OnTheIssuesLogo

Mick Mulvaney on Civil Rights

 

 


Voted NO on reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act.

Congressional Summary:
    Amends the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (VAWA) to add or expand definitions of several terms used in such Act, including :
  1. "culturally specific services" to mean community-based services that offer culturally relevant and linguistically specific services and resources to culturally specific communities;
  2. "personally identifying information" with respect to a victim of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking;
  3. "underserved populations" as populations that face barriers in accessing and using victim services because of geographic location, religion, sexual orientation or gender identity; and
  4. "youth" to mean a person who is 11 to 24 years old.

Opponent's Argument for voting No (The Week; Huffington Post, and The Atlantic): House Republicans had objected to provisions in the Senate bill that extended VAWA's protections to lesbians, gays, immigrants, and Native Americans. For example, Rep. Bill Johnson (R-OH) voted against the VAWA bill because it was a "politically–motivated, constitutionally-dubious Senate version bent on dividing women into categories by race, transgender politics and sexual preference." The objections can be grouped in two broadly ideological areas--that the law is an unnecessary overreach by the federal government, and that it represents a "feminist" attack on family values. The act's grants have encouraged states to implement "mandatory-arrest" policies, under which police responding to domestic-violence calls are required to make an arrest. These policies were intended to combat the too-common situation in which a victim is intimidated into recanting an abuse accusation. Critics also say VAWA has been subject to waste, fraud, and abuse because of insufficient oversight.

Reference: Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act; Bill H.R.11 ; vote number 13-HV055 on Feb 28, 2013

Supports Amendment to prevent same sex marriage.

Mulvaney supports the CC survey question on banning same-sex marriage

The Christian Coalition voter guide [is] one of the most powerful tools Christians have ever had to impact our society during elections. This simple tool has helped educate tens of millions of citizens across this nation as to where candidates for public office stand on key faith and family issues.

The CC survey summarizes candidate stances on the following topic: "Federal Marriage Amendment to prevent same sex marriage"

Source: Christian Coalition Survey 10-CC-q3 on Aug 11, 2010

Protect anti-same-sex marriage opinions as free speech.

Mulvaney co-sponsored Marriage and Religious Freedom Act

Congressional Summary:Congress finds the following:

  1. Leading legal scholars concur that conflicts between same-sex marriage and religious liberty are real and should be legislatively addressed.
  2. As the President stated in response to the Defense of Marriage Act in 2013, 'Americans hold a wide range of views' on the issue of same-sex marriage, and 'maintaining our Nation's commitment to religious freedom' is 'vital'.
  3. Protecting religious freedom from Government intrusion is a Government interest of the highest order.
  4. Laws that protect the free exercise of religious beliefs about marriage will encourage private citizens and institutions to demonstrate similar tolerance and therefore contribute to a more respectful, diverse, and peaceful society.
[Accordingly, this bill] prohibits the federal government from taking an adverse action against a person for acts in accordance with a religious belief that marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman, or that sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage.

Opponent's argument against bill: (David Brunori on Forbes.com): A bipartisan group of lawmakers thinks it's appropriate for the American taxpayer to subsidize organizations fighting for "traditional marriage." The Marriage and Religious Freedom Act would give non-profit organizations that don't like gay marriage the ability to engage in partisan political activities without the fear of losing their exempt status. The sponsors are touting the bill as a means of protecting freedom of conscience on the issue of marriage. The proposed law will allow non-profit organizations to engage in political activity, as long as it's for championing heterosexual marriage, while non-profits supporting marriage equality cannot engage in partisan political activity. The tax laws should be neutral when it comes to politics.

Source: H.R.3133 13-H3133 on Sep 19, 2013

Sponsored ensuring disabled access to public pools.

Mulvaney sponsored Pool SAFE Act

A BILL to revise certain rules under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) relating to accessible means of entry to pools.

    This Act may be cited as the 'Pool Safety and Accessibility for Everyone Act' or the 'Pool SAFE Act'. Congress finds the following:
  1. One of the purposes of the ADA is to 'provide a clear and comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities'.
  2. The Nation's proper goals regarding individuals with disabilities are to ensure equality of opportunity and full participation for such individuals.
  3. The ADA recognizes that public accommodations should provide access to their amenities to individuals with disabilities.
  4. It is important for public accommodations to provide access to their amenities, including pools, to individuals with disabilities.
  5. Public accommodations should provide access to their amenities, including pools, in a reasonable, efficient, and expedient manner that accounts for the interests of individuals with disabilities and also considers other legitimate concerns, such as safety and feasibility.
  6. The current regulations for the ADA as the regulations relate to the accessibility of pools at public accommodations, do not reasonably or adequately balance the access needs of individuals with disabilities with other legitimate concerns.
REVISION OF RULES.
Source: H.R.203 13-HR0203 on Jan 4, 2013

Religious objections to GLBT services same as 1960s racism.

Mulvaney voted NAY H.Amdt. 1128 to H.R. 5055

Heritage Action Summary: The Maloney Amendment would ratify President Obama's 2014 executive order barring federal contractors from what it describes as "discrimination" on the basis of "sexual orientation and gender identity" in their private employment policies. In practice, it would have required federal contractors to grant biologically male employees who identify as women unfettered access to women's lockers, showers, and bathrooms.

Heritage Foundation recommendation to vote NO: (5/25/2016): Congress should not be elevating sexual orientation and gender identity as a protected class garnering special legal privileges, which is the intent of the Maloney Amendment. The Maloney Amendment constitutes bad policy that unnecessarily regulates businesses. It risks undoing longstanding protections in civil rights law and makes clear that the president's orders are not exempt from them.

ACLU recommendation to vote YES: (5/11/2016): We see today claims to a right to discriminate--by refusing to provide services to LGBT people--based on religious objections. Claiming a right to discriminate in the name of religion is not new. In the 1960s, we saw objections to laws requiring integration in restaurants because of sincerely held beliefs that God wanted the races to be separate. We saw religiously affiliated universities refuse to admit students who engaged in interracial dating. In those cases, we recognized that requiring integration was not about violating religious liberty; it was about ensuring fairness. It's no different today.

Religious freedom in America means that we all have a right to our religious beliefs, but this does not give us the right to use our religion to impose those beliefs on others.

Legislative outcome: Amendment passed by the House 223-195-15 4/26/16; overall bill H.R.5055 failed 112-305-16 on 5/26/2016

Source: Supreme Court case 16-H5055 argued on May 25, 2016

Respect faith-based opposition to same-sex marriage.

Mulvaney signed respecting faith-based opposition to same-sex marriage

Congressional Summary: The First Amendment Defense Act (FADA) prohibits the federal government from taking discriminatory action against a person on the basis that such person believes or acts in accordance with a religious belief or moral conviction that:

  1. marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman, or
  2. sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage.
Legal Argument Opposed: [Secular.org]: "The stated purpose of FADA is to protect the tax-exempt status, government contract, or any other federal benefit of those who do not comply with the Supreme Court's same-sex marriage ruling. This act's true impact would allow for sweeping, taxpayer-funded discrimination against same-sex couples and their children--all under the guise of religious liberty. FADA would completely eviscerate the historic nondiscrimination Executive Order that President Obama signed last summer that prohibits federal contractors from engaging in discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. The First Amendment protects freedom of religion and freedom from religion, not the special privileges of the religiously affiliated at the expense of the fundamental rights of other Americans."

Political Argument Opposed: [ACLU, July 20, 2015]: The House of Representatives & leading anti-LGBT organizations are pushing a bill--disingenuously titled the First Amendment Defense Act--that would open the door to unprecedented taxpayer-funded discrimination against LGBT people, single mothers, and unmarried couples. This bill would

Source: H.R.2802 16-HR2802 on Jun 17, 2015

Other governors on Civil Rights: Mick Mulvaney on other issues:
SC Gubernatorial:
Catherine Templeton
Henry McMaster
James Emerson Smith
John Warren
Kevin Bryant
Lindsey Graham
Tommy Pope
Yancey McGill
SC Senatorial:
Brad Hutto
Jay Stamper
Joyce Dickerson
Lee Bright
Nancy Mace
Rick Wade
Thomas Dixon
Thomas Ravenel
Tim Scott

Gubernatorial Debates 2019:
KY:
Bevin(R)
vs.Goforth(R)
vs.Adkins(D)
vs.Beshear(D)
vs.Edelen(D)
LA:
Edwards(D)
vs.Abraham(R)
MS:
Bryant(R)
vs.Foster(R)
vs.Hood(D)
vs.Reeves(R)

Gubernatorial Debates 2018:
AK: Walker(i) vs.Dunleavy(D) vs.Chenault(R) vs.Huggins(R) vs.Begich(D) vs.Treadwell(D)
AL: Ivey(R) vs.Countryman(D) vs.Battle (R) vs.Maddox (R) vs.George(R) vs.Carrington(R)
AR: Hutchinson(R) vs.Henderson(D) vs.West(L)
AZ: Ducey(R) vs. Garcia (D) vs.Farley(D)
CA: Newsom(D) vs.Chiang(D) vs.Villaraigosa(D) vs.Eastin (D) vs.Hadley (R) vs.Cox (R) vs.Istvan (I) vs.Allen(R) vs.La Riva(P)
CO: Johnston(D) vs.Mitchell(R) vs.Kennedy (D) vs.Robinson (R) vs.Barlock(R) vs.Lynne(R) vs.Polis(D) vs.Coffman(R) vs.Brauchler(R,A.G.) vs.Stapleton(R)
CT: Malloy(D) vs.Lamont(D) vs.Stefanowski(R) vs.Srinivasan(R) vs.David Walker (R) vs.Lumaj(R) vs.Visconti(R) vs.Lauretti(R) vs.Drew(D)
FL: Gillum(D) vs.Graham(D) vs.Putnam(R) vs.Levine(D) vs.DeSantis(R)
GA: Kemp(R) vs.Cagle(R) vs.Hill(R) vs.Abrams(D) vs.Levine(D)
HI: Ige(D) vs.Hanabusa(D) vs.Tupola(R) vs.Carroll(R) vs.McDermott(R)
IA: Reynolds(R) vs.Leopold(D) vs.Boulton(D) vs.McGuire(D) vs.Glasson(D) vs.Hubbell(D) vs.Porter(L) vs.Battaglia(L)
ID: Little(R) vs.Fulcher(R) vs.Labrador(R) vs.Ahlquist(R) vs.Minton(D) vs.Jordan(D)
IL: Rauner(R) vs.Kennedy(D) vs.Pawar(D) vs.Daniel Biss (D) vs.Pritzker(D) vs.Ives(R)
KS: Brewer(D) vs.Hartman (R)

Gubernatorial Debates 2018:(continued) vs.Colyer(R) vs.Kobach(R) vs.Orman(I) vs.Kelly(D)
MA: Baker(R) &Polito(R,Lt.Gov.) vs.Warren (D) vs.Massie (R)
MD: Hogan(R) vs.Ross (D) vs.Cummings(D) vs.Madaleno(D) vs.Jealous(D) vs.Quinn(L) vs.Schlakman(G)
ME: Mayhew(R) vs.Mills(D) vs.Boyle(D) vs.Thibodeau(R) vs.Moody(D) vs.Capron(I) vs.Caron(I)
MI: Whitmer(R) vs.El-Sayed(D) vs.Walz (D) vs.Schuette(R) vs.Calley(R) vs.Tatar(L)
MN: vs.Smith(D) vs.Coleman(D) vs.Murphy(D) vs.Otto(D) vs.Liebling (DFL) vs.Walz (DFL) vs.Dean (R) vs.Pawlenty(R) vs.Johnson(R) vs.Swanson(D)
MO: Greitens(R) vs.Parson(R)
NE: Ricketts(R) vs.Krist(D)
NH: Sununu(R) vs.Jarvis(L) vs.Marchand (D) vs.Kelly (D)
NM: Lujan-Grisham(D) vs.Pearce(R) vs.Cervantes(D) vs.Apodaca(D) vs.Jarvis(L)
NV: Fisher (R) vs.Sisolak(D) vs.Laxalt(R) vs.Schwartz(R)
NY: Cuomo(D) vs.Nixon(D) vs.Hawkins(G) vs.Molinaro(R)
OH: DeWine(R) vs.Husted(R,Lt.Gov.) vs.Kucinich(D) vs.Sutton(D,Lt.Gov) vs.Taylor(R) vs.Renacci (R) vs.Pillich (D) vs.Schiavoni(D) vs.Whaley(D) vs.Cordray(D)
OK: Stitt(R) vs.Cornett(R) vs.Edmondson(D) vs.Richardson(R) vs.Johnson(D) vs.Powell(L) vs.Maldonado(L)
OR: Brown(D) vs.Inman(D) vs.Buehler(R)
PA: Wolf(D) vs.Fetterman(D,Lt.Gov.) vs.Wagner(R) vs.Barletta(R) vs.Krawchuk(L)
RI: Raimondo(D) vs.Brown(D) vs.Fung(R) vs.Morgan(R)
SC: McMaster(R) vs.McGill(R) vs.Pope(R) vs.Templeton(R) vs.Smith(D) vs.Warren(D) vs.Bryant(R)
SD: Noem(R) vs.Jackley(R) vs.Sutton(D)
TN: Green(R) vs.Dean(D) vs.Black(R) vs.Lee(R)
TX: Abbott(R) vs.Glass(L) vs.White(D) vs.Valdez(D)
VT: Scott(R) vs.Moody(R) vs.Hallquist(D) vs.Stern(D)
WI: Walker(R) vs.Harlow(D) vs.Vinehout(D) vs.Evers(D) vs.Roys(D) vs.Anderson(L)
WY: Throne(D) vs.Dahlin(R) vs.Gordon(R) vs.Rammell(R)
Abortion
Budget/Economy
Civil Rights
Corporations
Crime
Drugs
Education
Energy/Oil
Environment
Families/Children
Foreign Policy
Free Trade
Govt. Reform
Gun Control
Health Care
Homeland Security
Immigration
Infrastructure/Technology
Jobs
Local Issues
Principles/Values
Social Security
Tax Reform
War/Iraq/Mideast
Welfare/Poverty


Contact info:
House Contact
Mailing Address:
Office 1004 LHOB, Wash., DC 20515
Phone number:
202-225-5501
Search for...





Page last updated: Mar 11, 2019