OnTheIssuesLogo

Mark Sanford on Civil Rights

Republican SC Governor; previously Representative (SC-1)

 


No civil unions; define one-man-one-woman marriage

Q Should South Carolina recognize civil unions between same-sex couples?

A: No.

Q: Should South Carolina restrict marriage to a union only between a man and a woman?

A: Yes.

Source: 2002 S.C. Gubernatorial National Political Awareness Test , Nov 1, 2002

Affirmative action in state contracts, but not colleges

Q: Affirmative Action: Should race, ethnicity, or gender be taken into account in state agenciesí decisions on:

Q: College and university admissions

A: No.

Q: Public employment

A: Yes.

Q: State contracting

A: Yes.

Source: 2002 S.C. Gubernatorial National Political Awareness Test , Nov 1, 2002

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

Voted NO on ending preferential treatment by race in college admissions.

HR 6, the Higher Education Amendments Act of 1997, would prohibit any post-secondary institution that participates in any program under the Higher Education Act from discriminating or granting any preferential treatment in admission based on race, sex, ethnicity, color or national origin.
Reference: Amendment introduced by Riggs, R-CA.; Bill HR 6 ; vote number 1998-133 on May 6, 1998

Protect anti-same-sex marriage opinions as free speech.

Sanford co-sponsored Marriage and Religious Freedom Act

Congressional Summary:Congress finds the following:

  1. Leading legal scholars concur that conflicts between same-sex marriage and religious liberty are real and should be legislatively addressed.
  2. As the President stated in response to the Defense of Marriage Act in 2013, 'Americans hold a wide range of views' on the issue of same-sex marriage, and 'maintaining our Nation's commitment to religious freedom' is 'vital'.
  3. Protecting religious freedom from Government intrusion is a Government interest of the highest order.
  4. Laws that protect the free exercise of religious beliefs about marriage will encourage private citizens and institutions to demonstrate similar tolerance and therefore contribute to a more respectful, diverse, and peaceful society.
[Accordingly, this bill] prohibits the federal government from taking an adverse action against a person for acts in accordance with a religious belief that marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman, or that sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage.

Opponent's argument against bill: (David Brunori on Forbes.com): A bipartisan group of lawmakers thinks it's appropriate for the American taxpayer to subsidize organizations fighting for "traditional marriage." The Marriage and Religious Freedom Act would give non-profit organizations that don't like gay marriage the ability to engage in partisan political activities without the fear of losing their exempt status. The sponsors are touting the bill as a means of protecting freedom of conscience on the issue of marriage. The proposed law will allow non-profit organizations to engage in political activity, as long as it's for championing heterosexual marriage, while non-profits supporting marriage equality cannot engage in partisan political activity. The tax laws should be neutral when it comes to politics.

Source: H.R.3133 13-H3133 on Sep 19, 2013

Respect faith-based opposition to same-sex marriage.

Sanford signed respecting faith-based opposition to same-sex marriage

Congressional Summary: The First Amendment Defense Act (FADA) prohibits the federal government from taking discriminatory action against a person on the basis that such person believes or acts in accordance with a religious belief or moral conviction that:

  1. marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman, or
  2. sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage.
Legal Argument Opposed: [Secular.org]: "The stated purpose of FADA is to protect the tax-exempt status, government contract, or any other federal benefit of those who do not comply with the Supreme Court's same-sex marriage ruling. This act's true impact would allow for sweeping, taxpayer-funded discrimination against same-sex couples and their children--all under the guise of religious liberty. FADA would completely eviscerate the historic nondiscrimination Executive Order that President Obama signed last summer that prohibits federal contractors from engaging in discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. The First Amendment protects freedom of religion and freedom from religion, not the special privileges of the religiously affiliated at the expense of the fundamental rights of other Americans."

Political Argument Opposed: [ACLU, July 20, 2015]: The House of Representatives & leading anti-LGBT organizations are pushing a bill--disingenuously titled the First Amendment Defense Act--that would open the door to unprecedented taxpayer-funded discrimination against LGBT people, single mothers, and unmarried couples. This bill would

Source: H.R.2802 16-HR2802 on Jun 17, 2015

2016-17 Governor, House and Senate candidates on Civil Rights: Mark Sanford on other issues:
SC Gubernatorial:
Henry McMaster
Lindsey Graham
Mick Mulvaney
Nikki Haley
Tommy Pope
Yancey McGill
SC Senatorial:
Brad Hutto
Jay Stamper
Jim DeMint
Lee Bright
Lindsey Graham
Nancy Mace
Rick Wade
Thomas Ravenel

Newly-elected Democrats as of Jan.2017:
AZ-1:O`Halleran(D)
CA-17:Khanna(D)
CA-20:Panetta(D)
CA-24:Carbajal(D)
CA-44:Barragan(D)
CA-46:Correa(D)
DE-0:Rochester(D)
FL-5:Lawson(D)
FL-7:Murphy(D)
FL-9:Soto(D)
FL-10:Demings(D)
FL-13:Crist(D)
HI-1:Hanabusa(D)
IL-10:Schneider(D)
IL-8:Krishnamoorthi(D)
MD-4:Brown(D)
MD-8:Raskin(D)
NH-1:Shea-Porter(D)
NJ-5:Gottheimer(D)
NV-3:Rosen(D)
NV-4:Kihuen(D)
NY-3:Suozzi(D)
NY-13:Espaillat(D)
PA-2:Evans(D)
TX-15:Gonzalez(D)
VA-4:McEachin(D)
WA-7:Jayapal(D)
Newly-elected Republicans as of Jan.2017:
AZ-5:Biggs(R)
FL-1:Gaetz(R)
FL-2:Dunn(R)
FL-18:Mast(R)
FL-19:Rooney(R)
FL-4:Rutherford(R)
GA-3:Ferguson(R)
IN-3:Banks(R)
IN-9:Hollingsworth(R)
KS-1:Marshall(R)
KY-1:Comer(R)
MI-1:Bergman(R)
MI-10:Mitchell(R)
MN-2:Lewis(R)
NC-13:Budd(R)
NE-2:Bacon(R)
NY-19:Faso(R)
NY-22:Tenney(R)
PA-8:Fitzpatrick(R)
TN-8:Kustoff(R)
TX-19:Arrington(R)
VA-2:Taylor(R)
VA-5:Garrett(R)
WI-8:Gallagher(R)
WY-0:Cheney(R)
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
Wikipedia Profile
Ballotpedia Profile
SC politicians
SC Archives

Contact info:
Email Contact Form
Fax number:
803-734-2100
Search for...





Page last updated: Jun 29, 2017