|
|
Kyrsten Sinema on Civil Rights |
Lots of people were surprised when they learned this. After all, this initiative was called a "same-sex marriage ban." The proponents knew that they needed to focus on the marriage part of the proposition because Arizona voters are pretty firmly set in their support for domestic partnership recognition, though, so ignoring this part of the proposition was important to its proponents.
Q: Should Arizona recognize civil unions between same-sex couples?
A: Yes.
A: Yes.
Q: State college and university admissions?
A: Yes.
Q: State contracting?
A: Yes.
The Feminist Majority endorses candidates for the U.S. House and U.S. Senate. In addition to the stronger `endorsement,` the organization also determines `preferred` candidates in races where they do not endorse. Their mission statement:
`Our mission is to empower feminists, who are the majority, and to win equality for women at the decision-making tables of the state, nation, and the world. The Feminist Majority promotes non-discrimination on the basis of sex, race, sexual orientation, socio-economic status, religion, ethnicity, age, marital status, nation of origin, size or disability. The purpose of Feminist Majority is to promote equality for women and men, non-violence, reproductive health, peace, social justice and economic development and to enhance feminist participation in public policy. Feminist Majority supports workers’ collective bargaining, pay equity, and end of sweatshops. We encourage programs directed at the preservation of the environment.`
Project Vote Smart infers candidate issue stances on key topics by summarizing public speeches and public statements. Congressional candidates are given the opportunity to respond in detail; about 11% did so in the 2012 races.
Project Vote Smart summarizes candidate stances on the following topic: 'Marriage: Do you support same-sex marriage?'
Congressional Summary:
Opponent`s argument against bill:(by Cato Institute reported on Fox News): A bill in Congress that would prohibit discrimination in public schools based on sexual orientation or gender identity could stifle free speech and even lead to `homosexual indoctrination` in the nation`s classrooms, critics say.
`The real danger is how this will be interpreted,` said the associate director of the Center for Educational Freedom at the Cato Institute. `The definition of harassment could be broadly interpreted that anybody who expressed a totally legitimate opinion about homosexual behavior could be made illegal. That`s a violation of those kids who want to express opposition to LGBT opinions or behavior. People have a legitimate reason to be concerned about this--not because they`re `haters` but because you`re now trying to balance different rights.`
Proponent`s argument for bill: (Rep. Jared POLIS, House sponsor): `Hatred has no place in the classroom. Every student has the right to an education free from harassment and violence. This bill will protect the freedoms of our students and enshrine the values of equality and opportunity in the classroom.`
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
Congressional Summary: Amends the Defense of Marriage Act to let states recognize same sex marriage. Defines `marriage` to provide that an individual shall be considered married if that individual`s marriage is valid in the state or country where the marriage was entered into. Removes the definition of `spouse` (currently, a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife).
Wikipedia and GLAAD history: In United States v. Windsor (2013), the U.S. Supreme Court declared Section 3 of DOMA unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) struck down the act`s provisions disallowing same-sex marriages to be performed under federal jurisdiction. The Supreme Court case did not challenge Section 2 of DOMA. Section 2 declares that all states have the right to deny recognition of the marriage of same sex couples that originated in states where they are legally recognized.
Heritage Foundation recommendation to vote NO: (3/20/2013): Americans respect marriage, not only as a crucial institution of civil society but the fundamental building block of all human civilization. This is why 41 states and the federal government affirm that marriage is between a man and a woman. The government isn`t in the business of affirming our loves. Rather it leaves consenting adults free to live and love as they choose. And contrary to what some say, there is no ban on same-sex marriage. In all 50 states, two people of the same sex may choose to live together, and choose to join a religious community that blesses their relationship. What`s at issue is whether the government will recognize such relationships as marriages--and compel others to recognize and affirm same-sex relationships as marriages.
Legislative outcome: Died in Committee (never came to a vote).