Disgrace that national GOP narrowing base by ignoring blacks
Q: Please tell me and this audience why you chose to be here tonight and what you say to those who chose not to be here tonight.
A: I apologize for the candidates that aren't here. I think this is a disgrace that they're not here. I think it's a
disgrace for our country, I think it's bad for our party, and I don't think it's good for our future. You know, you grow political parties by expanding your base, by reaching out to people and getting more people. What they're doing is sending the
message of narrowing the base, and that's not the right way to go. It's not good for the Republican Party, it's not good for the country. And I'm sorry to those watching that they're not here. I've got a suggestion, though, for a way to fix it. A lot of
people on the Republican side say: Well, OK, we can't get votes in the African American community. I say: Why don't you pick one of the early primary states, register Republican, and vote for one of the six of us? And then let's see what takes place.
Source: 2007 GOP Presidential Forum at Morgan State University
Sep 27, 2007
Fight against hate crimes legislation
Q: What do you intend to do to counteract the homosexual agenda on hate crimes legislation?
A:
This is something we have got to fight against, that somehow that the thought is what the crime is, and that being moved into an agenda not allowing people to speak their beliefs about homosexuality.
Carried amendment defining marriage to Senate floor
Q: Will you support a federal marriage amendment, and what else will you do to protect the institution of marriage?
A: As you probably know, that was the amendment I carried in the judiciary committee. It was a constitutional amendment defining
marriage as the union of a man and a woman. I got it through the subcommittee, I got it through the judiciary committee in the Senate. We lost it on the floor, and yes, I will lead it as president. I wish President Bush would have led on it.
That was something I was disappointed in. I thought if he had said after the last election, "I've got political capital. I'm going to spend it," that if he had pivoted and said, "and I'm going to push for a constitutional amendment on marriage," which
was much more what the election was about than Social Security, we might be there now. I don't know that we would, but you have got to do these sort of things, and you have got to take that leadership, and it gets, to me, back to the basics.
Q: Should there be a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage?
A: The answer to that is yes. And the reason is, this is a foundational institution. I understand we as a country are struggling with this question. But these issues aren't done in a
vacuum. In countries that have redefined marriage, where they've said, OK, it's not just a man and a woman, it can be two men, two women, the marriage rates in those countries have plummeted to where you have counties now in northern
Europe where 80% of the first-born children are born out of wedlock. We don't need more children born out of wedlock; we need more children born into wedlock, between a mom and a dad bonded together for life. When you do these vast,
social experiments--and that's what this is, when you redefine marriage--they're not done in isolation. They impact the rest of the culture around you. When you take the sacredness out of marriage, you will drive the marriage rates down.
Source: 2007 GOP debate at UNH, sponsored by Fox News
Sep 5, 2007
Supports marriage as the union of a man and a woman
My basic positions are where the base of the Republican Party, and I believe the base of the country is. I'm pro-life. I believe life begins at conception, should be protected, and that that's a broad definition that should help us do things like
reducing prison recidivism. And I support marriage as the union of a man and a woman, and the ability to worship in the public square. Not a theocracy, but the ability to say things like one nation under God in the flag salute.
Source: CNN Late Edition: 2007 presidential series with Wolf Blitzer
Feb 25, 2007
Robustly religious public square better than naked square
SEN. BROWNBACK: You wrote in ACLU v. Schundler, concerning religious displays erected by Jersey City on the plaza of city hall. You upheld the constitutionality of [including symbols from numerous religions]. Are these types of displays constitutionally
permissible?
ALITO: Including both religious and secular symbols was not a violation.
BROWNBACK: What I hear in your opinions is you would rather have a robust public square than a naked public square; that you think there is room for these sorts
of displays in the public square.
ALITO: That was exactly what Jersey City had decided in that case.
BROWNBACK: We've had this 40 years of cases, I really hope we can have a public square that celebrates and not that's got to be completely naked.
[What about] C.H. v. Olivia?
ALITO: This case involved a student who wanted to read the story of Jacob and Esau to the class. And the teacher said no. And we found that was a violation of treating religious speech equally with secular speech.
Source: Sam Alito Senate Confirmation Hearings
Jan 11, 2006
Voted YES on recommending Constitutional ban on flag desecration.
The Senate voted on a resolution which would recommend a Constitutional Amendment banning flag desecration (not a vote on the Amendment itself). The resolution states:
the flag of the US is a unique symbol of national unity...
the Bill of Rights should not be amended in a manner that could be interpreted to restrict freedom...
abuse of the flag causes more than pain and distress... and may amount to fighting words...
destruction of the flag of the US can be intended to incite a violent response rather than make a political statement and such conduct is outside the protections afforded by the first amendment to the Constitution.
Proponents of the Resolution say:
Fifty State legislatures have called on us to pass this amendment. This amendment simply says that "Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States."
In other words, in passing this amendment, we would give to
Congress the power that the Supreme Court took away in 1989.
48 States had anti-desecration measures on the books before 1989. It was then that five unelected judges told those 48 sovereign entities that they were wrong.
Opponents of the Resolution say:
I am deeply offended when people burn or otherwise abuse this precious national symbol.
I also believe that the values and beliefs that the American flag represents are more important than the cloth from which this symbol was created.
Prominent among these beliefs are the right to voice views that are unpopular, and the right to protest.
I oppose this amendment not because I condone desecration of our flag, but because I celebrate the values our flag represents. Flag burning is despicable. However, the issue is whether we should amend our great charter document, the Constitution, to proscribe it.
Is this a problem needing such strong medicine? Are we facing an epidemic of flag burnings?
Voted YES on constitutional ban of same-sex marriage.
Voting YES implies support for amending the constitution to ban same-sex marriage. This cloture motion to end debate requires a 3/5th majority. A constitutional amendment requires a 2/3rd majority. The proposed amendment is:
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.
Proponents of the motion say:
If Members of the Senate vote as their States have voted on this amendment, the vote today will be 90 to 10 in favor of a constitutional amendment.
Marriage is a foundational institution. It is under attack by the courts. It needs to be defended by defining it as the union of a man and a woman as 45 of our 50 States have done.
The amendment is about how we are going to raise the next generation.
It is not an issue that the courts should resolve. Those of us who support this amendment are doing so in an effort to let the people decide.
Opponents of the motion say:
This proposal pits Americans against one another. It appeals to people's worst instincts and prejudices.
Supporters rail against activist judges. But if this vaguely worded amendment ever passes, it will result in substantial litigation. What are the legal incidents of marriage? Is a civil union a marriage?
Married heterosexual couples are wondering, how, exactly, the prospect of gay marriages threatens the health of their marriages.
This amendment would make a minority of Americans permanent second-class citizens of this country. It would prevent States, many of which are grappling with the definition of marriage, from deciding that gays and lesbians should be allowed to marry. And it would write discrimination into a document that has served as a historic guarantee of individual freedom.
Voted NO on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes.
Motion to Invoke Cloture on S. 625; Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act of 2001. The bill would expand the definition of hate crimes to incorporate acts committed because of a victim's sex, sexual orientation or disability and permit the federal government to help states prosecute hate crimes even if no federally protected action was implicated. If the cloture motion is agreed to, debate will be limited and a vote will occur. If the cloture motion is rejected debate could continue indefinitely and instead the bill is usually set aside. Hence a Yes vote supports the expansion of the definition of hate crimes, and a No vote keeps the existing definition. Three-fifths of the Senate, or 60 members, is required to invoke cloture.
Reference:
Bill S.625
; vote number 2002-147
on Jun 11, 2002
Voted YES on loosening restrictions on cell phone wiretapping.
Motion to table (kill) the amendment that would provide that in order to conduct roving surveillance, the person implementing the order must ascertain that the target of the surveillance is present in the house or is using the phone that has been tapped.
Reference:
Bill S1510
; vote number 2001-300
on Oct 11, 2001
Voted NO on expanding hate crimes to include sexual orientation.
Vote on an amendment that would expand the definition of hate crimes to include gender, sexual orientation and disability. The previous definition included only racial, religious or ethnic bias.
Reference:
Bill S.2549
; vote number 2000-136
on Jun 20, 2000
Voted NO on setting aside 10% of highway funds for minorities & women.
Vote to table, or kill, an amendment to repeal the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise [DBE] Program, which requires no less than 10% of highway construction projects funded by the federal government to be contracted to 'disadvantaged business enterprises'
Reference:
Bill S.1173
; vote number 1998-23
on Mar 6, 1998
Voted YES on ending special funding for minority & women-owned business.
This legislation would have abolished a program that helps businesses owned by women or minorities compete for federally funded transportation.
Status: Cloture Motion Rejected Y)48; N)52
Reference: Motion to invoke cloture;
Bill S.1173
; vote number 1997-275
on Oct 23, 1997
Supports anti-flag desecration amendment.
Brownback 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 20% by the ACLU, indicating an anti-civil rights voting record.
Brownback scores 20% 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:
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.
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.
Rated 0% by the HRC, indicating an anti-gay-rights stance.
Brownback scores 0% by the HRC on gay rights
OnTheIssues.org interprets the 2005-2006 HRC scores as follows:
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)
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.
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.
