John Sarbanes on Civil Rights Democrat

Voted YES on prohibiting job discrimination based on sexual orientation.

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].

Provide benefits to domestic partners of Federal employees.

Sen. LIEBERMAN: This legislation would require the Government to extend employee benefit programs to the same-sex domestic partners of Federal employees. It is sound public policy and it makes excellent business sense.

Under our bill, Federal employee and the employee's domestic partner would be eligible to participate in benefits to the same extent that married employees and their spouses participate. Employees and their partners would also assume the same obligations that apply to married employees and their spouses, such as anti-nepotism rules and financial disclosure requirements.

The Federal Government is our Nation's largest employer and should lead other employers, rather than lagging behind, in the quest to provide equal and fair compensation and benefits to all employees. That thousands of Federal workers who have dedicated their careers to public service and who live in committed relationships with same-sex domestic partners receive fewer protections for their families than those married employees is patently unfair and, frankly, makes no economic sense.

I call upon my colleagues to express their support for this important legislation. It is time for the Federal Government to catch up to the private sector, not just to set an example but so that it can compete for the most qualified employees and ensure that all of our public servants receive fair and equitable treatment. It makes good economic and policy senses. It is the right thing to do.

SUMMARY: Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act of 2007

Employees and their domestic partners will have the same benefits as married employees and their spouses under--
• Employee health benefits
• Retirement and disability plans
• Family, medical, and emergency leave
• Group life insurance
• Long-term care insurance
• Compensation for work injuries
• Death, disability, and similar benefits
• Relocation, travel, and related expenses.

Re-introduce the Equal Rights Amendment.

A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to equal rights for men and women, which shall be part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of 3/4 of the States:
• Section 1.Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
• Section 2.The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
• Section 3.This article shall take effect 2 years after the date of ratification.

"Despite passage of the Equal Pay Act & the Civil Rights Act in the 1960s, discrimination against women continues to permeate the workforce and many areas of the economy. Today, women earn about 77 cents for each dollar earned by men, and the gap is even greater for women of color. More than 60% of working women are still clustered in a narrow range of traditionally female, traditionally low-paying occupations, and female-headed households continue to dominate the bottom rungs of the economic ladder.

"A stronger effort is clearly needed to finally live up to our commitment of full equality. The ERA alone cannot remedy all discrimination, but it will clearly strengthen the ongoing efforts of women across the country to obtain equal treatment.

"We know from the failed ratification experiences of the past that amending the Constitution to include the ERA will not be easy to achieve. But the women of America deserve no less."

Give domestic partnership benefits to Federal employees.

A federal employee who has a same-sex domestic partner and the domestic partner of the employee shall be entitled to benefits available to, and shall be subject to obligations imposed upon, a married employee and the spouse of the employee. In order to obtain benefits and assume obligations under this Act, an employee shall file an affidavit of eligibility certifying that the employee and the domestic partner of the employee:
1. are each other's sole domestic partner and intend to remain so indefinitely;
2. have a common residence, and intend to continue the arrangement;
3. are at least 18 years of age and mentally competent to consent to contract;
4. share responsibility for a significant measure of each other's common welfare and financial obligations
5. are not married to or domestic partners with anyone else;
6. are same sex domestic partners, and not related in a way that, if the two were of opposite sex, would prohibit legal marriage in the State in which they reside; and
7. understand that willful falsification of information within the affidavit may lead to disciplinary action and the recovery of the cost of benefits received related to such falsification and may constitute a criminal violation.
   An employee or domestic partner of an employee who obtains benefits under this Act shall file a statement of dissolution of the domestic partnership not later than 30 days after the death of the employee or the domestic partner or the date of dissolution of the domestic partnership. Source: H.R.2517 2009-H2517 on May 20, 2009

   Click here for definitions & background information on Civil Rights. Click here for a profile of John Sarbanes. Click here for HouseMatch answers by John Sarbanes. Agree? Disagree? Voice your opinions on Civil Rights in The Forum. Click here for a summary of John Sarbanes's positions on all issues. Click here for issue positions of other MD politicians.
   Other candidates on Civil Rights:			John Sarbanes on other issues:
   MD Gubernatorial: Martin O`Malley MD Senatorial: Barbara Mikulski Benjamin Cardin Corrogan Vaughn Pending elections: D,IL-5:Emanuel D,CA-31:Solis D,NY-20:Gillibrand Special elections in 110th Congress: R,GA-10:Broun D,IN-7:Carson D,LA-6:Cazayoux D,MD-4:Edwards D,IL-14:Foster D,CA-37:Richardson R,LA-1:Scalise D,CA-12:Speier D,MA-5:Tsongas R,VA-1:Wittman	GOP Freshmen in 111th Congress: R,OH-7:Austria R,OH-16:Boccieri R,LA-2:Cao R,LA-6:Cassidy R,UT-3:Chaffetz R,CA-6:Coffman R,LA-4:Fleming R,KY-2:Guthrie R,MS-3:Harper R,CA-52:Hunter R,KS-2:Jenkins R,NJ-7:Lance R,NY-26:Lee R,MO-9:Luetkemeyer R,WY-AL:Lummis R,CA-4:McClintock R,TX-22:Olson R,MN-3:Paulsen R,FL-15:Posey R,TN-1:Roe R,FL-16:Rooney R,IL-18:Schock R,PA-5:Thompson	Dem. Freshmen in 111th Congress: D,NJ-3:Adler D,AL-2:Bright D,VA-11:Connolly D,PA-3:Dahlkemper D,OH-1:Driehaus D,OH-11:Fudge D,FL-8:Grayson D,AL-5:Griffith D,IL-11:Halvorson D,NM-1:Heinrich D,CT-4:Himes D,OH-15:Kilroy D,AZ-1:Kirkpatrick D,NC-8:Kissell D,FL-24:Kosmas D,MD-1:Kratovil D,NM-3:Lujan D,NY-25:Maffei D,CO-4:Markey D,NY-29:Massa D,NY-13:McMahon D,ID-1:Minnick D,VA-5:Perriello D,MI-9:Peters D,ME-1:Pingree D,CO-2:Polis D,MI-7:Schauer D,OR-5:Schrader D,NM-2:Teague D,NV-3:Titus D,NY-21:Tonko	Abortion Budget/Economy Civil Rights Corporations Crime Drugs Education Energy/Oil Environment Families/Children Foreign Policy Free Trade Govt. Reform Gun Control Health Care Homeland Security Immigration Infrastructure/Technology Jobs Principles/Values Social Security Tax Reform War/Iraq/Mideast Welfare/Poverty Main Page Profile MD politicians

   
   Page last updated: Oct 02, 2009