OnTheIssuesLogo

Marlin Stutzman on Civil Rights

 

 


Voted NO on reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act.

Congressional Summary:
    Amends the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (VAWA) to add or expand definitions of several terms used in such Act, including :
  1. "culturally specific services" to mean community-based services that offer culturally relevant and linguistically specific services and resources to culturally specific communities;
  2. "personally identifying information" with respect to a victim of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking;
  3. "underserved populations" as populations that face barriers in accessing and using victim services because of geographic location, religion, sexual orientation or gender identity; and
  4. "youth" to mean a person who is 11 to 24 years old.

Opponent's Argument for voting No (The Week; Huffington Post, and The Atlantic): House Republicans had objected to provisions in the Senate bill that extended VAWA's protections to lesbians, gays, immigrants, and Native Americans. For example, Rep. Bill Johnson (R-OH) voted against the VAWA bill because it was a "politically–motivated, constitutionally-dubious Senate version bent on dividing women into categories by race, transgender politics and sexual preference." The objections can be grouped in two broadly ideological areas--that the law is an unnecessary overreach by the federal government, and that it represents a "feminist" attack on family values. The act's grants have encouraged states to implement "mandatory-arrest" policies, under which police responding to domestic-violence calls are required to make an arrest. These policies were intended to combat the too-common situation in which a victim is intimidated into recanting an abuse accusation. Critics also say VAWA has been subject to waste, fraud, and abuse because of insufficient oversight.

Reference: Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act; Bill H.R.11 ; vote number 13-HV055 on Feb 28, 2013

Opposes same-sex marriage.

Stutzman supports the PVS survey question on 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?'

Source: Project Vote Smart 10-PVS-q3 on Nov 2, 2010

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

Stutzman 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.

Stutzman 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: Marlin Stutzman on other issues:
IN Gubernatorial:
Dan Coats
Eric Holcomb
Mike Pence
IN Senatorial:
Joe Donnelly

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
IN politicians
IN Archives

Contact info:
House Contact
Mailing Address:
Office 1728 LHOB, Wash., DC 20515
Official Website
Phone number:
202-225-4436
Search for...





Page last updated: Jun 29, 2017