While this is logical it only has impact if men and women have equal rights under the constitution. They do not. The Equal Rights Amendment was never ratified. While women have the right to vote there are still a large variety of incidences where it's completely constitutional to treat the sexes differently- with different rights.

It's highly likely that same sex marriage becomes a social norm before any ERA is added to the constitution. At least we don't have to register for the draft.

The absence of the equal rights amendment does not mean that the constitution doesn’t protect people (under the 14th amendment) on gender issues.
*
*
To a greater extent, gender equality has already become protected under the 14th amendment making the ERA essentially moot.

__________________
“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.”
~Abraham Lincoln

That's ridiculous. Athough not completely dissimilar to asserting homosexuals don't need same sex marriage because same sex unions are pretty much the same thing.

The constitution of the United States of America does not at this time prohibit treating the sexes differently. But it does currently offer women something fairly close.

WASHINGTON -- The equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution does not protect against discrimination on the basis of gender or sexual orientation, according to Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.

Scalia: Women Don't Have Constitutional Protection Against Discrimination

See. But rest assured homosexuals will obtain all their rights before the sexes are considered deserving of equal rights- because men (all men) gain in equality before women do. That's just how history works.

Of course that is what Scalia says. He was in the minority opinion every time the court ruled that gender IS a protected class...

__________________

Continue that line of reasoning, Muffin... I'm judging you. Harshly.

Such an allegation is like saying “separate but equal” schools establish that segregation does not need to end.
And that is on top of the fact that the vast majority of states do not have “same sex union” recognition.
Some state DOMAs even BAR recognition of same sex unions or similar benefits.
*
*
Isn’t that actually what I just said?
It does not prohibit (as in completely) treating the genders differently.
But it does offer women something fairly close.
*
*
Did you realize you were quoting from Huffington Post?
Did you read the REST of the article, which includes sections DIRECTLY REFUTING Scalia’s claims?
*

"In 1971, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that they were protected, in an opinion by the conservative then Chief Justice Warren Burger," Adam Cohen wrote in Time in September. "It is no small thing to talk about writing women out of equal protection -- or Jews, or Latinos or other groups who would lose their protection by the same logic. It is nice to think that legislatures would protect these minorities from oppression by the majority, but we have a very different country when the Constitution guarantees that it is so."
In 1996, Scalia cast the sole vote in favor of allowing the Virginia Military Institute to continue denying women admission.

Also

Legal scholar Jack Balkin writes that while the 14th amendment doesn't end up explicitly mentioning sex, that doesn't mean it doesn't grant women equal protection:

First, The central purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to guarantee equal citizenship and equality before the law for all citizens and for all persons. It does not simply ban discrimination based on race. The fact that the word race is not mentioned in the text (as it is in the fifteenth amendment) was quite deliberate.
Scalia argues that the fourteenth amendment was not intended to prevent sex discrimination. That's not entirely true. The supporters of the fourteenth amendment did not think it would disturb the common law rules of coverture: under these rules women lost most of their common law rights upon marriage under the fiction that their legal identities were merged with their husbands. But these rules did not apply to single women. So in fact, the fourteenth amendment was intended to prohibit some forms of sex discrimination-- discrimination in basic civil rights against single women.

Moreover, the Constitution was subsequently amended. After the nineteenth amendment, the common law coverture rules made little sense. If married women had the right to vote, why did they not have the right to contract or own property in their own names? If we read the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of civil equality in light of the Nineteenth Amendment, the guarantee of sex equality should apply to both single and married women. The conservative court during the Lochner era thought as much in a case called Adkins v. Children's Hospital, decided immediately after the ratification of the Nineteenth Amendment.

There are PLENTY of examples of the 14th amendment being applied to gender equality.
*
There is even an observed level of Equal Protection scrutiny (Intermediate scrutiny) applied to gender issues.
Equal Protection Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

__________________
“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.”
~Abraham Lincoln

Does the US military treat women and men equally? No. Are they bound by the constitution to treat them equally. No.

The 14th amendment may be used to prohibit some forms of gender discrimination but it does not make gender discrimination constitutionally illegal the way an ERA would.

The military isn't really a good example at all.
Typical Governmental employment would fall under the existing Civil Rights Act.
But the military is far from a typical case.* They have greater latitude to discriminate as appropriate to the mission.
Another example would be handicap.* There are laws that prohibit discrimination based on handicap, but the military CLEARLY CAN discriminate based on handicap...
*
And on the second comment, we have no dispute.
However, enacting an ERA would arguably not even*apply to*the issue of military treatment regarding gender.
*
But side-stepping that, what's the real gap?*
What would the ERA cover that is currently not covered by the 14th amendment and its application to gender?

__________________
“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.”
~Abraham Lincoln

Good point.
It has become a fad of some folks to view the 14th Amendment as a 'blank check' sort of Amendment, by trying to make anything fit under the equal protection clause. So broad is such an approach that anything--literally any interpretation by which one claims some 'right'--could be spun as justified. It's almost as if the 14th has come to be considered by some a sort of constitution in and of itself (by 'priders, at least). No NEED for the rest, when one takes that sort of all-encompassing view of the 14th! To make the 14th fit gay marriage, it could be argued for anything, pretty much. It's the closest thing they've remotely been able to find to a gay-marriage amendment, and the fact they've had to co-opt a racism amendment in order to do that is pretty telling. To use the 14th in such a flippant, blank-check sort of way judicially is VERY dangerous precedent.

Quote:

"Activist federal judges, on the other hand, see the 14th Amendment as a blank check to legalize whatever conduct they happen to approve of, such as abortion, homosexuality, & gay marriage." - Judicial Abuse of the Fourteenth Amendment: Abortion, Sexual Orientation & Gay Marriage Publius-Huldah's Blog