|
Kyrsten Sinema on Civil Rights
|
|
Co-chair Congressional LGBT Equality Caucus
"On behalf of the co-chairs, I thank my colleagues in both parties who have joined the LGBT Equality Caucus and pledged to stand for and with the LGBT community," Sinema said in a statement. "While we've made significant
process in recent years, we still have more work to do and must protect the progress we've made. Our caucus continues to work to ensure every American has the fundamental freedom and opportunity to pursue the American Dream."
Source: Washington Blade on 2018 Arizona Senate race
, Feb 7, 2017
Focus on legal recognition of domestic partnerships
[In fighting the 2006 same-sex marriage ban], we focused on the impact that the initiative would have on unmarried couples in the state, rather than fighting with the proponents about the merits of same-sex marriage. [The proponents' focus on gay
marriage] was intended to appeal emotionally to voters. But a major part of the initiative would prohibit any legal recognition of domestic partnerships in Arizona. This initiative would take health-care benefits away from the employees' domestic
partners, and would prohibit unmarried seniors from visiting each other in the hospital. Lots of people were surprised when they learned this. After all, this initiative was called a "same-sex marriage ban." The proponents knew that they needed to
focus on the marriage part of the proposition because Arizona voters are pretty firmly set in their support for domestic partnership recognition, though, so ignoring this part of the proposition was important to its proponents.
Source: Unite and Conquer, by Kyrsten Sinema, p. 59-60
, Jul 1, 2009
Include gender identity in anti-discrimination laws
Sinema indicates support of the following principles regarding employment.- Increase state funds to provide child care for children in low-income working families.
- Include sexual orientation in Arizona's anti-discrimination laws.
-
Sinema adds, "and gender identity".
Q: Should Arizona recognize civil unions between same-sex couples?
A: Yes.
Source: Arizona 2006 Congressional National Political Awareness Test
, Nov 1, 2006
Apply Affirmative Action to all state decisions
Q: Affirmative Action: Should race, ethnicity or gender be taken into account in state agencies? decisions on public employment?A: Yes.
Q: State college and university admissions?
A: Yes.
Q: State contracting?
A: Yes.
Source: Arizona 2006 Congressional National Political Awareness Test
, Nov 1, 2006
Voted YES on reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act.
Congressional Summary:Amends the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (VAWA) to add or expand definitions of several terms used in such Act, including :- "culturally specific services" to mean community-based services that offer culturally relevant and linguistically specific services and resources to culturally specific communities;
- "personally identifying information" with respect to a victim of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking;
- "underserved populations" as populations that face barriers in accessing and using victim services because of geographic location, religion, sexual orientation or gender identity; and
- "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.
Reference: Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act;
Bill H.R.11
; vote number 13-HV055
on Feb 28, 2013
Endorsed by The Feminist Majority indicating a pro-women's rights stance.
Sinema is endorsed by by the Feminist Majority on 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."
Source: FeministMajority.org website 12-FemMaj on Oct 31, 2012
Supports same-sex marriage.
Sinema supports the PVS survey question on same-sex marriage
Project Vote Smart infers candidate issue stances on key topics by summarizing public speeches and public statements. Congressional candidates are given the opportunity to respond in detail; about 11% did so in the 2012 races.
Project Vote Smart summarizes candidate stances on the following topic: 'Marriage: Do you support same-sex marriage?'
Source: Project Vote Smart 12-PVS-q3 on Aug 30, 2012
Enforce against anti-gay discrimination in public schools.
Sinema co-sponsored Student Non-Discrimination Act
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.
Sinema co-sponsored Paycheck Fairness Act
Congress finds the following: - Women have entered the workforce in record numbers over the past 50 years.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
-
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.
- The Department of Labor is responsible for investigating and prosecuting equal pay violations, especially systemic violations, and in enforcing all of its mandates.
- The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is the primary enforcement agency for claims made under the Equal Pay Act.
- 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.
- 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
Don't elevate gender identity as a protected class.
Sinema 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: Supreme Court case 16-H5055 argued on May 25, 2016
Let states recognize same sex marriage.
Sinema 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
|
Other candidates on Civil Rights: |
Kyrsten Sinema on other issues: |
AZ Gubernatorial: David Garcia Doug Ducey Frank Riggs Fred DuVal Jan Brewer JL Mealer Phil Gordon Steve Farley AZ Senatorial: Ann Kirkpatrick Deedra Abboud Doug Marks Jeff Flake JL Mealer Joe Arpaio John McCain Kelli Ward Mark Kelly Martha McSally
AZ politicians
AZ Archives
|
Senate races 2019-20:
AK:
Sullivan(R,incumbent)
vs.Gross(I)
AL:
Jones(D,incumbent)
vs.Sessions(R)
vs.Moore(R)
vs.Mooney(R)
vs.Rogers(D)
vs.Tuberville(R)
vs.Byrne(R)
vs.Merrill(R)
AR:
Cotton(R,incumbent)
vs.Mahony(D)
vs.Whitfield(I)
vs.Harrington(L)
AZ:
McSally(R,incumbent)
vs.Kelly(D)
CO:
Gardner(R,incumbent)
vs.Hickenlooper(D)
vs.Madden(D)
vs.Baer(D)
vs.Walsh(D)
vs.Johnston(D)
vs.Romanoff(D)
vs.Burnes(D)
vs.Williams(D)
DE:
Coons(D,incumbent)
vs.Scarane(D)
GA-2:
Isakson(R,resigned)
Loeffler(R,appointed)
vs.Lieberman(D)
vs.Collins(R)
vs.Carter(D)
GA-6:
Perdue(R,incumbent)
vs.Tomlinson(D)
vs.Ossoff(D)
vs.Terry(D)
IA:
Ernst(R,incumbent)
vs.Graham(D)
vs.Mauro(D)
vs.Greenfield(D)
ID:
Risch(R,incumbent)
vs.Harris(D)
vs.Jordan(D)
IL:
Durbin(D,incumbent)
vs.Curran(R)
vs.Stava-Murray(D)
KS:
Roberts(R,retiring)
vs.LaTurner(R)
vs.Wagle(R)
vs.Kobach(R)
vs.Bollier(D)
vs.Lindstrom(R)
vs.Grissom(D)
vs.Marshall(R)
KY:
McConnell(R,incumbent)
vs.McGrath(D)
vs.Morgan(R)
vs.Cox(D)
vs.Tobin(D)
vs.Booker(D)
LA:
Cassidy(R,incumbent)
vs.Pierce(D)
|
MA:
Markey(D,incumbent)
vs.Liss-Riordan(D)
vs.Ayyadurai(R)
vs.Kennedy(D)
ME:
Collins(R,incumbent)
vs.Sweet(D)
vs.Gideon(D)
vs.Rice(D)
MI:
Peters(D,incumbent)
vs.James(R)
MN:
Smith(D,incumbent)
vs.Carlson(D)
vs.Lewis(R)
vs.Overby(G)
MS:
Hyde-Smith(R,incumbent)
vs.Espy(D)
vs.Bohren(D)
MT:
Daines(R,incumbent)
vs.Bullock(D)
vs.Collins(D)
vs.Mues(D)
vs.Driscoll(R)
vs.Giese(L)
NC:
Tillis(R,incumbent)
vs.E.Smith(D)
vs.S.Smith(R)
vs.Cunningham(D)
vs.Tucker(R)
vs.Mansfield(D)
NE:
Sasse(R,incumbent)
vs.Janicek(R)
NH:
Shaheen(D,incumbent)
vs.Martin(D)
vs.Bolduc(R)
vs.O'Brien(f)
NJ:
Booker(D,incumbent)
vs.Singh(R)
vs.Meissner(R)
NM:
Udall(D,retiring)
vs.Clarkson(R)
vs.Oliver(D)
vs.Lujan(D)
vs.Rich(R)
OK:
Inhofe(R,incumbent)
vs.Workman(D)
OR:
Merkley(D,incumbent)
vs.Romero(R)
vs.Perkins(R)
RI:
Reed(D,incumbent)
vs.Waters(R)
SC:
Graham(R,incumbent)
vs.Tinubu(D)
vs.Harrison(D)
SD:
Rounds(R,incumbent)
vs.Borglum(R)
vs.Ahlers(D)
TN:
Alexander(R,incumbent)
vs.Sethi(R)
vs.Mackler(D)
vs.Hagerty(R)
TX:
Cornyn(R,incumbent)
vs.Hegar(D)
vs.Hernandez(D)
vs.Bell(D)
vs.Ramirez(D)
vs.West(D)
VA:
Warner(D,incumbent)
vs.Taylor(R)
vs.Gade(R)
WV:
Capito(R,incumbent)
vs.Swearengin(D)
vs.Ojeda(D)
WY:
Enzi(R,incumbent)
vs.Ludwig(D)
vs.Lummis(R)
|
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
Other Senators
Senate Votes (analysis)
Bill Sponsorships
Affiliations
Policy Reports
Group Ratings
|
|
Page last updated: Jul 15, 2020