Sam Brownback on Civil Rights Republican Sr Senator (KS)

Rescinded executive order on LGBT job protection

In the years since Sibelius's action, one has to wonder how many gay state workers put a picture of their same-gender spouse on their work desks, believing they had the right and the opportunity to be more open under her executive order. Those workers are now "out" to their work colleagues and bosses. Can the boss or supervisor now fire them for being gay, with impunity? Does the gay worker now have no recourse in the courts because Brownback changed the rules? It remains to be seen.

No special LGBT job protection; keep one class of citizens

Source: Lawrence Journal-World "Brownback rescinds LGBT protections" , Feb 10, 2015

Defend traditional marriage

Disgrace that national GOP narrowing base by ignoring blacks

A: I apologize for the candidates that aren’t here. I think this is a disgrace that they’re not here. I think it’s a disgrace for our country, I think it’s bad for our party, and I don’t think it’s good for our future. You know, you grow political parties by expanding your base, by reaching out to people and getting more people. What they’re doing is sending the message of narrowing the base, and that’s not the right way to go. It’s not good for the Republican Party, it’s not good for the country. And I’m sorry to those watching that they’re not here. I’ve got a suggestion, though, for a way to fix it. A lot of people on the Republican side say: Well, OK, we can’t get votes in the African American community. I say: Why don’t you pick one of the early primary states, register Republican, and vote for one of the six of us? And then let’s see what takes place.

Fight against hate crimes legislation

A: This is something we have got to fight against, that somehow that the thought is what the crime is, and that being moved into an agenda not allowing people to speak their beliefs about homosexuality.

Carried amendment defining marriage to Senate floor

A: As you probably know, that was the amendment I carried in the judiciary committee. It was a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman. I got it through the subcommittee, I got it through the judiciary committee in the Senate. We lost it on the floor, and yes, I will lead it as president. I wish President Bush would have led on it. That was something I was disappointed in. I thought if he had said after the last election, “I’ve got political capital. I’m going to spend it,” that if he had pivoted and said, “and I’m going to push for a constitutional amendment on marriage,” which was much more what the election was about than Social Security, we might be there now. I don’t know that we would, but you have got to do these sort of things, and you have got to take that leadership, and it gets, to me, back to the basics.

Ban gay marriage--it’s a vast social experiment

A: The answer to that is yes. And the reason is, this is a foundational institution. I understand we as a country are struggling with this question. But these issues aren’t done in a vacuum. In countries that have redefined marriage, where they’ve said, OK, it’s not just a man and a woman, it can be two men, two women, the marriage rates in those countries have plummeted to where you have counties now in northern Europe where 80% of the first-born children are born out of wedlock. We don’t need more children born out of wedlock; we need more children born into wedlock, between a mom and a dad bonded together for life. When you do these vast, social experiments--and that’s what this is, when you redefine marriage--they’re not done in isolation. They impact the rest of the culture around you. When you take the sacredness out of marriage, you will drive the marriage rates down.

Same-sex unions DO hurt traditional marriages

In Scandinavia, for example, we have 10 years of sociological research, and it shows that very few same-sex couples get married. Because that society has adopted an ambiguous definition of marriage, fewer heterosexuals are bothering to get married either.

Here you have a foundational institution that's already in trouble, and on top of that you take the sacredness and uniqueness of marriage away. The result is that the marriage rate plummets further & faster than anyone could ever have imagined. In some of those countries, traditional heterosexual marriage is fading away. With the advent of same-sex unions, parents in Sweden and Norway have increasingly given up on marriage altogether, no matter how many children they may have.

Native American Apology Bill was to reconcile, not repay

My staff and I took a look at this situation, and we began researching an official apology to Native Americans for the way they had been treated over the years.

We've put the bill forward a couple of times now, and it has made it out of committee, but it's being held up by some senators who aren't convinced yet of the need for it. So I know that more work is needed.

The point of the Native American Apology is to acknowledge that one of the key things we need to do is to reconcile. No matter how many millions of dollars you put into something, you must still deal with the heart.

Supports marriage as the union of a man and a woman

Robustly religious public square better than naked square

ALITO: Including both religious and secular symbols was not a violation.

BROWNBACK: What I hear in your opinions is you would rather have a robust public square than a naked public square; that you think there is room for these sorts of displays in the public square.

ALITO: That was exactly what Jersey City had decided in that case.

BROWNBACK: We’ve had this 40 years of cases, I really hope we can have a public square that celebrates and not that’s got to be completely naked. [What about] C.H. v. Olivia?

ALITO: This case involved a student who wanted to read the story of Jacob and Esau to the class. And the teacher said no. And we found that was a violation of treating religious speech equally with secular speech.

Voted YES on recommending Constitutional ban on flag desecration.

1. the flag of the US is a unique symbol of national unity...
2. the Bill of Rights should not be amended in a manner that could be interpreted to restrict freedom...
3. abuse of the flag causes more than pain and distress... and may amount to fighting words...
4. destruction of the flag of the US can be intended to incite a violent response rather than make a political statement and such conduct is outside the protections afforded by the first amendment to the Constitution.

Proponents of the Resolution say:
• Fifty State legislatures have called on us to pass this amendment. This amendment simply says that "Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States."
• In other words, in passing this amendment, we would give to Congress the power that the Supreme Court took away in 1989.
• 48 States had anti-desecration measures on the books before 1989. It was then that five unelected judges told those 48 sovereign entities that they were wrong.

Opponents of the Resolution say:
• I am deeply offended when people burn or otherwise abuse this precious national symbol.
• I also believe that the values and beliefs that the American flag represents are more important than the cloth from which this symbol was created.
• Prominent among these beliefs are the right to voice views that are unpopular, and the right to protest.
• I oppose this amendment not because I condone desecration of our flag, but because I celebrate the values our flag represents. Flag burning is despicable. However, the issue is whether we should amend our great charter document, the Constitution, to proscribe it.
• Is this a problem needing such strong medicine? Are we facing an epidemic of flag burnings?

Voted YES on constitutional ban of same-sex marriage.

Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.

Proponents of the motion say:
• If Members of the Senate vote as their States have voted on this amendment, the vote today will be 90 to 10 in favor of a constitutional amendment.
• Marriage is a foundational institution. It is under attack by the courts. It needs to be defended by defining it as the union of a man and a woman as 45 of our 50 States have done.

  The amendment is about how we are going to raise the next generation. It is not an issue that the courts should resolve. Those of us who support this amendment are doing so in an effort to let the people decide.

Opponents of the motion say:
• This proposal pits Americans against one another. It appeals to people's worst instincts and prejudices.

  Supporters rail against activist judges. But if this vaguely worded amendment ever passes, it will result in substantial litigation. What are the legal incidents of marriage? Is a civil union a marriage?

• Married heterosexual couples are wondering, how, exactly, the prospect of gay marriages threatens the health of their marriages.
• This amendment would make a minority of Americans permanent second-class citizens of this country. It would prevent States, many of which are grappling with the definition of marriage, from deciding that gays and lesbians should be allowed to marry. And it would write discrimination into a document that has served as a historic guarantee of individual freedom.

Voted NO on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes.

Voted YES on loosening restrictions on cell phone wiretapping.

Voted NO on expanding hate crimes to include sexual orientation.

Voted NO on setting aside 10% of highway funds for minorities & women.

Voted YES on ending special funding for minority & women-owned business.

Supports anti-flag desecration amendment.

Supports granting Congress power to prohibit the physical desecration of the U.S. flag. Proposes an amendment to the Constitution of the United States authorizing the Congress to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.

Rated 20% by the ACLU, indicating an anti-civil rights voting record.

The mission of the ACLU is to preserve protections and guarantees America’s original civic values - the Constitution and the Bill of Rights:
• Your First Amendment rights-freedom of speech, association and assembly. Freedom of the press, and freedom of religion supported by the strict separation of church and state.
• Your right to equal protection under the law - equal treatment regardless of race, sex, religion or national origin.
• Your right to due process - fair treatment by the government whenever the loss of your liberty or property is at stake.Your right to privacy - freedom from unwarranted government intrusion into your personal and private affairs.

Our ratings are based on the votes the organization considered most important; the numbers reflect the percentage of time the representative voted the organization's preferred position.

Rated 0% by the HRC, indicating an anti-gay-rights stance.

OnTheIssues.org interprets the 2005-2006 HRC scores as follows:

• 0% - 20%: opposes gay rights (approx. 207 members)
• 20% - 70%: mixed record on gay rights (approx. 84 members)
• 70%-100%: supports gay rights (approx. 177 members)

The Human Rights Campaign represents a grassroots force of more than 700,000 members and supporters nationwide. As the largest national gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender civil rights organization, HRC envisions an America where GLBT people are ensured of their basic equal rights, and can be open, honest and safe at home, at work and in the community.

Ever since its founding in 1980, HRC has led the way in promoting fairness for GLBT Americans. HRC is a bipartisan organization that works to advance equality based on sexual orientation and gender expression and identity.

Rated 7% by the NAACP, indicating an anti-affirmative-action stance.

OnTheIssues.org interprets the 2005-2006 NAACP scores as follows:

• 0% - 33%: anti-affirmative-action stance (approx. 177 members)
• 34% - 84%: mixed record on affirmative-action (approx. 96 members)
• 85%-100%: pro-affirmative-action stance (approx. 190 members)

The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) has worked over the years to support and promote our country's civil rights agenda. Since its founding in 1909, the NAACP has worked tirelessly to end racial discrimination while also ensuring the political, social, and economic equality of all people. The Association will continue this mission through its policy initiatives and advocacy programs at the local, state, and national levels. From the ballot box to the classroom, the dedicated workers, organizers, and leaders who forged this great organization and maintain its status as a champion of social justice, fought long and hard to ensure that the voices of African Americans would be heard. For nearly one hundred years, it has been the talent and tenacity of NAACP members that has saved lives and changed many negative aspects of American society.

Amend Constitution to define traditional marriage.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission by the Congress:<

Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.

Related bills: H.J.RES.22, H.J.RES.74, H.J.RES.89

Recognize Juneteenth as historical end of slavery.

A resolution recognizing the historical significance of Juneteenth Independence Day and expressing that history should be regarded as a means for understanding the past and solving the challenges of the future.

Recognizes the historical significance to the nation, and supports the continued celebration, of Juneteenth Independence Day (June 19, 1865, the day Union soldiers arrived in Galveston, Texas, with news that the Civil War had ended and that the enslaved African Americans were free). Declares the sense of Congress that:

1. history should be regarded as a means for understanding the past and solving the challenges of the future; and
2. the celebration of the end of slavery is an important and enriching part of the history and heritage of the United States.

Supports Amendment to prevent 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"

Constitutionally prohibit flag desecration.

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States authorizing the Congress to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission by the Congress:

Article--'The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.'