Youth, women, minority human rights, voting issues impacted by 2014 election results

Women's right to vote shows changes in present election and following Supreme Court decisions on First Amendment

Equal rights for women has arrived for the women of today, but yesterday's women fought hard for those rights, the right to participate equally in choosing America's leaders.  Are women in 2014 upholding the promise of participating equally in elections and how have the demographics impacted elections in the past and the recent midterm election?

According to ABC News  the major demographic trends of the November 2014 election included the following results: Most unmarried women vote for Democrats by a 61-37% margin.  But the gap is closing in this demographic group, with the 24-point margin the smallest since data was collected beginning in 1992. White men vote Republican at 63-35 percent.  This is the largest margin of white men's voting Republican, tying with the results of 2010.  Those voters under age 30 tend to vote Democratic by a 13-point margin, reported at 55-42 percent.  This demographic group, however, holds a far lesser share of the electorate, and that number has reduced since 2012, from 19% share to 13 percent in the recent election.  in far lesser numbers than in the years since 2008, down from a low of 13 percent now compared to 19 percent in 2010.  Seniors vote Republican by 56-43 percent.  This demographic group votes at a far higher rate than the younger voters, with their share of the electorate having grown to 24 percent, compared with a 17 percent share in 2012.

History records the women's rights movements to begin in earnest in the 1830's, culminating in the passage of the 19th amendment in August 26, 1920.  The movement was mixed with the struggle to abolish slavery.  It was in 1851 the famous African American abolitionist, Sojourner Truth, gave her famous speech, "Ain't I a woman," as she eloquently proclaimed not just the rights of African Americans but the rights and liberties of women as well.

The fire of the women's rights movements continued to burn for years, bringing with it strong supporters whose names are etched with steely resolve into permanent historical monuments made from their sacrifices. The names include Reverend Antoinette Brown, Lucy Stone, Henry Blackwell, Frederick Douglas, Reverend Harry Ward Beecher, Lucretia Mott and Susan B. Anthony, among others.

The major impetus for women's right to vote began in the 19th century, and resulted in an official introduction as an amendment by Congress in 1878. It remained controversial for 40 years until the 19th amendment was finally enacted, giving women the right to vote.

Those rights, hard fought, came early on in Oregon, one of the leaders in the women's suffrage movement, adopting the women's right to vote in 1912. The movement with its foundling days, moved to adulthood in the passage of the 19th amendment officially when it was ratified by the states in Congress.

Those early proponents of women's suffrage in Oregon swept not just women into the movement but men as well. Advocates for women's right to vote were strong in that land of the pioneers.
Later the suffragist movement was used as a stepping stone to expansion of rights for women in education and employment. It became intertwined again with the rights of African Americans in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that solidified and expanded women's rights.

This journalist, a woman born and bred in Oregon of pioneering stock, was taught early on the strength of women as they received their equal rights. My grandmother, a woman of the days before the right to vote, spoke to me, with the words of advice as well as admonition, "Do everything you can, my dear. This is the first time in the country's history women have rights to learn."

This was her encouragement for my college education, coming from a woman who had barely finished elementary school but who had watched the changes over the years. She stood as a shining citadel to me, a child of the 1940's then, someone who hadn't been able to vote as a very young woman but who treasured it when she secured it later.

Clara Diadema Matthews, my grandmother, took her voting rights seriously. She used to say, in her salt-and-peppery 'play,' "Look at your Grandpa there. He used to ask me how he should vote, and now I'm telling him. Why Franklin Roosevelt wouldn't have been elected and got us out of trouble during the depression if it hadn't been for me."

A grandmother's recognition of women's strength at the ballot box, and the future of the country, came before the Supreme Court's decision that corporations can be treated as individuals when it comes to contributions toward political campaigns.  The Court maintained corporations have the same First Amendment rights under the Constitution.  Single women and minorities constitute the higher percentage of poor voters, a demographic less likely to vote.  And the corporate executives are largely white and male, offering the major concern for Democrats, and for socially liberal policies favored by women and minorities, as the money funneled into advertising and campaigns that counter policies that have helped initiate and maintain programs addressing civil rights, voting rights, and social concerns involving health, education and the environment.  As the voting blocs continue to move to the right, it is likely some of these programs will be eroded, erasing those gains my grandmother embraced and potentially maintaining the power of the white, male voting bloc for years to come.

Equal rights in the workplace: How well are they enforced?

Mark Cunningham — For the vast majority of the population, working is not a choice, it’s a necessity. Without a job, most of us cannot afford to buy food, pay rent, or get medical care. Because of this, it can be tempting to walk on egg shells around a boss or company that is violating your rights. However, federal laws and statutes have been set in place to protect employees from discrimination, harassment, inequality, and other abuses of power.

The basic workplace rights

According to the EEOC, every employee has similar rights, regardless of age, sex, gender, and race. Among these rights are:

Equal Pay: The Equal Pay Act mandates that men and women be paid equal pay for an equal amount of work when working at the same place. This law includes all forms of pay such as salary, overtime pay, commission, bonuses, stock options, vacation and sick pay, and health coverage.

No Discrimination: Another law mandated by the federal government is the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. This law states that no one can be discriminated against based on age. Other forms of discrimination – such as that based on religion, race, gender, nationality, pregnancy, and disability – are made illegal through the Civil Rights Act and Americans with Disabilities Act.

Fair Labor: The Fair Labor Standard Act enforces minimum wage and child labor laws. If an employer pays below minimum wage or allows a child to work beyond a set amount of hours, they are in violation.

Safety: Another right for all employees is the right to safety. OSHA enforces this right and makes sure that those in the workplace are protected against hazardous substances and unsafe environments.

Basic Human Rights: In a workplace, you also maintain your basic human rights. In other words, you have a right to be protected from abuse, harassment, threats, and invasions of privacy.

The loopholes

Perhaps one of the biggest problems with reprimanding companies who violate employees’ rights is being able to prove this violation. If a female employee believes she was passed over for a promotion because of her gender, the employer may assert that she was passed over because someone else was just more qualified. It then can become a game of he said/she said, with neither side being proven.

Another example involves age discrimination. While an employer is not legally allowed to ask someone how old they are, between their résumé (likely listing the year they graduated high school or college) as well as the plethora of info available on the Internet, it’s probably not too difficult to make an educated guess. Thus, once an employer knows the age of the applicant, it may factor into the hiring decision. But again, this isn’t simple to prove.

Lastly, while the law enforces equal pay for equal work, this can also prove futile. As it is written, the law mandates that pay is based on job responsibilities, rather than job title. Hence, if an employer wants to pay men more than women, he could simply add in a job responsibility that most women would be incapable of doing (such as tasks that require a great amount of upper body strength).

What you can do

While the violation of employee rights may not be noticeable, to believe it doesn’t exist would be naïve or, perhaps, idealistic. The good news is that anyone who believes their rights have been violated can seek legal action.

The best way to go about doing this is by talking to a lawyer who specializes in workplace or employment law. He or she will be able to weigh the validity of your case and help you devise a plan of action. However, it is important to remember that time can be of the essence; many violations have a statute of limitations (often two years) from the date of violation to the date you can seek legal action.



About the Author

Mark Cunningham, entrepreneur, small business supporter and worker rights advocate. 

Should same-sex couples have equal laws applied on adultery?

by GHN Editor - While
the states are examining same-sex marriages, and a court in California
overturned a voter-driven bill to outlaw them, should these couples be
held to the same standards on adultery?

Peter Nicolas, Professor

at the University of Washington School of Law, has a paper written on
this very subject and has posted "The Lavendar Letter: Applying the Law
of Adultery to Same-Sex Couples and Same-Sex Conduct.  He tells fellow
lawyers on a blog
that his goal is to examine the question of adultery and whether it
should apply to same-sex couples.  He reviews his paper on the blog.

It
turns out there have been decisions that these laws of adultery do not
apply to same-sex couples.  So Nicolas looks at four different contexts
of adultery prosecutions that include fault-based divorce actions,
civil tort actions related to when another person interferes with a
relationship and murder cases based upon premises brought up by defense
on the issue of adultery.

Nicolas maintains that the decisions of the court made that same-sex conduct is not adultery do that based on out-dated understandings
about the nature of relationships.  They are based on the traditional
marriage concept between a man and a woman.  They are also based on
old-fashioned ideas that treat sexual indiscretions of men and women
differently.

These concepts of applying adultery concepts equally
to gay couples might produce a better equalization of the way men and
women are treated when it comes to the courts.

In other words, by
gays getting equal rights, and equal responsibilities, the cause of
women may be aided as well.  It can serve the cause of women in securing
their right to be treated with justice outside of gender in the courts
is Nicolas premise, and likely to be discussed within the intricacies of
court decisions.