the ERA. Evans-Jones, a beautiful genteel southern belle skillfully argued from a Christian viewpoint. Responding to male ERA opponents who insisted that women should be “kept on their pedestals,” Evans-Jones declared, “that only statues should be on pedestals.” Listing her credentials as a Christian activist, she said that some of her Christian friends supported ERA and some opposed it. As a Christian woman, Evans-Jones asserted that she had no choice but to vote for the ERA. “Those of us who are Christians believe that woman was taken from the rib of man,” Evans-Jones said, and that women were taken from his side “to be equal to [man], and near the heart, so that we can love one another.” Loving one another and following the Golden rule to “Do onto others as you would have them do unto you,” Evans-Jones said, “are the reason to support equal rights for women.”72

Rep. Elaine Gordon gave her last passionate speech in favor of the ERA, an issue in which she had devoted ten years of her life. By this time, she knew that the clock was ticking and the two other states needed besides Florida had failed to ratify the amendment. Working hard across the nation to support ratification, Gordon emphasized that all of the arguments on behalf of the ERA had been made in the previous ten years. “Since I can’t say something new,” Gordon

71 Ibid. 72 Ibid.

222 began, “I’m going to say something old.” Quoting George Washington’s farewell address,

Gordon explained that the basis of America’s political system is “the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government.” Describing how Germany and Japan were required to place the ERA in their post-World War II constitutions, she maintained that it was time to update the U.S. Constitution. Gordon lamented that Florida refused to ratify the 19th

Amendment and was on the verge of voting against equal rights for women: “We are all going to go back in this election year, and the record is going to tell our constituents – the very ones that over and over in the poll stated we think Florida should drag itself kicking and screaming into the 21st century and once and for all recognize equality before the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of sex.” Gordon closed by saying, “On this upcoming Independence Day celebration, let us not have to say: ‘Let freedom ring over all our brothers, sweet land of liberty, for others.’”73

Figure 4.15. Rep. Elaine Gordon debating. Courtesy of State Archives of Florida.

73 House Floor Debate, Office of the Clerk, Florida House of Representatives, Special Session “H,” Special Session “H,” Tape 2, Series 38, Box 72, 10884-A, (June 21, 1982), Florida State Archives, Tallahassee, Florida.

223 After Rep. Gordon’s closing speech, there was chaos and legislators were yelling and talking while the electronic vote board failed to work. The house clerk called each of the 120 house members’ names for an old-fashioned roll call vote. The resolution (HCR 1-H) passed 60 yeas to 58 nays. Women were heard in the background cheering, clapping, hooting, and hollering for several minutes.74

The House finished with the ERA around noon and the senate was slated to take it up at

2:00 PM. Senate President W.D. Childers, an ardent opponent, told Speaker Haben that the senate should finish with consideration of the resolution by 2:30 PM.75

The senate debate also hearkened back to arguments made over the course of the ERA’s history. Although all senators had decided how to vote, speeches were made to elucidate their position for the public. Senators interpreted the potential impact of the ERA and explained why they supported or opposed the measure. The limiting and moral frames were filled with meaning for the debating senators, fueling their passionate rhetoric. Generally, opponents abandoned the

“women should be kept on a pedestal” argument and used moral frames to link ERA passage to gay rights, equality without the ERA, and states’ rights. Ratification supporters also left behind the argument that there were unjust laws allowing discrimination, and instead framed ERA as necessary for equality, focusing rhetoric to make their case. Two senators on different sides used the Bible to support their fervid arguments.

Senator Gwen Margolis, an ERA proponent, reminded senators that those who had voted for segregation and against integration did not get re-elected. Warning that “the women of this

74 Journal of the House of Representatives, Special Session “H,” (June 21, 1982). The vote listed above is the actual vote. After the roll call 61 yeas and 58 nays were registered. Elaine Gordon said that she was surprised by the vote because several legislators voted in a way that was different than the vote they indicated to her that they would cast. She said that she was particularly grateful for the unexpected favorable vote for the ERA of Rep. Jim Watt (R- Miami). Elaine Gordon conversation in 1992. 75 Senate Floor Debate, Florida Senate, The Secretary of the Senate, tape 3, Series 1238, Box 74, (June 21, 1982), Florida State Archives, Tallahassee, Florida.

224 country will never forget this vote” and “never give up,” Margolis chided senators saying: “I think that gentlemen, it is time for you all to show the real courage, and be a man and not think you are superior to women.”76

Senator Toni Jennings, who was one of the few women to oppose the ERA, explained her position for the first time. Jennings was elected to the Florida House of Representatives in 1976 and then to the Florida Senate in 1980. Describing the difficulty of being against the ERA as a woman, Jennings explained that she had searched her soul, conscience, and constituency. She said that many women criticized her for not supporting ERA. Jennings declared that she had studied the issue and was aware of how her constituents felt about the ERA. Although she opposed ERA, Jennings argued that she felt, “very strongly about working for equal opportunity, for equal pay, for all of the ‘equalities’ that people do not enjoy.”77

Figure 4.16. Senator Toni Jennings in the senate chamber. Courtesy of State Archives of Florida.

76 Ibid. 77 Ibid. Jennings is a remarkable woman. She is the only person to have served two terms as Florida Senate President. Jennings was ’s Lt. Governor from 2003 to 2006. She was adored by Senator Dempsey Barron and the “Good Old Boys” from northern Florida and often accompanied them on their hunting trips.

225 Senator Alan Trask argued against the ERA saying that it would legalize homosexuality, which was “against God’s plan.” Trask repeated the story he often told about the women he met who wanted the ERA to be ratified so they could marry each other. He said that his vote switch to oppose ERA created a lot of flack in his district and from the Lakeland Ledger. Asserting that he had been reelected regardless of the ill will in his senate district, Trask said that he had nothing against homosexuals and had “the greatest compassion and sympathy for them,” but that he hated “their lifestyle.” Trask insisted: “Since the recorded history of the world, every great civilization that has ever come to the point where they accept that lifestyle as a normal acceptable standard has fallen and no longer exists.” Claiming that homosexuality violated God’s laws, Trask asked senators to vote against the ERA. In response, there was cheering and clapping throughout the gallery and hallways. Senate President W.D. Childers constantly had to ask people in the gallery and those outside the gallery in the halls to be quiet.78

Proponent Republican Senator Mary Grizzle had been in the legislature for 19 years.

Grizzle explained that in 1963 when she first was elected women had few legal rights. She described a visit from a friend who worked for Century 21 Real Estate and was opposed the

ERA. Grizzle emphasized that her professional friend would not have been able to work outside the home if it had not been for legislation sponsored and passed by female legislators for the previous two decades. Since the ERA was first debated in Florida in 1972, Grizzle said the number of one-parent families in the United States had doubled – “21% of 31.5 million families with children were headed by a single parent and in 90% of the cases of women headed the

78 Senate Floor Debate, Florida Senate, The Secretary of the Senate, tape 3, Series 1238, Box 74, (June 21, 1982), Florida State Archives, Tallahassee, Florida.

226 household.” Asking senators to vote for constitutional protection for women,” Grizzle urged a

“yes” vote.79

Opponent Senator David McClain said that he was the first to hire a female legislative aide in the Senate. McClain said that everyone in the Florida Senate believed in equal rights for women, “it’s a question of approach.” McClain admitted, “it is how we treat women beings, and most of us in our hearts have changed a lot of attitudes, and I think that women are going to progress.” He promised, “to do everything I can as I have in the past and with God’s help we will have equality.”80

Senator Joe Gersten described historical struggles for human rights for the previous 60 years. He declared that opposition to the ERA had become “a cause célèbre of the New Right.”

Gersten said the issue had become emotional and irrational, especially for opponents. The war would not be over until women had won and were recognized as equal under the laws of the

United States, Gersten concluded.81

Senator Dan Jenkins complained that so much money had been spent on the ERA battle rather than on social issues: “I only wish that a similar group could get all worked up over handicapped, abused children, and other disadvantaged people in the state to pour all the money and the time and the effort that has really been poured in by both groups as past year … about $1 million a month ... I’m really wondering where all that money goes.”82

Principal ERA opponent Senator Dempsey Barron made his final argument against the

ERA. Barron declared that current Florida laws provide necessary equality for women. He said that the federal government was granted limited powers and all other powers were granted to the

79 Ibid, tape 4. 80 Ibid. 81 Ibid. 82 Ibid.

227 states. Barron said that the ERA would “transfer 70% of the powers of the states back to the federal government.” The process for amending the U.S. Constitution was purposely difficult,

Barron said, and in 200 years, only 26 amendments were adopted and ten were the Bill of Rights.

He asked senators to defeat the ERA.83

Figure 4.17. Senator Jack Gordon in the senate chamber. Courtesy of State Archives of Florida.

Senator Jack Gordon focused his remarks on the economic basis of discrimination. He said the march toward equality would continue in history, since “the essence of family life is equality.” Addressing proponents’ debate rhetoric, Gordon asserted, “the most effective way to do away with poverty in this country would be to pay women equal dollars for equal work with equal qualifications.” ERA proponents rather than opponents had expressed concern for those in poverty, battered children, abused spouses, Gordon declared. He said that there was an economic basis of discrimination because equality had not been accorded to women. “So, expecting that we are not going to win this vote, I would ask Senator Barron and Senator McClain to join me in a

83 Ibid, tape 5.

228 bill - and pass it today - to make Florida a community property state and say that women have a total share in the funds of their family, their husbands, their earnings and that they are entitled to their share of the earnings,” Gordon demanded.

Driving home the economic argument, Gordon contended that men did not want the ERA to pass because they wanted to “keep control of property.” Comparing the issue-by-issue approach to ending discrimination rather than adopting the ERA, Gordon said, was “like trying to abolish slavery, plantation by plantation.”

Finally, Gordon closed his passionate plea for passing the ERA by using the Bible to appeal to opponents. Quoting from the Book of Exodus, Gordon told the story of Moses and

Pharoah. After several plagues, Pharoah offered to let the men go if Moses would leave the women and children behind. Moses responded, according to Gordon, saying that he would not separate men from women and children, but that they would all march to freedom together.

Likewise, America was “inexorably moving toward more freedom.” Eventually, Gordon lamented, equality of rights would be embodied in the U.S. Constitution. Loud clapping and shouting came from the gallery and hallways.84 House Concurrent Resolution (HCR) 1-H was substituted for SCR 1-H. Gordon asked for a traditional roll-call vote rather than the usual electronic count. Proponents and opponents listened in nervous silence as the clerk totaled the vote. The ERA failed by a vote of 16 yeas to 21 nays.85

Opponents exploded into loud cheering and applause. Proponents started chanting, “Vote them out!” Reacting to the defeat, proponents vowed to challenge ERA opponents in the

84 Ibid, tape 1. 85 Ibid, tape 5. Journal of the Senate, (June 21, 1982): 14-15. Senator Alan Trask immediately announced his resignation from the senate. He was being charged with ethics financial disclosure violations concerning federal banking laws, including failing to disclose several different debts, assets, business interests and income during 1974- 80. A senate investigatory committee later charged him with seven violations. The investigation ended with his resignation. See remarks in Journal of the Senate, (June 21, 1982): 15-18, and Michael Ollove, “Trask Says Press Caused Resignation,” The Miami Herald (June 22, 1982): 10A.

229 following November elections. “We intend to challenge ERA opponents with as many female candidates as possible,” Eleanor Smeal, president of the National Organization for Women, said:

“We will no longer beg men for our rights.”86

“I had three heart attacks,” ERA sponsor Rep. Elaine Gordon reminisced after the last

ERA vote. The first was the unexpected arrival of ERA opponent Rep. Frank Williams, who had been traveling in Europe and was expected to be absent. The second was an unsuccessful attempt by Rep. Tom Bush to amend an anti-abortion section onto the ERA. It was ruled out of order.

Gordon said her third scare was the actual house vote in favor of the ERA, which was by exactly the number of votes she had forecast, yet by slightly different legislators.87

Figure 4.18. Political cartoon showing the results of the Florida Senate ERA vote. Courtesy of State Archives of Florida, cartoon by Dana Summers, Orlando Sentinel.

Florida was the last hope of proponents who needed three states to ratify the ERA. After the torrent of activity in 1982 to approve the ERA or kill it “Black Flag Dead,”88 it was defeated in the Florida Senate by six votes. Both sides agreed that 1982 was a critical year for advancing

86 Patrick Riordan, “Florida Senate Dashes Hopes for Adding ERA to Constitution,” St. Petersburg Times (June 22, 1982): 1A. 87 Ibid. Rep. Gordon told the author that she was really surprised and thankful that Republican Rep. Jim Watt, in particular, voted for the ERA. 88 This saying originated with former Congresswoman , who served in the Florida House (1978-1983), the Florida Senate (1983-1993) and Congress (1993-2003).

230 women’s concerns in other legislative initiatives, notwithstanding the ERA defeat. The final debate in 1982’s Special Session reflects the differences between the worldviews of ERA proponents and opponents, which remain a part of our modern culture today.

***

Greater cultural polarization and the rise of the Religious Right were hallmarks of the

ERA battle from 1979 to 1982. The ERA as a “symbol” became more important than the actual

ERA, since cultural changes advanced opportunities for women in education, professions, and election to political office. As each side used argumentation to make sense of their world, their language threatened the other side’s interpretation of the world. Symbols and frames centered on ideas of true womanhood, sources of moral authority, equality, and family. Religion persisted as part of opposition and support frames, strategies, and tactics during this final four-year period.

Conservatives built coalitions and established new religious political organizations. Losing energy in 1980 and 1981, supporters shifted their gears downward until the big push occurred in

1982. As one of the three key battleground states, Florida was at the center of the storm. Both sides in 1982 were in as much conflict about these areas at the end of the debate as they had been at the beginning of the ERA battle. Indeed, as Nancy L. Cohen documented in Delirium, these public policy conflicts – the sexual counterrevolution – persist into modern day politics.

231

EPILOGUE

THE IRONY AND LEGACY OF THE EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT

The ERA has attracted so much attention not just because it was an unsuccessful attempt to amend the Constitution, but because it symbolizes a revolution in relations between the sexes that has been in the public eye for the last twenty years.1 ~ Jo Freeman

I hate to hear you talk about all women as if they were fine ladies instead of rational creatures. None of us want to be in calm waters all our lives. ~ Jane Austen, Persuasion

“You’ve come a long way, baby!” This was a catchy slogan with a jingle to market

Virginia Slims cigarettes to young women in the late 1960s and early 1970s. The ads usually featured well-known and attractively dressed female models. The slogan was designed to link

Virginia Slims to women’s liberation. Here in the 21st century the cigarettes remain a best seller.

Have women come a long way since the Equal Rights Amendment battle? The answer is a qualified “yes” that is filled with irony.

Ratification was unsuccessful in Florida for the same reasons the ERA failed in other states. The white male-dominated southern legislature favored opponent’s explicit moral framing while also implicitly following the wishes of business interests. Many women were indifferent and there was not widespread consensus that a constitutional amendment was necessary. A handful of senate powerbrokers blocked passage of the amendment for a decade, based on varying reasons, although the rhetoric followed similar religious arguments throughout the ten- year battle.

1 Jo Freeman, “Social Revolution and the Equal Rights Amendment,” Sociological Forum 3(Winter 1988) 1: 145- 152.

232 Ironically, women did “come a long way” in several surprising ways. First, religious and moral interpretations of gender roles were used to strengthen the personal political power of women. Many female proponents and opponents experienced new social, political, and personal empowerment through participation in the ERA conflict. Proponents exercised their activism through various established organizations involved in the national effort to pass the ERA such as the League of Women Voters, National Organization for Women, and the Business and

Professional Women of Florida. In the proponents’ view, participating in the political arena was a natural extension of advocating for expanded roles and power for women.

Moreover, the paradox was that the female ERA opponents were also personally empowered through their political activism. They ventured outside the home, joining with conservative women’s efforts to fight to protect traditional gender roles, domestic life, and the status quo. Interestingly, the language of traditional values concealed the political power and authority wielded by women in anti-ERA organizations who raised funds, lobbied the

Legislature, organized marches, and waged a media war. When women defined their political activism as a calling from God, they were able to sidestep male religious authority and subjugate ideas about their proper roles. Indeed, Mormon women, as well as other conservative religious women, took full advantage of the opportunity to fight the ERA because, ironically, it allowed them to expand beyond their restricted roles. Thus, homemakers and other traditional women left home to engage in “spiritual warfare” and gain new identities in the political arena. That was a

“win” for conservative women as well as progressive women.

Second, women’s issues other than ERA gained an upward trajectory of legislative support. As Senator Dempsey Barron told Barbara Palmer, they were under pressure to show legislative support for women through other means. Laws were passed addressing credit parity,

233 marriage rights, insurance equity, and female property ownership. Additionally, the “bra burners,” or radical feminists, were given credit for paving the way for more moderate women to negotiate reasonable changes on campuses, in government, in business, and in other institutions.

Third, another advancement for women came through legal victories, as women achieved rights through judicial interpretations of the 14th Amendment. Ironically, during the ERA conflict, these successes actually undercut ratification efforts. Many professions opened for women, especially in the government sector, where “affirmative action” required equal opportunity for women and other minority groups.

Finally, women “came a long way” through the many female organizations and interest groups that were created and funded around the ERA battle. The organizations easily adjusted the issues they supported or opposed after ERA was not ratified and continued their political activism. Conservative women’s groups battled abortion, gay rights, and other issues, while progressive women’s groups promoted reproductive rights, gay rights, and other issues. Both groups expanded to pick up broader issues relating to education, health care, election reform, immigration reform, living wages, and foreign policy.

For all of the advances women have made since the ERA struggle, there are areas that have not moved as rapidly. For example, there is still a gender gap in wages. Women make about

77 cents for every dollar that men earn. In all of the most common occupations women earn less than men.2 Additionally, women still see bias in the workplace, according to a recent poll.

Although public opinion has shifted significantly on some social issues, 84% of women indicate

2 “The Gender Wage Gap by Occupation,” Fact Sheet, Institute for Women’s Policy Research, (April 2013), located at: http://www.iwpr.org/initiatives/pay-equity-and-discrimination.

234 that men are paid more for similar work, and four in ten women said they have had personal experience with gender discrimination.3

Moreover, in the recent political election cycle, women’s issues were at the center of campaigns, with Democrats accusing Republicans of waging a “war on women,” and

Republicans declaring that Democrats were stringing together nonissues to fabricate an attack on women’s rights. Ironically, progressive women were using a moral frame to attack some conservatives who were taking extreme positions on contraception, mandatory ultrasounds, violence against women, and various women’s health issues. These rhetorical conflicts have occurred on both a national level and in Florida. Religion underlies the political conflict. Since the political parties now generally represent each side of the debate, Republicans espouse a conservative religious worldview and Democrats embrace a progressive moral perspective.

In hindsight, would the advancement in progressive and conservative women’s activism and equal rights have occurred if there had not been a Women’s Movement? Maybe not – the

Women’s Movement remade religious and secular institutions that broadened women’s role in politics and religion. Working women became the rule and not the exception. Furthermore, the women’s movement mantra, “the personal is political,” ironically led to redefining politics to include social issues, which were largely not a part of mainstream cultural issues in the 1970s.

Abortion, gay rights, and other formerly “personal” issues became political, initiating the creation of a coalition of conservative religious women, who also fought against the ERA, and later became the basis for the rise of the Religious Right.

In addition, culture shifts have occurred in the 21st century. Feminism now exists in underlying assumptions, even in conservative religious households, with men and women

3 Colleen McCain Nelson, “Poll: Most Women See Bias in the Workplace,” The Wall Street Journal (April 12, 2013).

235 sharing more childcare and household duties than ever before (although women still do more).

Ironically, many of the daughters of the women on both sides of the ERA battle have families and jobs that have shifted because of what their mothers did to effect social change. The new public dilemma is more personal than political. Can women “have it all?” Having it all means having a career and a family. Recently, Anne-Marie Slaughter stirred controversy when she declared “Why Women Can’t Have it All,” in response to Facebook’s powerhouse executive

Sheryl Sandberg’s exhortations to women. Sandberg told women they could handle both career and family, equally share household and parenting duties, and not to underestimate what they could accomplish in the workplace. Slaughter, a former policy advisor to the Obama administration countered that rather than blaming women who were afraid to drop the feminist banners bequeathed to them by their mothers, they should advocate for changes in the workplace to accommodate career women with families. While lower-income women struggle to make ends meet and care for their children, the public discussion continues with moral, cultural, and religious assumptions shaping the debate.4

Finally, if “coming a long way, baby” means that a former First Lady could be the leading contender in the polls as the 2016 Democratic nominee for President of the United

States, then women have made remarkable progress in the last few decades.

4 Anne-Marie Slaughter, “Why Women Can’t Have it All,” The Atlantic, (July/August 2012), located at: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/07/why-women-still-cant-have-it-all/309020/, and Sheryl Sandberg, “Why We Have Too Few Women Leaders,” 2010, TED, located at: http://www.ted.com/talks/sheryl_sandberg_why_we_have_too_few_women_leaders.html. See also Sheryl Sandberg, Lean In: Women, Work, and the Will to Lead, (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2013) and Makers: Women Who Make America, PBS Video, Kundhardt McGee Productions, 2013.

236 APPENDIX A

EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT – NATIONAL CHRONOLOGY

YEAR ACTION 1920 Women are granted the right to vote. Ten states still have not ratified the 19th Amendment. Florida did – in 1969.

1923 The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), written by Alice Paul, leader of the National Women's Party, is introduced in Congress.

1946 After remaining in committee for 23 years, the ERA is defeated by the U.S. Senate, 38 to 35.

1950 The ERA passes the Senate with a rider nullifying its equal protection aspects. It is introduced into each session of Congress from 1953 until 1970 when it finally moves out of committee in the House for the first time.

1971 The ERA is approved without amendments by the U.S. House of Representatives in a vote of 354 to 24.

1972 The U.S. Senate approves the ERA, 84 to 8. To become law, the amendment requires ratification by 38 states by March 22, 1979. Within the year, 22 state legislatures approve ERA.

1977 A total of 35 states have ratified ERA. Two law students propose that the National Organization for Women (NOW) seek an extension of the 1979 deadline. They argue that the constitution imposes no time limit for ratification of amendments. Rep. Elizabeth Holtzman (D., N.Y.) proposes the extension in Congress.

Alice Paul, author of the ERA, dies at age 92.

1978 The deadline extension passes Congress, with the House vote at 233-189, and the Senate vote 60 to 36. The new deadline is June 30, 1982.

NOW calls for a national boycott of unratified states, which is later upheld in court challenges. In the ensuing four years, Florida businessmen estimate the boycott costs the state millions in lost convention business.

1979 Legislators from three states file a suit in Idaho asking U.S. District Judge Marion Callister to rule the ERA extension unconstitutional and to validate a state's power to rescind ratification. Five states had passed resolutions seeking to rescind approval of ERA.

1981 Callister rules that the extension is unconstitutional and the states may rescind approval. The U.S. Justice Department says it will take the matter to the Supreme Court only if the ERA is ratified by three more states.

1982 The deadline for ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment is June 30. The amendment fails to receive ratification by the necessary three additional states.

Source: Women for Responsible Legislation, a Florida, anti- ERA organization, and The National Organization for Women, ERA: 10 Years in Florida.

237 APPENDIX B

EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT – FLORIDA CHRONOLOGY 1972-1982

YEAR ACTION 1972 HOUSE: HCR 4440/ HJR 208 (CHERRY) passed the House 84-3. SENATE: No action.

March 24, 1972: The late Rep. Gwen Cherry, the first black woman in the legislature, sponsors the Equal Rights Amendment in Florida, two days after the U.S. Congress approves ERA. The resolution passes the House, 84 to 3, with little debate or discussion.

The Senate does not consider the issue due to a technicality later ruled unconstitutional. The ERA must pass both the House and Senate in the same year to be ratified in Florida.

1973 HOUSE: HCR 73 (CHERRY) failed on House Floor. SENATE: SCR 16 (POSTON), SCR 20 (G. LEWIS), SB 726 (WILSON) unfavorable by Senate Judiciary Committee.

Winter, 1973: The Senate Judiciary Committee conducts hearings in five metropolitan areas. The House Select Committee on Human Rights conducts six hearings, then recommends passage of ERA.

On April 10, 1973, the galleries are packed with women dressed in "Go ERA" green or "Stop ERA" red as the House debates the issue. Between 1972 and 1973, there has been a 40 percent turnover in House membership and sharp shifts in the positions of returning legislators who have been deluged with anti-ERA mail. The ERA resolution is defeated 64 to 54 in the House. It remains in committee in the Senate.

Various coalitions of pro-ERA groups intensify lobbying efforts eventually led by the National Organization for Women (NOW). Shirley Spellerberg commands Phyllis Schlafly's anti-ERA forces in a Florida group called Women for Responsible Legislation. These groups will meet in Tallahassee every spring for the next nine years.

1974 HOUSE: HCR 2245 (GORDON), HCR 2246 (CHERRY) died in Rules & Calendar Committee. SENATE: SCR 18 (WILSON) failed on the Senate Floor 19-21.

April 1974: Sen. Lori Wilson (Independent, Cocoa Beach) sponsors the ERA resolution. The Senate president supports ERA, but the Senate "dean" Dempsey Barron (D., Pensacola) opposes it. He will be a prime political force against it for the next eight years. The ERA is defeated, 19 to 21.

1975 HOUSE: HCR 2 (CHERRY) & HCR 68 (GORDON) passed on the House Floor (61-58) and failed on the Senate Floor (17-21). SENATE: SCR 18 (WILSON) HCR 2 & 68 substituted and failed on the Senate Floor 17- 21.

The ERA is sponsored by Rep. Elaine Gordon (D., N. Miami) and Sen. Dan Scarborough (D., Jacksonville). About 3,000 people parade to the capitol to hear Gov. Reubin Askew speak in favor of ERA. It passes in the House, 61 to 58, and fails in the Senate, 17 to 21.

1976 HOUSE: HCR 2351 (GORDON), HCR 2352 (CHERRY) died in Rules & Calendar Committee.

238 YEAR ACTION SENATE: SCR 1 (WILSON) died in Rules & Calendar Committee.

No vote.

1977 HOUSE: HCR 1 (GORDON), HCR 2 (CHERRY). HCR 1 reported favorably by HRS Committee; died on the House Calendar. SENATE: SCR 2 (WILSON) failed on the Senate Floor 19-21.

April 1977: After four hours of bitter debate, the Senate rejects the amendment, 19 to 21. No vote is taken in the House where Gordon has 61 representatives, a majority of the house, co- sponsoring the ERA.

1978 HOUSE: HCR 3 (GORDON), HCR 2 (CHERRY) died in Rules & Calendar Committee. SENATE: SCR 3 (WILSON) died in Rules & Calendar Committee.

The legislature does not vote on ERA, but the public does. A straw resolution is included with seven other amendments, including gambling and gay rights, to the Florida Constitution. All are defeated after vitriolic, expensive, confusing campaigns.

1979 HOUSE: HCR 1 (GORDON) reported favorably by House Rules & Calendar Committee. SENATE: SCR 2 (GORDON) reported unfavorably by Senate Rules & Calendar Committee. SB 267 (SCOTT). After passing the Senate amended in the House to include the ERA. Passed House; Senate fails 19-21.

The ERA passes the House in an unusual fashion. Dempsey Barron, then Senate rules committee chairman, blocks the Senate vote by holding ERA in committee. Rep. Elaine Gordon bypasses Barron by tacking the ERA onto a Senate bill revising the Human Rights Act. That bill passes the House, 64 to 52 and returns directly to the Senate floor. There the Human Rights Act passes but the ERA rider, voted on separately, is defeated, 19 to 21.

1980 HOUSE: HCR 14 (GORDON) died in Rules & Calendar Committee. SENATE: No action.

ERA proponents do not press for a vote because there has been no change in Senate membership.

1981 HOUSE: HCR 1 (GORDON) died in Rules & Calendar Committee. SENATE: No action.

No vote and no debate. The elections have led to a clear majority opposed to ERA.

1982 HOUSE: HCR 10 (GORDON) died in Rules & Calendar Committee. REG SENATE: SCR 618 (GORDON) died in Rules & Calendar Committee. SESSION There is no discussion on ERA during the regular legislative session; it is preoccupied with reapportionment.

1982 HOUSE: HCR 1-H (GORDON) passed the House 60-58; failed in the Senate 16-22 SPECIAL SENATE: SCR 1-H (GORDON) refer to HCR 1-H; SIM IDEN. SESSION Gov. Bob Graham calls a special session in June just for the final ERA debate and vote. The ERA is defeated. Source: Joan S. Carver, “The Equal Rights Amendment and the Florida Legislature.” Florida Historical Quarterly (April 1982).

239 SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Primary Sources

Government Documents/Tapes (Archives of the State of Florida, Tallahassee, Florida)

Legislative Hearing Tapes, Files, and Journals 1972-1982 Florida House of Representatives Florida Senate

Oral History Archives (Legislative Research Center & Museum, Tallahassee, Florida)

Reuben Askew, Former Legislator and Governor Dempsey Barron, Former Legislator Helen Gordon Davis, Former Legislator Jack Gordon, Former Legislator & Congressman Bob Graham, Former State Legislator, Governor and U.S. Senator Mary Grizzle, Former Legislator Toni Jennings, Former Legislator Phil Lewis, Former Legislator Lori Wilson, Former Legislator

Misc. Archives

Florida Memory Project, Florida State Archives, Tallahassee, Florida. Elaine Gordon Archives, Green Library, Florida International University, Miami, Florida. Samuel Proctor Oral History Program, Department of History, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.

Newspapers

Miami Herald New York Times Ocala Star Banner Orlando Sentinel Sarasota Herald Tribune St. Petersburg Times Tampa Tribune Tallahassee Democrat

Secondary Sources

Allured, Janet. “Arkansas Baptists and Methodists and the Equal Rights Amendment.” The Arkansas Historical Quarterly 43:1 (Spring 1984): 55-66.

240 Arrington, Theodore S. and Patricia A. Kyle. “Equal Rights Activists in North Carolina.” Signs 3 (Spring 1978): 666-80.

Balmer, Randall. “American Fundamentalism: The Ideal of Femininity.” In Fundamentalism & Gender John Stratton Hawley, ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1994: 47-62.

______. Blessed Assurance: A History of Evangelicalism in America. : Beacon, 1999.

______. Thy Kingdom Come: How the Religious Right Distorts the Faith and Threatens America, An Evangelical’s Lament. New York: Basic Books, 2006.

Bendroth, Margaret Lamberts. Fundamentalism and Gender: 1875 to the Present. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1993.

Bendroth, Margaret Lamberts and Virginia Lieson Brereton, eds. Women and Twentieth-Century Protestantism. Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 2002.

Berry, Mary Frances. Why ERA Failed: Politics, Women’s Rights, and the Amending Process of the Constitution. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1986.

Boles, Janet K. “Building Support for the ERA: A Case of ‘Too Much, Too Late.’” PS: Political Science and Politics 15 (Fall 1982): 572-577.

Boone, Kathleen C. For the Bible Tells Them So: The Discourse of Protestant Fundamentalism. New York: State University of New York Press, 1989.

Bradley, Martha Sonntag. Pedestals and Podiums: Utah Women, Religious Authority & Equal Rights. Salt Lake City, UT: Signature Books, 2005.

Brady, David W. and Kent L. Tedin. “Ladies in Pink: Religion and Political Ideology in the Anti-ERA Movement.” Social Science Quarterly 36 (March 1976): 564-575.

Brown, Barbara, et. al. “The Equal Rights Amendment: A Constitutional Basis for Equal Rights for Women.” Yale Law Journal 80 (April 1971): 871-985.

Brown, Ruth Murray. For a “Christian America:” A History of the Religious Right, Rightward Bound: Making America Conservative in the 1970s. Amherst, N.Y.: Prometheus Books, 2002.

Burns, Gene. The Moral Veto: Contraception, Abortion, and Cultural Pluralism in the United States. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005.

Burch, Maxie B. The Evangelical Historians: The Historiography of George Marsden, Nathan Hatch, and Mark Noll. New York: University Press of America, Inc., 1996.

241 Burris,Val. “Who Opposed the ERA? An Analysis of the Social Bases of Anti-feminism,” Social Science Quarterly 64:2 (June 1983): 305-317.

Buzzett, Billy and Steven J. Uhlfelder. “Constitution Revision Commission: A Retrospective and Prospective Sketch,” Florida Bar Journal 71 (April 1997) 4: 22-25.

Caizza, Amy. The Ties That Bind: Women’s Public Vision for Politics, Religion, and Civil Society. (Washington, D.C.: Institute for Women’s Policy Research, 2005). Available online at: http://www.iwpr.org/pdf/I914.pdf.

Carver, Joan S. “The Equal Rights Amendment and the Florida Legislature.” The Florida Historical Society Quarterly 60:4 (April 1982): 455-481.

Cohen, Nancy L. Delirium: How the Sexual Counterrevolution is Polarizing America. Berkeley: Counterpoint Press, 2012.

Collins, Gail. When Everything Changed: The Amazing Journey of American Women from 1960 to the Present. New York: Little, Brown Company, 2009.

Critchlow, Donald T. Phyllis Schlafly and Grass Roots Conservatism: A Woman’s Crusade. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2005.

Critchlow, Donald and Cynthia L. Stachecki. “The Equal Rights Amendment Reconsidered: Politics, Policy, and Social Mobilization in a Democracy.” The Journal of Policy History 20:1 (2008): 157-176.

Deutchman, Iva E. and Sandra Prince-Embury. “Political Ideology of Pro- and Anti-ERA Women.” Women & Politics 2:1/2 (Spring/Summer 1982): 54-65.

Diamond, Sara. The Politics of the Christian Right. Boston: South End Press, 1989.

Dimieri, Thomas. “The Structure of Belief Systems among Contending ERA Activists.” Social Forces 60 (March 1982): 657-73.

Domke, David and Kevin Coe. The God Strategy: How Religion Became a Political Weapon in America. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008.

Dye, Thomas R. Politics in Florida. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1998.

Echols, Alice. Daring to Be Bad: Radial Feminism in America, 1967-1975. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1989.

Evans, Sarah. Personal Politics: The Roots of Women’s Liberation in the Civil Rights Movement and the New Left. Vintage Books, 1980.

242 Faludi, Susan. Backlash: The Undeclared War Against American Women. New York: Three Rivers Press, 1991.

Fejes, Fred. Gay Rights and Moral Panic: The Origins of America’s Debate on Homosexuality. New York: Palgrave McMillian, 2008.

Frank, Gillian. “‘The Civil Rights of Parents:’ Race and Conservative Politics in Anita Bryant’s Campaign Against Gay Rights in 1970s Florida.” Journal of the History of Sexuality 22:1 (January, 2013): 126-160.

Freeman, Jo. “Social Revolution and the Equal Rights Amendment.” Sociological Forum 3 (Winter 1988) 1: 145-152.

Griffith, R. Marie. God’s Daughters, Evangelical Women and the Power of Submission. Berkeley, California: University of California Press, 1997.

Feinberg, Renee. The Equal Rights Amendment: An Annotated Bibliography of the Issues, 1976- 1985. New York: Greenwood Press, 1986.

Goffman, Erving. Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. York, Penn.: Northeastern University Press, 1974.

Gokel., Ruth L. “One Small Word: Sexual Equality Through the State Constitution.” Florida State University Law Review 6 (1978): 952-989.

Grupp, Fred W. and William M. Newman. “Political Ideology and Religious Preference: The John Birch Society and the Americans for Democratic Action.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 12:4 (Dec. 1973): 401-413.

Gustafson, James M. “The Place of Scripture in Christian Ethics.” Interpretation 24 (October 1970) 4: 430-455.

Haidt, Jonathan. The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion. New York: Pantheon Books, 2012.

Hamilton, Adam. Seeing Gray in a World of Black and White: Thoughts on Religion, Morality, and Politics. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2008.

Hartmann, Susan M. From Margin to Mainstream: American Women and Politics Since 1960. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1989.

Harvey, Anna L. Votes without Leverage: Women in American Electoral Politics, 1920-1970. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1998.

Heineman, Kenneth. God is a Conservative: Religion, Politics, and Morality in Contemporary America. New York: New York University Press, 1998.

243 Hughes, D.L. and Charles W. Peek. “Ladies against Women: Explaining the Political Participation of Traditional- and Modern-Role Females.” Political Behavior 8: 2 (1986): 158-174.

Hoff-Wilson, Joan, ed. Rights of Passage: The Past and the Future of the ERA. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1986.

Iadarola, Antoinette. “The American Catholic Bishops and Woman: from the Nineteenth Amendment to ERA.” In Women, Religion and Social Change, Haddad and Findly, eds., (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1985): 457-476.

Johnson, Cassandra E. “The economic necessity for the ERA.” Engage/Social Action 12 (January 1, 1984): 33-37.

Katzenstein, Mary Fainsod. Faithful and Fearless: Moving Feminist Protest Inside the Church and Military. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1998.

______. “Feminism and the Meaning of the Vote.” Signs 10:1 (Autumn 1984): 4-26.

Kenneally, James. “A Question of Equality.” In American Catholic Women: A Historical Exploration, Kennelly, ed.. (New York: Macmillan, 1989): 125-151.

Kerber, Linda K. “Separate Spheres, Female Worlds, Woman’s Place: The Rhetoric of Women’s History.” Journal of American History 75 (June 1988): 9-39.

“Killing ERA Didn't Cure the Patient: Now it's up to Evangelicals to Prescribe a Medicine without the Dangerous Side Effects.” Christianity Today 26: 15 (September 17, 1982): 14-318.

Klatch, Rebecca. Women of the New Right. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1987.

______. “Coalition and Conflict among Women of the New Right.” Signs 13:4 (Summer 1988): 671-694.

______. “The Formation of Feminist Consciousness Among Left - And Right - Wing Activists of the 1960s.” Gender & Society 15: 6 (December 2001): 791-815.

Lakoff, George. Don’t Think of an Elephant Know Your Values and Frame the Debate: The Essential Guide for Progressives. White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green Publishing Company, 2004.

______. Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2004.

244 Lambert, Frank. Religion in American Politics: A Short History. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2008.

Liebman, Robert C. and Robert Wuthnow, eds. The New Christian Right: Mobilization and Legitimation. New York: Aldine Publishing Co., 1983.

Lienesch, Michael. “Right-Wing Religion: Christian Conservatism as a Political Movement,” Political Science Quarterly 97:3 (Autumn, 1982): 403-425.

Lindley, Susan Hill. “You Have Stept Out of Your Place:” A History of Women and Religion in America. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1996.

Mansbridge, Jane J. “Rethinking Representation,” The American Political Science Review, 97:4 (Nov. 2003): 516.

______. Why We Lost the ERA. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1986.

Marsden, George. Fundamentalism and American Culture, 2nd Ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2006.

Marshall, Susan. “Ladies against Women: Mobilization Dilemmas of Antifeminist Movements.” Social Problems 32: 4 (April 1985): 348-362.

______. “Who Speaks for American Women? The Future of Antifeminism.” The Annals of Political and Social Science 515 (1991): 50-62.

Mathews, Donald G. “‘Spiritual Warfare:’ Cultural Fundamentalism and the Equal Rights Amendment,” Religion and American Culture, 3: 2 (Summer 1993): 129-154.

Mathews, Donald G. and Jane Sherron De Hart. Sex, Gender, and the Politics of ERA: A State and the Nation. New York: Oxford University Press, 1990.

McGlen, Nancy E., et.al. Women, Politics, and American Society, 4th ed. New York: Pearson Longman, 2005.

Miller, Anita. The Equal Rights Amendment: A Bibliographic Study. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1976.

Miller, Arthur H. and Martin P. Wattenberg. “Politics from the Pulpit: Religiosity and the 1980 Elections.” The Public Opinion Quarterly 48:1 (Spring, 1984): 301-317.

Mooney, Christopher Z. “Information Sources in State Legislative Decision Making.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 16:3 (Aug. 1991): 445-455.

______., ed. The Public Clash of Private Values: The Politics of Morality Policy. New York: Chatham House Publishers, 2001.

245 Morris, Allen. The Florida Handbook: 1999-2000. Tallahassee, Florida: The Peninsular Press, 1999.

Pottmyer, Alice Allred. “Sonia Johnson: Mormonism's Feminist Heretic.” In Differing Visions, Launius and Thatcher, eds. (Urbana, Ill: Univ of Illinois Pr, 1994): 366-389.

Richardson, James T. “The ‘Old Right’ in Action: Mormon and Catholic Involvement in an Equal Rights Amendment Referendum.” In New Christian Politics, Ansen Shupe Bromley, ed. (Macon, Georgia: Mercer University Press, 1984): 213-233.

Rinehart, Sue Tolleson and Jerry Perkins. “The Intersection of Gender Politics and Religious Beliefs.” Political Behavior 11: 1 (March 1989): 33-56.

Rohlinger, Deana A. “Framing the Abortion Debate: Organizational Resources, Media Strategies, and Movement –Countermovement Dynamics,” The Sociological Quarterly, 43(Autumn 2002) 4:479-507;

Rohlinger, Deana A. and Jill Quadagno. “Framing Faith: Explaining Cooperation and Conflict in the U.S. Conservative Christian Political Movement.” Social Movement Studies 8:4 (November 2009): 341-358.

Rosen, Ruth. The World Split Open: How the Modern Women’s Movement Changed America. New York: Penguin Books, 2006.

Rymph, Catherine E. Republican Women: Feminism and Conservatism from Suffrage Through the Rise of the New Right. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2006.

Schneir, Miriam, ed. Feminism in Our Time: The Essential Writings, World War II to Present. New York: Vintage Books, 1994.

Schlafly, Phyllis. The Power of the Positive Woman. New York: Crown Publishing, 1977.

______. “ERA and Homosexual ‘Marriages.’” The Phyllis Schlafly Report, Vol. 8, No. 2, Section 2 (September, 1974): 1-4.

Slavin, Sarah. The Equal Rights Amendment: The Politics and Process of Ratification of the 27th Amendment to the Constitution. New York: Haworth Press, 1982.

Soule, Sarah A. and Susan Olzak. “When Do Movements Matter? The Politics of Contingency and the Equal Rights Amendment.” American Sociological Review 69:1 (August 2004): 473-497.

______. “The Stages of the Policy Process and the Equal Rights Amendment, 1972-1982.” American Journal of Sociology 111:6 (May 2006):1871-1909.

246 Spruill, Marjorie J. “Gender and America’s Right Turn,” in Bruce J. Schulman and Julian E. Zelizer, eds., A History of the Religious Right, Rightward Bound: Making America Conservative in the 1970s. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2008.

Staggenborg, Suzanne and Verta Taylor. “Whatever Happened to the Women's Movement?” Mobilization: An International Journal 10:1 (2005): 37-52.

Steiner, Gilbert Y. Constitutional Inequality: The Political Fortunes of the Equal Rights Amendment. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution, 1985.

Tedin, Kent L. “Religious Preference and Pro/Anti Activism on the Equal Rights Amendment Issue.” Pacific Sociological Review 21:1 (January 1978): 55-67.

Viguerie, Richard A. The New Right: We’re Ready to Lead. Falls Church, VA: The Viguerie Company, 1981.

Westen, Drew. The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation. New York: Public Affairs, 2007.

White, Jr., O. Kendall. “A Feminist Challenge: ‘Mormons for ERA’ as an Internal Social Movement.” Journal of Ethnic Studies 13.1 (Spring 1985): 34-35.

______. “A Review and Commentary on the Prospects of a Mormon New Christian Right Coalition.” Review of Religious Research 28: 2 (December 1986).

______. “Mormonism and the Equal Rights Amendment.” Journal of Church and State 31: 2 (March 1, 1989): 249-267.

Wilcox, Clyde. “The Christian Right in Twentieth Century America: Continuity and Change.” The Review of Politics 50:4 (Autumn 1988): 659-681.

Williams, Daniel K. God’s Own Party: The Making of the Christian Right. New York: Oxford, 2010.

Williams, Rhys H. “Religion as Political Resource: Culture or Ideology?” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 15 (Dec. 1996) 4:368-378.

Williams, Roger M. “Women Against Women: The Clamor Over Equal Rights.” The Saturday Review 4 (June 25, 1977): 7

Wuthnow, Robert. The Restructuring of American Religion: Society and Faith Since World War II. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1988.

Young, Neil J. “‘The ERA Is a Moral Issue:’ The Mormon Church, LDS Women, and the Defeat of the Equal Rights Amendment.” American Quarterly (2007): 623-644.

247 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Laura Brock earned a B.S. in Political Science from Florida State University (FSU) in 1978, and followed in 1980, with a Master’s in Public Administration & Public Policy. From 1980 to 1985, she worked for the Florida Supreme Court, and from 1985 to 1987, for the Florida House of

Representatives’ Republican office. She spent the next nine years as a lobbyist and policy coordinator for the Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, with a two year stint as health and human services policy coordinator for both Governor (R) and

Governor Lawton Chiles (D). From 1996 to 1998, she was the health and human services policy advisor to the Speaker of the Florida House of Representatives, Daniel Webster (R). In 1999, she completed her Master’s degree in Religion from FSU, focusing on religion, ethics, and politics.

Brock entered the doctorate program in American Religious History as a part-time student in

2003. She worked for FSU President Talbot “Sandy” D’Alemberte for two years generating grassroots and legislative support for a new College of Medicine, then was Special Projects

Director for the newly created College of Medicine. Brock was chief of staff for FSU President

T.K. Wetherell for about seven years and worked for the Florida House of Representatives’

Education Policy Council before returning to FSU to work for the College of Medicine in 2010.

Her research interests are religion, gender, and politics; friendship and religion; religion and emotion; biomedical ethics; and health policy.

248