Tom Tancredo on Civil Rights

Republican Representative (CO-6)


Official English needed to hold us together

At the end of the third GOP debate, immigration restrictionist and Colorado congressman Tom Tancredo warned that English needed to be made the official language of the country "to hold us together." Then McCain's rival Mitt Romney, former governor of Massachusetts, slickly evaded a question about how he could support English-only laws while also running Spanish-language commercials. McCain, suddenly looking relaxed for the first time in months, said "Governor, muchas gracias," then uncorked a moving extemporaneous speech about the Hispanic names "engraved in black granite" at the Vietnam memorial, and the "green-card holders who are not even citizens of this country, who love this country so much that they're willing to risk their lived in its service in order to accelerate their path to citizenship and enjoy the bountiful, blessed nation." Love or hate the immigration bill, it was an inspiring patriotic soliloquy.
Source: The Myth of a Maverick, by Matt Welch, p. 23 , Oct 9, 2007

We are just one kooky judge away from homosexual marriage

You have to remember that we are always just one kooky judge away from actually having homosexual marriage forced on all the rest of us, because of the [full faith and credit] clause in the U.S. Constitution. Therefore, we need, we absolutely have to have, a constitutional amendment that defines marriage.
Source: 2007 GOP Values Voter Presidential Debate , Sep 17, 2007

President can’t legislate morality; but can lead on morality

Q: What do you intend to do to counteract the homosexual agenda?

A: What a president can do under these circumstances is constrained by the Constitution, and appropriately so. A president simply can’t make a rule, sign an executive order changing the morality of the country. It can’t happen that way. You do so by leadership.

Source: 2007 GOP Values Voter Presidential Debate , Sep 17, 2007

Do everything possible to support a marriage amendment

Q: Will you support a federal marriage amendment, and what else will you do to protect the institution of marriage?

A: Of course the answer is yes, I would do everything possible to support an amendment that strictly defined what marriage is in this country, and that is between one man and one woman, and there are a lot of reasons why that has to happen. You know, the government actually doesn’t have any real responsibility or any authority to tell somebody about who they should care about, but it has every single right in the world to establish what exactly a marriage is. Because it is that foundation upon which this system rests--in fact, any society. That is the thing to which we look, that institution is the thing to which we look for the procreation of children, for the rearing of children in an environment that is healthy and good for the society at large.

Source: 2007 GOP Values Voter Presidential Debate , Sep 17, 2007

The state’s interest in marriage is procreation

Unfortunately, intellectually dishonest activist judges have left us no choice but a constitutional amendment protecting traditional marriage. Activist courts have ignored the principal legal argument that the state’s interest in marriage is procreation. The mere fact that two people are in a loving relationship does not matter to the state. Society supports traditional marriage because it is the only union which, in the ordinary course, leads to children, without the intervention of a third party.
Source: 2008 House campaign website, www.teamtancredo.com, “Issues” , Sep 1, 2007

Hyphenated-Americans balkanize our society

The 1991 book The Disuniting of America [observed that] free institutions are next to impossible in a country made up of different nationalities & speak different languages. This “disuniting” phenomenon is growing rapidly in our country. You can see it in the way we balkanize and divide ourselves into cultural and ethnic subgroups of hyphenated Americans.

I am concerned that we are doing things that will pull us apart and separate us into exclusionary groups both as individuals and as enemies. Some people say that America’s diversity is strength. While there are positive aspects of diversity, there are times when diversity is emphasized to the extreme and becomes a negative and divisive factor. When we are pulled apart and divided along ethnic lines--as opposed to ideological lines--I fear we are causing long-term damage to our society.

Source: In Mortal Danger, by Tom Tancredo, p. 29-30&33 , Jun 6, 2006

Cult of multiculturalism destructive to western civilization

For several years there has been a rise in the influence of a self-destructive belief and behavior system I call the “cult” of multiculturalism-- a subtle but potent shift in the attitudes espoused by many Americans. It is so pervasive it now permeates every segment of our society. It is creeping into our public schools and onto our college campuses. While this philosophy may be peculiar to most Americans, it is taking hold among elites, academics, the media, and certain groups within the political establishment.

The cult has been transformed from a rather benign philosophy of teaching an appreciation and a tolerance of differences to a malignant one that degrades and debases our uniquely American culture as well as Western civilization in general. It teaches our children that there is no value to who we are and what our country has accomplished--except that WHATEVER we’ve done has been bad or has had a negative impact on the world.

Source: In Mortal Danger, by Tom Tancredo, p. 37-38 , Jun 6, 2006

We’re diversifying to death; promote AMERICAN culture

In this mad rush to become the world’s first earthbound utopia, we are, quite literally, diversifying ourselves to death. While there are many problems associated with the general issues of “immigration & citizenship”, the most important problem is the loss of our American identity.

Oddly, while we seem uninterested in requiring immigrants to assimilate, we are going out of our way to require our own citizens to undergo “cultural diversity training” so we can better “understand” immigrant cultures. Instead of requiring immigrants to assimilate into our culture, we have required our own citizens to assimilate foreign cultures at the expense of our own.

I’m not asking immigrants to leave their ethnicity at our borders. What I am saying us we, as Americans, have to demand immigrants do what they supposedly came here to do: become Americans!

The very first thing we must do is recognize our uniquely American culture--language, religious freedom, values, beliefs--and promote them above all others.

Source: In Mortal Danger, by Tom Tancredo, p.204-205 , Jun 6, 2006

Voted NO on prohibiting job discrimination based on sexual orientation.

HR3685: Employment Non-Discrimination Act: Makes it an unlawful employment practice to discriminate against an individual on the basis of actual or perceived sexual orientation, including actions based on the actual or perceived sexual orientation of a person with whom the individual associates or has associated. Prohibits preferential treatment or quotas. Allows only disparate treatment claims. Inapplicable to associations that are exempt from religious discrimination provisions.

Proponents support voting YES because:

Rep. CASTOR: The march towards equality under the law for all of our citizens has sometimes been slow, but it has been steady. Over time, Congress has outlawed discrimination in the workplace, based upon a person's race, gender, age, national origin, religion and disability, because when it comes to employment, these decisions are rightly based upon a person's qualifications and job performance. This legislation that outlaws job discrimination based upon sexual orientation was first introduced over 30 years ago. A broad coalition of businesses and community organizations strongly support this landmark civil rights legislation, including the Human Rights Campaign; the Anti-Defamation League; and the NAACP.

Opponents recommend voting NO because:

Rep. HASTINGS: Federal law bans job discrimination based on race, color, national origin, or gender. In addition, 19 States have passed laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. I strongly oppose discrimination in the workplace. However, I do not think it is the place of the Federal Government to legislate how each and every workplace operates. A number of States have enacted State laws in this area. That is their right. Many businesses have chosen to adopt their own policies. That is appropriate as well. This bill as written would expand Federal law into a realm where PERCEPTION would be a measure under discrimination law [which I consider inappropriate].

Reference: Employment Non-Discrimination Act; Bill HR3685 ; vote number 2007-1057 on Nov 13, 2007

Voted YES on Constitutionally defining marriage as one-man-one-woman.

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution stating: "Marriage in the US 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 support voting YES because:

The overwhelming majority of the American people support traditional marriage, marriage between a man and a woman. The people have a right to know whether their elected Representatives agree with them about protecting traditional marriage.

Every child deserves both a father and a mother. Studies demonstrate the utmost importance of the presence of a child's biological parents in a child's happiness, health and future achievements. If we chip away at the institution which binds these parents and the family together, the institution of marriage, you begin to chip away at the future success of that child.

Opponents support voting NO because:

This amendment does not belong in our Constitution. It is unworthy of our great Nation. We have amended the Constitution only 27 times. Constitutional amendments have always been used to enhance and expand the rights of citizens, not to restrict them. Now we are being asked to amend the Constitution again, to single out a single group and to say to them for all time, you cannot even attempt to win the right to marry.

From what precisely would this amendment protect marriage? From divorce? From adultery? No. Evidently, the threat to marriage is the fact that there are millions of people in this country who very much believe in marriage, who very much want to marry but who are not permitted to marry. I believe firmly that in the not-too-distant future people will look back on these debates with the incredulity with which we now view the segregationist debates of years past.

Reference: Marriage Protection Amendment; Bill H J RES 88 ; vote number 2006-378 on Jul 18, 2006

Voted YES on making the PATRIOT Act permanent.

To extend and modify authorities needed to combat terrorism, and for other purposes, including:
Reference: USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act; Bill HR 3199 ; vote number 2005-627 on Dec 14, 2005

Voted YES on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage.

Marriage Protection Amendment - Declares that marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Prohibits the Constitution or any State constitution from being construed to require that marital status or its legal incidents be conferred upon any union other than that of a man and a woman.
Reference: Constitutional Amendment sponsored by Rep Musgrave [R, CO-4]; Bill H.J.RES.106 ; vote number 2004-484 on Sep 30, 2004

Voted YES on protecting the Pledge of Allegiance.

Pledge Protection Act: Amends the Federal judicial code to deny jurisdiction to any Federal court, and appellate jurisdiction to the Supreme Court, to hear or decide any question pertaining to the interpretation of the Pledge of Allegiance or its validity under the Constitution.
Reference: Bill sponsored by Rep Todd Akin [R, MO-2]; Bill H.R.2028 ; vote number 2004-467 on Sep 23, 2004

Voted YES on constitutional amendment prohibiting flag desecration.

Desecration of Flag resolution: Vote to pass the joint resolution to put forward a Constitutional amendment to state that Congress shall have the power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States. Note: A two-thirds majority vote of those present and voting (284 in this case) is required to pass a joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution.
Reference: Resolution sponsored by Thomas, R-CA; Bill HJRes.4 ; vote number 2003-234 on Jun 3, 2003

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

Supports anti-flag desecration amendment.

Tancredo co-sponsored a Constitutional 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.

Source: House Resolution Sponsorship 01-HJR36 on Mar 13, 2001

Rated 7% by the ACLU, indicating an anti-civil rights voting record.

Tancredo scores 7% by the ACLU on civil rights issues

We work also to extend rights to segments of our population that have traditionally been denied their rights, including Native Americans and other people of color; lesbians, gay men, bisexuals and transgendered people; women; mental-health patients; prisoners; people with disabilities; and the poor. If the rights of society’s most vulnerable members are denied, everybody’s rights are imperiled.

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.

Source: ACLU website 02n-ACLU on Dec 31, 2002

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

Tancredo scores 0% by the HRC on gay rights

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

About the HRC (from their website, www.hrc.org):

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.

Source: HRC website 06n-HRC on Dec 31, 2006

Rated 19% by the NAACP, indicating an anti-affirmative-action stance.

Tancredo scores 19% by the NAACP on affirmative action

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

About the NAACP (from their website, www.naacp.org):

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.

Source: NAACP website 06n-NAACP on Dec 31, 2006

2016-17 Governor, House and Senate candidates on Civil Rights: Tom Tancredo on other issues:
CO Gubernatorial:
Bob Beauprez
Doug Robinson
Ed Perlmutter
John Hickenlooper
Matthew Hess
Mike Johnston
Victor Mitchell
CO Senatorial:
Amy Stephens
Cory Gardner
Ken Buck
Mark Udall
Owen Hill
Randy Baumgardner

Special elections in 2017 (Democrats):
CA-34:Becerra(D; appointed CA Atty General)
CA-34:Gomez(D; elected June 6)
GA-6:Ossoff(D; lost election June 20)

Newly-elected Democrats seated Jan.2017:
Special elections in 2017 (Republicans):
KS-4:Pompeo(R; appointed CIA Director)
KS-4:Estes(R; elected April 11)
GA-6:Price(R; appointed HHS Secretary)
GA-6:Handel(R; elected June 20)
MT-0:Zinke(R; appointed DOI Secretary)
MT-0:Gianforte(R; elected May 25)
SC-5:Mulvaney(R; appointed OMB Director)
SC-5:Norman(R; elected June 20)
UT-3:Chaffetz(R; resigned; election pending Nov. 7)

Newly-elected Republicans seated Jan.2017:
Civil Rights
Foreign Policy
Free Trade
Govt. Reform
Gun Control
Health Care
Homeland Security
Social Security
Tax Reform

Main Page
Wikipedia Profile
Ballotpedia Profile
CO politicians
CO Archives

Page last updated: Jul 04, 2017