Support For Equal Rights Is Support For Civil Rights

Candice Matthews

September 13, 2022

Equal Rights Is Support For Civil Rights

When you read about the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), you may think about the Voting rights act of 1965 or the Fair housing act of 1968. Or perhaps you think about the Freedom Riders, who protested at segregated bus terminals. In any case, support for equal rights is support for civil rights.

The ERA would affirm sex discrimination

The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) would add another layer of protection for people facing sex discrimination at work. It would go beyond the existing federal and state laws, explicitly declaring that discrimination based on sex violates the Constitution. Such a provision would be essential for women and men who face workplace discrimination.

The ERA has gotten strong support in the Senate, but the Republican-controlled House has not yet taken up the resolution. While a Senate vote is not likely until 2020, the ERA may be blocked during this election cycle. However, there are a few problems with the ERA. First, opponents say it came decades too late. It is unclear whether it will pass if the deadline for ratification has expired.

Voting rights act of 1965

The Voting Rights Act of 1965, signed by President Lyndon Johnson on August 6, was a landmark law that helped bring racial equality. The Act abolished poll taxes and literacy tests and gave the federal government the power to intervene in local elections where the discrimination occurred. The Act also required states to submit proposed changes to voting practices to the Justice Department and federal courts.

President Johnson supported the Voting Rights Act of 1965 in response to the pressures put on him by the civil rights movement. Like the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it attempted to make voting easier for people of color. A highly publicized vote-rights march in Selma, Alabama, in March 1965 prompted widespread media coverage and heightened public sentiment in support of voting rights legislation.

Fair housing act of 1968

The Fair Housing Act of 1968 was passed on July 18, 1968. The passage of this legislation was one of the most challenging tasks facing the civil rights movement. Although it passed the House in 1966, it failed to pass the Senate due to a filibuster. A few months later, Congress attempted to revive the legislation but failed again. As 1968 dawned, President Lyndon Johnson continued to make a case for fair housing legislation, but the prospects looked bleak.

The Fair Housing Act of 1968 shifted the burden of enforcement onto the people who are discriminated against. The Act gave those aggrieved the right to file a civil suit in federal court. However, discrimination victims could only receive up to $1,000 in penalties. Moreover, they had to file a lawsuit within 180 days of the alleged violation or thirty days after the completion of HUD mediation. Furthermore, the plaintiff must pay for all court costs, including attorney’s fees, if the suit is unsuccessful.

Freedom Riders protested segregated bus terminals

In the March of 1968, a group of student activists known as the Freedom Riders protested segregated buses and bus terminals. They were part of a larger group that sought the desegregation of interstate buses. The Freedom Riders were against bus segregation because they believed it was unconstitutional. However, the group ran into resistance in the Deep South. The group’s actions attracted much media attention and eventually forced the federal government to intervene. The movement also fueled tensions between student activists and Martin Luther King, Jr.

The Freedom Riders planned a 13-day interstate bus trip through the South to protest segregation. Their journey began in Washington, D.C., and was scheduled to end in New Orleans, Louisiana. They planned to avoid segregated bus terminals by riding in the back of buses with one black rider in the front. In addition, they planned to use restrooms that were designated for white passengers only to avoid arrest.

Johnson’s civil rights legislation

Lyndon Johnson was a man of his time who, in the 1960s, helped stonewall civil rights legislation. During the late 1940s, Johnson railed against yellow dwarves in East Asia and drove around with a snake in his trunk. He tried to trick black car attendants into opening the snake, but his stunt almost ended with him being beaten by a tire iron.

President Johnson’s first official meeting with civil rights leaders occurred on the 188th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. He quoted the phrase “all men are created equal” and pointed out that many American citizens were not receiving equal treatment. The Civil Rights Act would provide equal treatment for all Americans in all aspects of American life.

Opposition to the ERA

The opposition to the Equal Rights Amendment was founded on the idea that it would remove criminal laws against homosexual acts. It was a radical idea that failed to gain traction in Congress. Yet, it should have been enshrined in the Constitution. The Constitution is the supreme law of the U.S., and equal rights should be a constitutional right.

The ERA has long been in the public eye, but some people are still opposed. Those who are against it say that the bill will not improve women’s lives. Opponents of the ERA argue that it is unfair and unjust to discriminate based on sex. The bill aims to end these differences and protect women from discrimination.

Impact of the ERA on women’s rights

The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) will soon become the 28th amendment to the United States Constitution. Despite this, there are still several legal questions that must be resolved before the ERA becomes law. First, it must be ratified by 35 states. The ERA was passed by Maryland, South Carolina, and Louisiana state houses. On March 22, 1972, the South Carolina House of Representatives voted 83 to 0 in favor of the ERA. A few months later, on June 7, the state Senate voted 25 to 13 to ratify the ERA.

The ERA would ban intentional government discrimination against women and require the government to justify its actions. It would also protect women against discrimination based on their sex.