By Marie Mulvenna

As expected, Georgia’s lawmakers defeated the controversial Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) Monday by a vote of 104 to 70. Most would expect the ERA advocates to pack up their tents and disappear into the Atlanta mist. But Mrs. Dottie Holmes of Cathedral parish is not one to disappear or give up lightly.

Mrs. Holmes is the energetic and tireless chairperson of the ERA Coalition in Georgia and her initial comment on the spanking defeat is dogged devotion to the cause. She commented simply: “It is not dead.”

Mrs. Holmes explained that although the group felt the measure would be defeated, it also felt it had obtained several “moral victories” in the long and hard struggle. “Many legislators were impressed with the vote we got and although I can’t say right now what we’ll do exactly, I can say the battle for ERA is not over.”

The coalition was a core group representing eight different organizations: The League of Women Voters, Business and Professional Women, Federation of Women’s Clubs, Church Women United, American Association of University Women, Council of Jewish Women, Federally Employed Women, the Communication Workers of America and the Commission on the Status of Women. Mrs. Holmes headed the whole shebang and since November has been literally “run ragged” with the duties that went with her office.

Although she first claimed if ERA was defeated she “would sit right down and have a good cry,” the dauntless lady from Cathedral merely sounded more determined than ever when the tally came in Monday. She first became involved via the League of Women Voters, a group in which she says she has been affiliated “forever.” Actually, it’s been 20 years, but since the ERA was selected as the League’s legislative priority for this year, and she was chairman of the appropriate committee, she inherited her post and all the work that went with it.

Mrs. Holmes explains ERA in very simple terms as an amendment providing for no discrimination on the basis of sex. She strongly pointed out that the measure concerns only legal systems and laws and that it does not, as many have reported, change all sorts of other aspects concerning women. “Women have been against it because they don’t fully understand it – they’ve heard all sorts of fantasies about husbands not having to support their wives, that they would lose all sorts of privileges, protection, et cetera.”

When it comes to protection and anyone bases their opposition to ERA on the familiar grounds of “protective labor legislation,” Mrs. Holmes is quick to counter that “there’s nothing protective about so-called protective labor legislation.” She refers to the fact that 8^th grade male graduates and college women graduates are apt to make the same salary. Or, she adds, if they are both college graduates, then the woman can count on two-thirds of the man’s salary for the same job. “This is how it’s protected her!’

She reviewed the history of ERA, explaining its need was first felt 51 years ago upon the passage of the 19^th amendment. “Women discovered, too late, that all they achieved was the right to vote.”

For years, the ERA has been smothered and hidden in congressional committees, rearing its head in 1970 when Congresswoman Martha Griffith of Michigan got it onto the floor in a discharge petition. Since then, it has been modern history in the making.

Since it is a proposed amendment to the Constitution, three-fourths of the states must ratify it before it can become law. The amendment, therefore, will require affirmative action from eight more states.

Mrs. Holmes attributes the defeat of the measure in Georgia to “ingrained fear of women” and a healthy portion of “ignorance of what the bill was really all about.” She stated it was quite apparent on Monday that there was considerable lack of knowledge on the part of legislators and the public as to what was actually involved in the ERA measure.

A native of New Orleans, Mrs. Holmes has resided in Atlanta for 20 years. She was extremely active in religious education activities at Christ the King Parish and served on a myriad of NCCW committees when her four children were younger. She also served on the board of Catholic Social Services for the archdiocese.

“Having three daughters, I’d like to see them have more unlimited choice than my generation had,” she says seriously. “Not to have to play a role imposed by society. Women should be able to fulfill their potential the way men can.”