|
Mark Sanford on Civil Rights
Republican SC Governor; previously Representative (SC-1)
|
|
|
No civil unions; define one-man-one-woman marriage
Q Should South Carolina recognize civil unions between same-sex couples? A: No.
Q: Should South Carolina restrict marriage to a union only between a man and a woman?
A: Yes.
Source: 2002 S.C. Gubernatorial National Political Awareness Test
, Nov 1, 2002
Affirmative action in state contracts, but not colleges
Q: Affirmative Action: Should race, ethnicity, or gender be taken into account in state agencies’ decisions on: Q: College and university admissions
A: No.
Q: Public employment
A: Yes.
Q: State contracting
A: Yes.
Source: 2002 S.C. Gubernatorial National Political Awareness Test
, Nov 1, 2002
Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC.
Vote on an amendment banning adoptions in District of Columbia by gays or other individuals who are not related by blood or marriage.
Reference: Amendment introduced by Largent, R-OK;
Bill HR 2587
; vote number 1999-346
on Jul 29, 1999
Voted NO on ending preferential treatment by race in college admissions.
HR 6, the Higher Education Amendments Act of 1997, would prohibit any post-secondary institution that participates in any program under the Higher Education Act from discriminating or granting any preferential treatment in admission based on race, sex, ethnicity, color or national origin.
Reference: Amendment introduced by Riggs, R-CA.;
Bill HR 6
; vote number 1998-133
on May 6, 1998
Protect anti-same-sex marriage opinions as free speech.
Sanford co-sponsored Marriage and Religious Freedom Act
Congressional Summary:Congress finds the following:
- Leading legal scholars concur that conflicts between same-sex marriage and religious liberty are real and should be legislatively addressed.
- 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'.
- Protecting religious freedom from Government intrusion is a Government interest of the highest order.
- 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
Respect faith-based opposition to same-sex marriage.
Sanford 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:
- marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman, or
- 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
- 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
Source: H.R.2802 16-HR2802 on Jun 17, 2015
Page last updated: Jun 29, 2017