David Cicilline on Civil Rights

Discrimination based on sexual orientation is wrong

Equal pay for equal work

Voted YES on reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act.

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.

Supports same-sex marriage.

Project Vote Smart infers candidate issue stances on key topics by summarizing public speeches and public statements. Candidates are given the opportunity to respond in detail; about 16% did so in the 2010 races.

Project Vote Smart summarizes candidate stances on the following topic: 'Social Issues: Should marriage only be between one man and one woman?'

Constitutional Amendment for women's equal rights.

JOINT RESOLUTION: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to equal rights for men and women. Constitutional Amendment: Prohibits denying or abridging equality of rights under the law by the United States or by any state on account of sex.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives: 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 3/4ths of the several States:
1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.

[Explanatory note from Wikipedia.com and OnTheIssues.org]:

The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) was a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution. The ERA was originally written by Alice Paul and, in 1923, it was introduced in the Congress for the first time. In 1972, it passed both houses of Congress, but failed to gain ratification before its June 30, 1982 deadline. This new proposed amendment is identical in wording to the original 1972 proposed amendment. It was proposed in Congress in every session from 1923 through 1970 prior to passing in 1972; and has been re-introduced in Congress in every session since 1982 after its failure at ratification. The current version removes the Congressionally imposed deadline for ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment, so that if the bill passes Congress, states have no deadline as they did in 1982.

Prohibit sexual-identity discrimination at schools.

Student Non-Discrimination Act of 2011:
• Prohibits public school students from being excluded from participating in, or subject to discrimination under, any federally-assisted educational program on the basis of their actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity or that of their associates.
• Considers harassment to be a form of discrimination.
• Prohibits retaliation against anyone for opposing conduct they reasonably believe to be unlawful under this Act.
• Authorizes federal departments and agencies to enforce these prohibitions by cutting off the educational assistance of recipients found to be violating them.
• Allows an aggrieved individual to assert a violation of this Act in a judicial proceeding and recover reasonable attorney's fees should they prevail.
• Deems a state's receipt of federal educational assistance for a program to constitute a waiver of sovereign immunity for conduct prohibited under this Act regarding such program.

Endorsed as "preferred" by The Feminist Majority indicating pro-women's rights.

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."

Enforce against anti-gay discrimination in public schools.

Congressional Summary:

• Prohibits public school students from being excluded from participating in, or subject to discrimination under, any federally-assisted educational program on the basis of their actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity or that of their associates.
• Considers harassment to be a form of discrimination.
• Prohibits retaliation against anyone for opposing conduct made unlawful under this Act.
• Authorizes federal departments and agencies to enforce these prohibitions by cutting off the educational assistance of recipients found to be violating them.
• Allows an aggrieved individual to assert a violation of this Act in a judicial proceeding and recover reasonable attorney's fees should they prevail.

  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."

  Source: H.R.1652 / S.1088 13-H1652 on Jul 8, 2013

  Enforce against wage discrimination based on gender.

  Cicilline co-sponsored Paycheck Fairness Act
  Congress finds the following:
  1. Women have entered the workforce in record numbers over the past 50 years.
  2. Despite the enactment of the Equal Pay Act in 1963, many women continue to earn significantly lower pay than men for equal work. These pay disparities exist in both the private and governmental sectors. In many instances, the pay disparities can only be due to continued intentional discrimination or the lingering effects of past discrimination.
  3. The existence of such pay disparities depresses the wages of working families who rely on the wages of all members of the family to make ends meet; and undermines women's retirement security.
  4. Artificial barriers to the elimination of discrimination in the payment of wages on the basis of sex continue to exist decades after the enactment of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. These barriers have resulted because the Equal Pay Act has not worked as Congress originally intended.
  5. The Department of Labor and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission have important and unique responsibilities to help ensure that women receive equal pay for equal work.
  6. The Department of Labor is responsible for investigating and prosecuting equal pay violations, especially systemic violations, and in enforcing all of its mandates.
  7. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is the primary enforcement agency for claims made under the Equal Pay Act.
  8. With a stronger commitment [to enforcement], increased information on wage data and more effective remedies, women will be better able to recognize and enforce their rights.
  9. Certain employers have already made great strides in eradicating unfair pay disparities in the workplace and their achievements should be recognized.
  Source: S.84&H.R.377 13-HR0377 on Jan 23, 2013

  Protect LGBT families from illegal immigrant deportation.

  Cicilline signed Letter on UAFA on LGBT immigrant rights

  Press release from office of Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY-10)

  Rep. Nadler, lead sponsor of the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA), was joined by 68 Members of Congress in pushing to protect LGBT binational families from unnecessary deportations. The 69 Members sent letters to Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and Attorney General Eric Holder requesting that LGBT family ties be considered in pending deportation cases involving binational same-sex couples:

  Wrote the Members. "We ask that you ensure that recognition of LGBT family ties is reflected in the work of DHS and DOJ employees. Without specific guidance, it is unlikely that agency officers, agents, and attorneys making decisions about individual cases will be aware that LGBT family ties are a factor for consideration."

  Some background on UAFA:
  • UAFA would add the term "permanent partner" to sections of the Immigration and Naturalization Act that apply to married heterosexual couples.
  • This legislation would afford equal immigration benefits to permanent partners as exist for married heterosexuals, and it would impose the same restrictions.
  • Because [federal law] does not legally recognize gay and lesbian couples and their children as families, many same-sex binational couples are torn apart.
  • Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) also introduced UAFA in the Senate.
  Argument in opposition: (in Huffington Post, Feb. 5, 2013)

  Several Republican lawmakers have expressed strong opposition to granting same-sex couples equal immigration rights, including Sen. John McCain (R-AZ). McCain has criticized including same-sex couples in comprehensive immigration reform, saying that such a provision would kill the bill. "Which is more important: LGBT or border security?" McCain asked. "I'll tell you what my priorities are. If you're going to load it up with social issues, that is the best way to derail it, in my view."

  Source: Letter from 69 Members of Congress 14_Lt_LGBT on Sep 27, 2011

  Recognize 1961 Freedom Riders against segregated buses.

  Cicilline co-sponsored Congressional Gold Medal for the Freedom Riders

  Congressional summary:: A BILL to award a Congressional Gold Medal to the Freedom Riders, collectively, in recognition of their unique contribution to Civil Rights, which inspired a revolutionary movement for equality in interstate travel. The Congress finds the following:

  • In 1960, the Supreme Court ruled in Boynton v. Virginia that segregated bus and rail stations were unconstitutional.
  • The rigid system of racial segregation that prevailed in the United States during the 1960s did not permit a Black person to sit next to a White person on any bus traveling through interstate commerce and in most locations in the South. Bus stations had 'Whites Only' waiting areas and Blacks were not permitted to wait in those areas despite the Supreme Court making it the law of the land.
  • The Freedom Riders, with the intent to end segregation in public transportation throughout the South, paved the way for full racial integration of the US transit system. They overcame prejudice, discrimination, and violence. They sparked a movement that changed our Nation.
  • The Congress of Racial Equality (CORE) selected 13 volunteers for nonviolent response training. The Freedom Riders used their strategies of nonviolence to challenge the South's Jim Crow laws directly by riding from Washington DC to New Orleans.
  • On the morning of May 4, 1961, the 13 Freedom Riders, comprised of 7 Blacks and 6 Whites, boarded two buses, with Blacks and Whites seated together.
  • Initially, the Freedom Riders had encountered only minor clashes until a stop in South Carolina. In Rock Hill, an angry mob severely beat John Lewis, now a Congressman from Georgia, when he entered the bus station. Additional mobs fought the group in Alabama and Mississippi.
  Congress shall present a gold medal of appropriate design to the Freedom Riders, collectively. The gold medal shall be given to the Smithsonian Institution, where it will be available for display & research. Source: H.R.4041 14-H4041 on Feb 11, 2014

  Don't elevate gender identity as a protected class.

  Cicilline voted YEA 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: Congressional vote 16-H5055 on May 25, 2016

  Let states recognize same sex marriage.

  Cicilline signed Respect for Marriage Act

  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).

  Source: S.29 & H.197 17-H0197 on Jan 6, 2015

  Sponsored bill for ratifying Equal Rights Amendment.

  Cicilline co-sponsored Removing deadline for ERA ratification

  H.J.Res.17: Removing the deadline for the ratification of the equal rights amendment: This joint resolution eliminates the deadline for the ratification of the ERA, which prohibits discrimination based on sex. The amendment was proposed to the states in House Joint Resolution 208 of the 92nd Congress, as agreed to in the Senate on March 22, 1972. The amendment shall be part of the Constitution whenever ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states.

  Opinion to vote YES (Rep. Terri Sewell (D-AL-7): The ERA was first proposed in 1923, shortly after women gained the right to vote. [The original] 1979 deadline was later extended before it expired. By the end of 1982, 35 of the 38 required state legislatures had voted to ratify the ERA. Nevada ratified the ERA in 2017, Illinois in 2018 and, in January 2020, Virginia became the 38th and final state required to ratify it. If passed in the Senate, H.J. Res. 79 would remove the arbitrary 1982 deadline.

  Opinion to vote NO (Rep. Doug LaMalfa (R-CA-1): H. J. Res 17 would retroactively remove the deadline for the ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment. Regardless of your thoughts on the ERA, the deadline for the states to ratify the amendment expired four decades ago. By passing this resolution, House Democrats are virtue signaling and trying to take a shortcut around what is required in our constitutional amendment process. Those who want to pass an ERA will need to start this process from the beginning. Today's vote mocks the intentionally high bar set by our Founders to make changes to our precious Constitution.

  Legislative Outcome: Passed House 222-204-4 on 03/17/2021; received in the Senate and read on 3/23. [OnTheIssues notes on the duration for ratification that the 27th Amendment to the United States Constitution was passed by Congress in 1789 and was ratified by 3/4 of the States and became law in 1992, a ratification period of 202 years].

  Source: H.J.Res.17 21-HJR17 on Jan 21, 2021

  Click here for definitions & background information on Civil Rights. Click here for HouseMatch answers by David Cicilline. Click here for a summary of David Cicilline's positions on all issues. Click here for a summary of David Cicilline's positions on the AmericansElect.org quiz. Click here for contact information for David Cicilline. Click here for a Wikipedia profile of David Cicilline. Click here for a Ballotpedia profile of David Cicilline. Click here for other RI politicians. Click here for RI primary archives. Click here for RI secondary archives.
  2021-22 Governor, House and Senate candidates on Civil Rights:			David Cicilline on other issues:
  RI Gubernatorial: Allan Fung Ashley Kalus Dan McKee Donald Carcieri Gina Raimondo Helena Foulkes Lincoln Chafee Luis-Daniel Munoz Matt Brown Nellie Gorbea Patricia Morgan Seth Magaziner RI Senatorial: Allen Waters Bob Flanders Bobby Nardolillo Jack Reed Sheldon Whitehouse	Open Seats / Turnovers 2022: AL-5: Mo Brooks (R) running for AL Senator CA-37: Karen Bass (D) running for mayor of Los Angeles FL-10: Val Demings (D) running for FL Senator FL-13: Charlie Crist (D) running for FL governor HI-2: Kai Kahele (D) running for MD governor MD-4: Anthony G. Brown (D) running for attorney general of Maryland MO-4: Vicky Hartzler (R) running for MO Senator MO-7: Billy Long (R) running for MO Senator NY-1: Lee Zeldin (R) running for NY governor NY-3: Thomas Suozzi (D) running for NY governor NC-8: Ted Budd (R) running for NC Senator NC-11: Madison Cawthorn (R) Incumbent lost renomination OH-13: Tim Ryan (D) running for OH Senator OK-2: Markwayne Mullin (R) running for OK Senator OR-5: Kurt Schrader (D) Incumbent lost renomination PA-17: Conor Lamb (D) running for PA Senator SC-7: Tom Rice (R) Incumbent lost renomination TX-1: Louie Gohmert (R) running for attorney general of Texas VT-0: Peter Welch (D) running for VT Senator Special Elections 2021: LA-2: Troy Carter (R, April 2021) LA-5: Julia Letlow (R, March 2021) NM-1: Melanie Stansbury (D, June 2021) OH-11: Shontel Brown (D, Nov. 2021) OH-15: Mike Carey (R, Nov. 2021) TX-6: Jake Ellzey (R, July 2021)	Hot Races 2022: CA-27: Christy Smith (D) vs. Mike Garcia (R) FL 27: Annette Taddeo (D) vs. Maria Elvira Salazar (R) GA-7: Carolyn Bourdeaux (D) lost redistricting race to Lucy McBath (D) GA-10: Vernon Jones(R) vs. Paul Broun (R,lost May 24 primary) to replace Jody Hice (R) running for Secretary of GA ME-2: Bruce Poliquin (R) rematch against Jared Golden (D) MI-10: John James (R) - running for newly redistricted seat MI-11: Andy Levin (D) redistricted to face Haley Stevens (D) MT 1: Ryan Zinke (R) - running for newly created seat MT-2: Al Olszewski(R) vs. Sam Rankin(Libertarian) vs. Matt Rosendale(R) NJ-7: Thomas Kean Jr. (R) challenging Tom Malinowski (R) NY-10: Bill de Blasio (D) challenging Mondaire Jones (D) NY-11: Max Rose (D) challenging Nicole Malliotakis (R) NY 12: Carolyn Maloney (D) redistricted to face Jerry Nadler (D) RI-2: Seth Magaziner (D) vs. Allan Fung (R) RI-1: Allen Waters (R) vs. David Cicilline (D) TX-34: Mayra Flores (R) - Elected SPEL June 2022; general election Nov. 2022 against Vicente Gonzalez (D) WA-4: Brad Klippert (R) challenging Dan Newhouse (R) WV-2: David McKinley lost a redistricting race to fellow incumbent Alex Mooney Special Elections 2022: AK-0: Sarah Palin (R) vs. Al Gross (Independent) CA-22: Connie Conway (R) replaced Devin Nunes on June 7. FL-20: Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick (D) replaced Alcee Hastings on Jan. 11. MN-1: vacancy left by Jim Hagedorn (R), deceased Feb. 17; SPEL on August 9. NE-1: Jeffrey Fortenberry (R) Resigned on March 31, after being convicted; Mike Flood (R) in SPEL on June 28. NY-19: Marc Molinaro (R) running for SPEL Aug. 23 for seat vacated by Antonio Delgado (D), now Lt.Gov. TX-34: Mayra Flores (R) SPEL June 14 for seat vacated by Filemon Vela Jr. (D)	Abortion Budget/Economy Civil Rights Corporations Crime Drugs Education Energy/Oil Environment Families Foreign Policy Free Trade Govt. Reform Gun Control Health Care Homeland Security Immigration Jobs Principles Social Security Tax Reform Technology War/Peace Welfare/Poverty Candidate Information: Main Page Profile RI politicians Contact info: House Contact Mailing Address: Office 128 CHOB, Wash., DC 20515 Phone number: 202-225-4911

  
  
  
  
  
  Page last updated: Oct 01, 2022; copyright 1999-2022 Jesse Gordon and OnTheIssues.org