Jody Hice on Civil Rights

Government shouldn't redefine marriage

Hice: Strongly Agree

Gays can get married, just not to one another

• Hice asked on the radio last year: "To say that a person is born gay, if we are going to go down that path, then what is going to stop us from saying that a person is just born violent, and so we're going to give them a pass and protect them from having any intervention therapy preventing that violence?"
• He once also said "homosexuals have the right to be married" just not "to one another."

Husband's authority over whether a wife has political power

Here's a sampling of some of the positions Hice has adopted over the years:
• In 2004, Hice, speaking about women holding political power, told the Athens Banner-Herald: "If the woman's within the authority of her husband, I don't see a problem."

Islam's geopolitics not protected by First Amendment

This reality cannot be over-emphasized. When taken in its entirety, Islam is not a religion! Rather, it is a totalitarian way of life complete with its own legal system (Sharia Law), financial structure, military and government system.

Although Islam has a religious component, it is much more than a simple religious ideology. It is a complete geo-political structure, and as such, does not deserve First Amendment protection. To grant it such is to give protection to another governmental system; one that is in direct conflict to our constitutional establishment.

Purpose of hate-crime legislation: normalize homosexuality

Are not most violent crimes motivated by hate? If so, let's deal with actual crimes and punish those who perpetrate them. All violence stems from hate, and all Americans deserve equal protection, not just a certain group.

All crime is wrong, whether it is motivated by greed, lust, personal vendetta, animosity, or prejudices of any sort, but to create a "hate crime" for the purpose of intimidating American citizens into silence and submission is preposterous. In reality, if it was scrutinized in the light of the US Constitution, current 'hate crime legislation' would have to be determined the true discriminator by holding people guilty for their beliefs. The current law will penalize people for not supporting the homosexual lifestyle.

Opposes same-sex marriage, according to Faith2Action.

Faith2Action.org is "the nation's largest network of pro-family groups." They provide election resources for each state, including Voter Guides and Congressional Scorecards excerpted here. The F2A survey summarizes candidate stances on the following topic: 'Marriage: Do you support same-sex marriage?'

Opposes same-sex marriage, according to PVS rating.

Project VoteSmart infers summary responses from campaign statements and news reports The PVS survey summarizes candidate stances on the following topic: 'Marriage: Do you support same-sex marriage?'

Religious objections to GLBT services same as 1960s racism.

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

Respect 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.

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

• allow federal contractors, including those that provide homeless shelters or drug treatment programs, to turn away LGBT people
• permit a university to fire an unmarried teacher simply for becoming pregnant
• permit federal employees to refuse to process tax returns, visa applications, or Social Security checks for all married same-sex couples