Marlin Stutzman on Civil Rights

Amend state constitution: marriage is one man, one woman

Pew Research summary April 1, 2008: Opponents are looking to the November 2008 election, seeking to have constitutional gay-marriage bans placed on the ballot in as many as 10 states, including Arizona and Indiana.

Indianapolis Star summary Oct. 30, 2013: When Mitch Daniels was governor, he backed the amendment, although he didn't lobby for it. "As a believer in traditional marriage and a supporter of the law we have on the books now, I agree with the idea of protecting it against some creative judicial ruling in the future," Daniels said in 2007.

Legislative Outcome: Passed Feb/21/05 Senate 42-8-0; passed House 76-23-1 on Mar/22/05; state Rep. Marlin Stutzman voted YES.

Opposes same-sex marriage.

Project Vote Smart infers candidate issue stances on key topics by summarizing public speeches and public statements. Candidates are given the opportunity to respond in detail; about 16% did so in the 2010 races.

Project Vote Smart summarizes candidate stances on the following topic: 'Social Issues: Should marriage only be between one man and one woman?'

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

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.

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.

Religious objections to GLBT services same as 1960s racism.

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

Respect 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.

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

• allow federal contractors, including those that provide homeless shelters or drug treatment programs, to turn away LGBT people
• permit a university to fire an unmarried teacher simply for becoming pregnant
• permit federal employees to refuse to process tax returns, visa applications, or Social Security checks for all married same-sex couples