Mike Pence on Civil Rights
Republian nominee for Vice President; Governor of Indiana; former Representative (IN-6)
OpEd: RFRA seen as allowing discrimination against gays
[Pence's 2015 Religious Freedom Restoration Act] quickly went national. It was the top story on Saturday Night Live's "Weekend Update." The NCAA signaled it might drop Indiana as a venue for major events, and even NASCAR said that it was "disappointed."
A beleaguered looking Pence appeared on This Week with George Stephanopoulos, trying to reassure a national audience that the bill was not about discrimination. The interview was a disaster. When Stephanopoulos asked, "Do you think it should be legal
in the state of Indiana to discriminate against gays or lesbians?" Pence paused, and winced. "George." he began, then sighed.
"It's a yes or no question!" Stephanopoulos pressed. No matter how many times he was asked, Pence would not simply say that
the answer was no. (Which means he probably believed the answer was yes, but at least he knew not to admit it.) One national columnist later described it as "very possibly one of the worst appearances by a governor in television history." ˙
Source: Shortest Way Home, by Pete Buttigieg, p.212
, Feb 12, 2019
OpEd: supports conversion therapy & anti-LGBTQ extremism
Mike Pence has made virulent anti-LGBTQ activism the cornerstone of his political career. HRC's comprehensive "The Real Mike Pence" campaign includes a report, microsite and series of videos that shine a spotlight on Pence's decades-long crusade against
LGBTQ equality, and inside-the-White House efforts leading the Trump-Pence administration's attacks on LGBTQ people, including those who bravely serve our nation in the military. It lays out his long record of support for the abusive practice of
so-called "conversion therapy;" his relentless pursuit of a license to discriminate against LGBTQ people; his attempts to block hate crime legislation and funding for HIV and AIDS prevention; and his efforts to undermine access
to health and reproductive care essential to LGBTQ people. He also keeps busy with his extremist agenda by working to undermine science, health, transparency, education, justice and public safety.
Source: HRC.org on 2018 Trump Administration
, Aug 28, 2018
No place in our administration for LGBTQ discrimination
Q: President Trump decided this week to let stand President Obama's executive order on LGBT rights. And it prompted questions from social conservatives.
PENCE: Throughout the campaign, President Trump made it
clear that discrimination would have no place in our administration. He was the very first Republican nominee to mention the LGBTQ community at our Republican National Convention and was applauded for it. And I was there applauding with him.
Source: ABC This Week 2017 interview by George Stephanopoulos
, Jan 15, 2017
RFRA Fix: ensure that religious freedom doesn't discriminate
Pence made national headlines in early 2015 when he signed into law the "Religious Freedom Restoration Act," which limited the legal actions that could be taken against an individual or business for asserting their religious beliefs.
The law sparked
widespread outrage. Opponents contended that it would give license to religious conservatives to refuse service to lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender individuals. In response, several major events and corporations--including Salesforce.com
and the NCAA--threatened to limit business ventures in the state or boycott it altogether.
Pence adamantly defended the RFRA legislation and refused to say whether it allowed for discrimination, which led to extensive questioning of his underlying
motives. So much so that he quietly signed a subsequent piece of legislation--dubbed the "RFRA Fix"--that clarified that the law did not allow businesses to discriminate based on a customer's sexual orientation or gender identity.
Source: Rollcall.com on 2016 vice-presidential hopefuls
, Sep 19, 2016
Pro-business environment better for wages than equal pay
Hoosier women earn about 73 cents for every dollar men make for the same work, and the poverty rate for women and girls in Indiana is nearly 17 percent. Mike Pence says he believes the way to address income disparity is to promote economic
growth. "Creating an environment that encourages more investment, more job opportunities for Hoosiers is the best pathway forward toward increasing personal income for men and women in Indiana," he says.
Source: Howey politics on 2016 Indiana gubernatorial race
, Jul 15, 2016
Opposes pay equity; close wage gap by growing economy
Pence said he wanted women to make every bit as much as men, and said the way to close Indiana's wage gap was through growing the economy. In this legislative session, House Democrats offered an amendment creating a commission to study pay disparity,
but it was blocked by Republicans. Governor Mike Pence says he believes the way to address income disparity is to promote economic growth: "Creating an environment that encourages more investment, more job opportunities for Hoosiers is the best
pathway forward toward increasing personal income for men and women in Indiana," he says. [Howey Politics, 4/9/2014]
Pence thrice voted against equal pay for women:
Source: INDems.org & Howey politics: 2016 Indiana gubernatorial race
, Apr 15, 2016
- July 2007: Voted Against H.R. 2831, the "Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2007."
[H.R. 2831, Vote 768, 7/31/07]
- Jan. 2009: Voted Against S. 181, the "Fair Pay Act of 2009." [S. 181, Vote 37, 1/27/09]
- Jan. 2009: Voted Against H.R. 12, the "Paycheck Fairness Act Of 2009." [H.R. 12, Vote 8, 1/9/09]
Civil rights must be balanced with religious freedom
Should full civil rights protections on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity be extended? No one should be harassed or mistreated because of who they are, who they love, or what they believe. But Hoosiers also cherish faith and
the freedom to live out their faith and I will not support any bill that diminishes the religious freedom of Hoosiers or that interferes with the Constitutional rights of our citizens to live out their beliefs in worship, service or work.
Source: 2016 State of the State speech to Indiana legislature
, Jan 12, 2016
Listen to the merits of debate on LGBT rights
Civil rights expansion: This is the elephant on the table. All sides are digging in. This creates a situation where either Gov. Pence, Speaker Brian Bosma or Senate President David Long will have to take the lead.
Pence is playing his cards close to the vest. He has repeatedly said that he will listen to the "merits" of the coming, noisy debate as
Freedom Indiana and the Indiana Pastors Alliance will hold dueling demonstrations during legislative Organization Day in November.
This is a policy and political gauntlet for Gov. Pence.
He will have to be adroit and communicate well, or he faces the prospect of being a one-term governor. It's time for statewide non-discrimination protections for LGBT Hoosiers!
Source: Kokomo Perspective on 2016 Indiana Gubernatorial race
, Oct 24, 2015
Religious Freedom Act is not about LGBT discrimination
The most hot-button issue of all during the 2015 General Assembly, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, was signed in March. Proponents of the bill said it was designed to keep local and state laws from "substantially burdening" the deeply-held
religious principles of individuals, businesses or religious institutions. Those against the bill felt it opened a Pandora's box for discrimination against minorities, especially the LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgendered) community.
"This bill is not about discrimination, and if I thought it legalized discrimination in any way in Indiana, I would have vetoed it," Pence said at the time. "In fact, it does not even apply to disputes between private parties unless government
action is involved. For more than 20 years, the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act has never undermined our nation's anti-discrimination laws, and it will not in Indiana."
Source: Kokomo Tribune on Indiana Voting Records for bill SB101
, Sep 24, 2015
Future of conservatism demands traditional marriage
The future of conservatism demands that we stand for the traditional definition of marriage. Marriage was ordained by God and instituted in law. It is the glue of the American family and the safest harbor to raise children.
Conservatives must defend traditional marriage by passing the Federal Marriage Amendment.
Source: Speech at 2008 Conservative Political Action Conference
, Feb 8, 2008
Voted against expansion of hate-crime protection
The House of Representatives voted on Thursday to extend hate-crime protection to people who are victimized because of their sexuality. But the most immediate effect may be to set up another veto showdown between Democrats and President Bush.
By 237 to 180, the House voted to cover crimes spurred by a victim's "gender, sexual orientation, gender identity" or disability under the hate-crime designation,
which currently applies to people who are attacked because of their race, religion, color or national origin. Pence called the bill "unnecessary and bad public policy."
While he finds racism and sexism "abhorrent," Mr. Pence said, the bill's language is so broad that it could encroach on free speech.
Source: New York Times, "Hate Crime," By David Stout
, May 4, 2007
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;
; 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
- Assigning three judges to hear individuals' petitions concerning improper requests by the FBI for library circulation records, library patron lists, book sales records, book customer lists, and other records
- Reporting every year the number of library records orders that are granted, modified, or denied
- Allows Internet service providers to disclose their subscribers information and the contents of their communications to a government entity, if they believe there is “immediate danger of death or serious physical injury”
- Requires that any court that allows a “roving wiretap” under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) must describe in great detail the intended target whose identity is not known
- Allows individuals and businesses to seek legal counsel if they have received a National Security Letter from the FBI requiring them to disclose financial information and records
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];
; 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];
; 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;
; vote number 2003-234
on Jun 3, 2003
Supports anti-flag desecration amendment.
Pence 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
Require "Privacy Impact Statement" on new federal rules.
Pence co-sponsored requiring "Privacy Impact Statement" on new federal rules
SPONSOR'S INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT: It is clear that this bill's many cosponsors do not agree on every issue. The same can be said of the bill's noncongressional supporters, which include groups ranging from the National Rifle Association to the American Civil Liberties Union.
The sphere of privacy, which Justice Brandeis eloquently described as the ''right to be let alone,'' is not only rapidly diminishing, it is increasingly penetrable. The Federal Agency Protection of Privacy Act takes the first--necessary--step toward protecting the privacy of information collected by the federal government, by requiring that rules noticed for public comment by federal agencies be accompanied by an assessment of the rule's impact on personal privacy interests, including the extent to which the proposed rule provides notice of the collection of personally identifiable information, what information will be obtained, and how this informational will be collected, protected,
maintained, used and disclosed.
I want to emphasize H.R. 4561 will not unduly burden regulators nor will it hinder law enforcement. This bill will apply the best antiseptic--sunshine--to the federal rulemaking process by securing the public's right to know about how rules will affect their personal privacy.
EXCERPTS FROM BILL:
- Requires Federal agencies, when promulgating a rule, to publish a privacy impact analysis.
- Requires an agency promulgating a rule that may have a significant privacy impact on individuals to use specified techniques to assure that individuals have been given an opportunity to participate in the rulemaking.
- Requires each agency to carry out a periodic review of promulgated rules that have privacy impact, every ten years after the rule was published.
LEGISLATIVE OUTCOME: Passed House on a voice vote; sent to Senate on Oct. 8, 2002; never called to vote in Senate.
Source: Federal Agency Protection of Privacy Act (H.R.4561) 02-HR4561 on Apr 24, 2002
Rated 7% by the ACLU, indicating an anti-civil rights voting record.
Pence scores 7% by the ACLU on civil rights issues
The mission of the ACLU is to preserve protections and guarantees America’s original civic values - the Constitution and the Bill of Rights:
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.
- 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.
Source: ACLU website 02n-ACLU on Dec 31, 2002
Rated 0% by the HRC, indicating an anti-gay-rights stance.
Pence 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):
- 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.
Source: HRC website 06n-HRC on Dec 31, 2006
Rated 22% by the NAACP, indicating an anti-affirmative-action stance.
Pence scores 22% 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):
- 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.
Source: NAACP website 06n-NAACP on Dec 31, 2006
Amend Constitution to define traditional marriage.
Pence co-sponsored amending 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
Source: Marriage Protection Amendment (S.J.RES.43) 08-SJR43 on Jun 25, 2008
Page last updated: Dec 15, 2019