Democratic Jr Senator (CT, retiring 2012), ran for V.P. with Gore, ran for president 2004
Flag burning is abhorrent, but not a constitutional issue
Q: Should the Constitution be amended to prohibit burning the American flag?
A: I have consistently opposed a flag-burning amendment, and voted against its passage.
Flag desecration is hateful and worthy of condemnation, and I would support any statutory means possible to curtail desecration of the flag. But I believe that the importance of the Bill of Rights --
our nation’s founding document -- requires us to establish a very high threshold for agreeing to change it. Does the amendment address some extreme threat to our country, or redress some outrageous wrong?
In this case, abhorrent though flag desecration may be, it simply does not meet that test.
Q: Would you allow driver’s license for immigrants?
A: Yes, I absolutely would. And I would because it is obviously better for those immigrants and for the rest of America that they be driving with a license instead of without a license.
And if they have a license, they are more likely to be driving with insurance. So it makes no sense to me to punitively deprive them of that opportunity.
Source: Iowa Brown and Black Presidential Forum
, Jan 11, 2004
Support reparation legislations
Q: Would you propose or back legislation in support of reparations?
A: When Congressman Conyers introduced that legislation, I thought it was a good idea and I would support it. We ought to bring that out again and talk about it, and then talk about
what we can do about it. This is going to be more future-oriented in terms of response, to turn around some of the abandonment of people that’s gone on under this Bush administration -- fully fund education, raise people up in that way.
Source: Iowa Brown and Black Presidential Forum
, Jan 11, 2004
Sunset the Patriot Act
Q: How would you protect the civil liberties of Arab-Americans?
A: The best thing we did with the Patriot Act was to sunset it. Almost 800 foreign nationals, immigrants, mostly Arab-Americans or people who looked like Arab-Americans, were arrested,
put in jail, held without charges, no notification for their families and no right to counsel. That’s un-American and I’ll fight to end that. If we fight the terrorists who attacked us because of our liberties by compromising our liberties, shame on us.
Source: CNN “Rock The Vote” Democratic Debate
, Nov 5, 2003
Marched with Martin Luther King in 1963; keep dream alive
Q: America is still very uncomfortable talking about race. Could you promise that you would put it on the front burner?
LIEBERMAN: No people have been more outrageously denied an equal opportunity to live out the American dream than African-Americans,
from the brutal stain of slavery to racial segregation by law to the two-tier society we still live in. Before I got into politics, my first act of public service was in the civil rights movement. I marched with Dr. King 40 years ago,
I went to Mississippi to fight in 1963 for the right of African Americans to vote. It pains me to look back to 2000 and realize that though we eliminated the laws that stopped African-Americans from voting, they all were not allowed to vote in Florida.
I’m going to talk about race and keep marching with Dr. King and his spirit for jobs and freedom and equality until the dream that Dr. King enunciated 40 years ago is fully realized. This is from my heart. This will define my presidency.
Source: Congressional Black Caucus Institute debate
, Sep 9, 2003
Marched with MLK, fought for voting rights in Mississippi
Forty years ago this year I marched with Dr. King in Washington, and then I went to Mississippi to fight for the right of African-Americans to vote. It is a thrill for that reason for me to be at this debate in this state of South Carolina, which will
host an early presidential primary next year, which will give African American voters the greatest opportunity to influence the selection of a Democratic presidential candidate that they have probably ever had. That thrills me. I am proud of it.
Source: Democratic Debate in Columbia SC
, May 3, 2003
Opposes laws against gay sex & sodomy; focus on real crime
Q: Here in South Carolina, it’s a felony for two gay men to have sex in their own home. Do you support that law? Or is there a fundamental right to privacy that protects that right?
EDWARDS: I believe there is a fundamental right to privacy.
I do not believe the government belongs in people’s bedrooms. I think that applies to both gay and lesbian couples and heterosexual couples.
MOSELEY-BRAUN: I absolutely agree that gay-lesbian, transgender and bisexual people are entitled to privacy
as everybody else.
LIEBERMAN: I don’t [support that law]. In fact, the law relates not only to gay couples, but to heterosexual couples as well, and it’s a violation of the right of privacy. There is a case right now before the Supreme Court regarding
a similar Texas law. I hope and believe it’ll be struck down because Lord knows the prosecutors have more important things to do than prosecute cases like this. They ought to be prosecuting drug peddlers and criminals and all the rest.
Better economy helps blacks: Rising tide raises all boats
GRAHAM: Yesterday we saw the latest unemployment report, which hit 6% for the second time in six months. Among African Americans, unemployment is almost 11%. These are tragedies. As governor of Florida, I facilitated the creation of over 1 million new
jobs, [while supporting] diversity & minority businesses. What would you do to solve the unemployment problem and with it the disparity [in unemployment for] African-Americans?
LIEBERMAN: The Bush administration has been an abysmal failure in leading
our economy. We’ve lost 500,000 jobs in the last 3 months, disproportionately among African-Americans. Bush has one answer to every problem, which is a tax cut, one that we can’t afford, one that is unfair, and one we now know doesn’t work.
to go back to the policies that worked during the Clinton-Gore years: fiscal discipline; smart tax cuts to help create jobs; and investments in education, health care & homeland security. Let’s get the economy going. A rising tide raises all boats.
Support Equal Pay Act for women; plus loans & lawsuits
Women receive 72 cents for every dollar a man receives in a comparable job. One of the goals of our economic plan is to eliminate the pay gap between men and women. It’s unfair and it’s unacceptable. And the first way we will do that is by supporting
the Equal Pay Act, which has been proposed in Congress, which gives women the right to file legal actions against employers who are not treating them fairly and not paying them equally.
Secondly, we’re going to do everything we can using governmental
support of business agencies, such as the Small Business Administration, to help women business owners have an opportunity to invest and begin businesses and make larger incomes themselves. And there are other civil rights and human rights laws that
I think can come to play here.
You know, in so many families, women are a significant bread earner or the only bread earner, so this cause affects not only the women, but families and the children as well.
Equalize pay for women; it’s unfair and unacceptable
Q: On average an American working woman earns 75 cents for each dollar earned by a working male.
LIEBERMAN: Great advances have been made by women achieving the kind of equality that they were too long denied. But your question is absolutely right.
One of the goals of our economic plan is to eliminate the pay gap between men and women. It’s unfair and it’s unacceptable. Until women are receiving the same amount of pay for the same job they’re doing as a man receives, we’ve not achieved genuine
equality in this country. And Al Gore and I are committed to closing that gap and achieving that equality.
CHENEY: We’ve made major progress in recent years [but] we’ve still got a ways to go. But I also think it’s not just about the differential
with respect to women. If you look at our opponents’ tax proposal, they discriminate between stay-at-home moms with children that they take care of themselves and those who go to work or who have their kids taken care of outside the home.
Lieberman in 1995 called preferences based on race or gender “patently unfair,” and after making clear his firm opposition to racial quotas, said most affirmative action programs had run their course. He sought to calm the fears of Democratic National
Committee Black Caucus members Tuesday with a speech in which he declared, “I have supported affirmative action, I do support affirmative action and I will support affirmative action.”
, Aug 16, 2000
Never supported CA Prop. 209 banning affirmative action
Lieberman blamed himself for a what he called a mixup over his position on Proposition 209 -- a 1996 California ballot initiative that banned state-funded affirmative action programs. He said he had not read the language of the ballot initiative when
he was first asked about it by a reporter. Lieberman said “that sounds like a basic statement of human rights policy.” He said he later rejected entreaties to publicly endorse the ballot initiative and to campaign for its passage.
, Aug 16, 2000
Support affirmative action and end all discrimination
I have tried to see America through the eyes of families who had the deck stacked against them but fought back. In my life I have tried to see this world through the eyes of those who have suffered discrimination. And that’s why I believe that the time
has come to tear down the remaining walls of discrimination in this nation based on race, gender, nationality or sexual orientation. And that’s why I continue to say, when it comes to affirmative action: Mend it, don’t end it.
Source: Speech to the Democrat Convention
, Aug 16, 2000
Supports affirmative action now; but phase it out by 2010
Lieberman last month signed the “Hyde Park Declaration,” which recommends “resisting an ‘identity politics’ that confers rights and entitlements on groups.” The declaration said the goal for 2010 should be to “shift the emphasis of affirmative
action strategies from group preferences to economic empowerment of all disadvantaged citizens.”
That appears to put Lieberman at odds with the party’s platform, and Gore, who strongly endorses affirmative action. But late yesterday, a spokesman said
Lieberman was one of a number of prominent Democrats in 1995 who “raised questions about the future of affirmative action and its effectiveness.” After the senator was criticized for his remarks, Lieberman “clarified” his position and “reaffirmed
his support for affirmative action.” The declaration merely reflects Lieberman’s hope that by 2010, such programs will no longer be needed. Indeed, Lieberman has twice voted against GOP attempts to gut government affirmative action programs.
Source: Robinson & Milligan, Boston Globe, p. A1
, Aug 11, 2000
Affirmative action is “patently unfair”, in 1995
In 1995, Lieberman clearly stated his opposition to affirmative action programs: “You can’t defend policies that are based on group preferences as opposed to individual opportunities, which is what America has always been about.” Lieberman said he
supported a 1996 California ballot initiative which ended racial preference programs in that state. “When we have such policies,” he said, “we have the effect of breaking some of those ties in civil society that have held us together because they are
patently unfair. Those who are the victims are going to lose out when a choice is made based on group preference rather than on individual ability.“
At the time, just after Republicans won control of the US House [and pushed] abolishing affirmative
action, Democrats were divided over how to respond to preference programs that had generated substantial voter resentment. Rep. Charles Rangel (D, NY), a member of the Congressional Black Caucus, said Lieberman opposes quotas, and not affirmative action.
Source: Robinson & Milligan, Boston Globe, p. A1
, Aug 11, 2000
For gay equal employment; against gay marriage
Lieberman has had a mixed record on gay rights. He has opposed gay marriages and was a backer of the 1996 Defense
of Marriage Act, which allows states to disregard gay marriages recognized by other states. Still, Lieberman did support the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which prohibits job discrimination against gays.
Source: Susan Milligan, Boston Globe, p. A1
, Aug 10, 2000
Affirmative action divides us
Lieberman has been critical of programs that give special breaks to blacks and other groups to make up for past discrimination. Gore has been a strong supporter of affirmative action. In a speech on the Senate floor
in 1995, Lieberman said: “Affirmative action is dividing us in ways its creators could never have intended because most Americans who do support equal opportunity and are not biased don’t think it is fair
to discriminate against some Americans as a way to make up for historic discrimination against other Americans. For after all, if you discriminate in favor of one group on the basis of race, you thereby
discriminate against another group on the basis of race.“
Source: David E. Rosenbaum, NY Times, p. A19
, Aug 8, 2000
Expand “Hate Crimes” to include women, gays, and disabled
I support the goals of the Hate Crimes Prevention Act- the federal prosecution of people who inflict serious harm on others because of the color of the victim’s face, the sound of the victim’s foreign accent, or the name of the victim’s religion. In
short, these are crimes committed because the victim is different in some way from the perpetrator, and such crimes should be federally prosecuted. But we can and should do more.
I think we ought to add to the list of motivations gender, sexual
orientation, and disability. Crimes like that committed against Matthew Shepard, who was killed because he was a gay man, are no less despicable and no less worthy of federal prosecution than are those committed against others currently included in the
I [further] support broadening the ability of federal prosecutors to pursue crimes motivated by racial or religious hatred. We have always protected those whose rights are trampled upon. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Source: Senate Statement on Hate Crimes
, Jun 16, 2000
Participated in MLK’s March On Washington
I was in Washington in the summer of 1963, [so I had] the opportunity to participate in Dr. Martin Luther King’s March on Washington, which culminated at the Lincoln Memorial in his soaring “I Have a Dream” speech. For me, this was America at its best.
Hundreds of thousands of us, of all religions, races, and nationalities, joined together peacefully but powerfully to petition our government to right the wrong of racial bigotry.
Source: Excerpt from “In Praise of Public Life”, p. 34
, May 2, 2000
Express religious faith in schools, within Constitution
Voices of the people in support of moral standards are beginning to speak out and be heard:
In public places, including schools, where officials, citizens, and students are finding constitutional ways to honor and express their religious faith
In schools where “character education” programs teach the values of civility, integrity, tolerance, and citizenship
In the entertainment industry, where a surge of persistent public pressure has prodded the television and motion picture industries
to say that they will work to stem the violent, perverse, and puerile content produced by their companies-we need much more of this
And in the news media, where the public’s level of faith, trust, and respect has plunged-broadcasters
have begun defining boundaries and retightening the fundamental journalistic standards of accuracy and fairness that have become too loose during recent years.
Voted NO 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 NO 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 YES 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.
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.
Voted YES 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'
Voted NO 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;
; vote number 1997-275
on Oct 23, 1997
Voted YES on prohibiting same-sex marriage.
The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA): Vote to prohibit marriage between members of the same sex in federal law, and provide that no state is required to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. Define 'marriage' as 'between one man and one woman.'
Voted NO on banning affirmative action hiring with federal funds.
Vote to disallow any funds in the Legislative Appropriations bill from being used to award, require, or encourage any Federal contract, if the contract is being awarded on the basis of the race, color, national origin, or gender of the contractor.
Shift from group preferences to economic empowerment of all.
Lieberman signed the manifesto, "A New Agenda for the New Decade":
Strengthen America’s Common Civic Culture The more ethnically and culturally diverse America becomes, the harder we must all work to affirm our common civic culture -- the values and democratic institutions we share and that define our national identity as Americans. This means we should resist an “identity politics” that confers rights and entitlements on groups and instead affirm our common rights and responsibilities as citizens. Multiethnic democracy requires fighting discrimination against marginalized groups; empowering the disadvantaged to join the economic, political, and cultural mainstream; and respecting diversity while insisting that what we have in common as Americans is more important than how we differ. One way to encourage an ethic of citizenship and mutual obligation is to promote voluntary national service.
If expanded to become available to everyone who wants to participate, national service can help turn the strong impulse toward volunteerism among our young people into a major resource in addressing our social problems. It will also help revive a sense of patriotism and national unity at a time when military service is no longer the common experience of young Americans.
Goals for 2010
Reduce discrimination based on race, gender, national background, religion, age, disability, or sexual orientation.
Shift the emphasis of affirmative action strategies from group preferences to economic empowerment of all disadvantaged citizens.
Expand the AmeriCorps national service program so that everyone willing to serve can serve -- with 1 million participants enrolled by the end of the decade.
Promote character education in all public schools.
Source: The Hyde Park Declaration 00-DLC6 on Aug 1, 2000
Rated 40% by the ACLU, indicating a mixed civil rights voting record.
Lieberman scores 40% 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.
Increase subsidies for women-owned non-profit business.
Lieberman co-sponsored the Women's Business Center Safeguard Act
Amends the Small Business Act with respect to the women's business centers program to provide Small Business Administration funding authority for nonprofit organizations conducting projects for the benefit of small businesses owned and controlled by women. Increases from 30 to 54 the percentage of appropriated women's business center funds to be used during FY 2004 for sustained women's business center projects.
Source: Bill sponsored by 11 Senators 03-S2266 on Mar 31, 2004
Issue a commemorative postage stamp of Rosa Parks.
Lieberman co-sponsored issuing a commemorative postage stamp of Rosa Parks
EXCERPTS OF RESOLUTION:
Whereas in 1955, Rosa Parks's quiet, courageous act changed the United States and its view of African Americans, and redirected the course of history;
Whereas at that time, in Montgomery, Alabama, as in other cities in the Deep South, the treatment of African Americans on public buses had long been a source of resentment within the African American community;
Whereas White busdrivers, who were invested with police powers, frequently harassed African Americans;
Whereas on December 1, 1955, Rosa Parks took her seat in the front of the 'Colored' section of a Montgomery bus, but was asked, along with 3 other African Americans, to relinquish her seat to a White passenger;
Whereas although the 3 other African American passengers relinquished their seats, Rosa Parks refused to do so, and was arrested for that refusal;
Whereas because Rosa Parks's act of disobedience launched the Montgomery bus boycott, which lasted for 381 days and propelled the civil rights movement into the national consciousness, she is widely known as the mother of the civil rights movement; and
Now, therefore, be it Resolved that it is the sense of Congress that the United States Postal Service should issue a commemorative postage stamp honoring the late Rosa Parks.
LEGISLATIVE OUTCOME:Referred to Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs; never came to a vote.
Source: Rosa Parks Stamp (S.2154/H.R.4343) 05-S2154 on Dec 20, 2005
Rated 89% by the HRC, indicating a pro-gay-rights stance.
Lieberman scores 89% 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.
Recognize Juneteenth as historical end of slavery.
Lieberman co-sponsored recognizing Juneteenth as historical end of slavery
A resolution recognizing the historical significance of Juneteenth Independence Day and expressing that history should be regarded as a means for understanding the past and solving the challenges of the future.
Recognizes the historical significance to the nation, and supports the continued celebration, of Juneteenth Independence Day (June 19, 1865, the day Union soldiers arrived in Galveston, Texas, with news that the Civil War had ended and that the enslaved African Americans were free). Declares the sense of Congress that:
history should be regarded as a means for understanding the past and solving the challenges of the future; and
the celebration of the end of slavery is an important and enriching part of the history and heritage of the United States.
Legislative Outcome: House versions are H.CON.RES.155 and H.RES.1237; related Senate resolution S.RES.584 counts for sponsorship. Resolution agreed to in Senate, by Unanimous Consent.
ENDA: prohibit employment discrimination for gays.
Lieberman signed H.R.3017&S.1584
Prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity by covered entities (employers, employment agencies, labor organizations, or joint labor-management committees). Prohibits preferential treatment or quotas. Allows only disparate treatment claims. Prohibits related retaliation.
Makes this Act inapplicable to:
religious organizations; and
the relationship between the United States and members of the Armed Forces.
Source: Employment Non-Discrimination Act 09-HR3017 on Jun 24, 2009
Constitutional Amendment for women's equal rights.
Lieberman signed Equal Rights Amendment for men and women
JOINT RESOLUTION: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to equal rights for men and women. Constitutional Amendment: Prohibits denying or abridging equality of rights under the law by the United States or by any state on account of sex.
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives: That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of 3/4ths of the several States:
Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.
[Explanatory note from Wikipedia.com and OnTheIssues.org]:
The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) was a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution. The ERA was originally written by Alice Paul and, in 1923, it was introduced in the Congress for the first time. In 1972, it passed both houses of Congress, but failed to gain ratification before its June 30, 1982 deadline. This new proposed amendment is identical in wording to the original 1972 proposed amendment. It was proposed in Congress in every session from 1923 through 1970 prior to passing in 1972; and has been re-introduced in Congress in every session since 1982 after its failure at ratification. The current version removes the Congressionally imposed deadline for ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment, so that if the bill passes Congress, states have no deadline as they did in 1982.
Provide benefits to domestic partners of Federal employees.
Lieberman sponsored providing 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.
Source: Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act (S.2521/H.R.4838) 2007-S2521 on Dec 19, 2007
Re-introduce the Equal Rights Amendment.
Lieberman co-sponsored re-introducing 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.
Sen. KENNEDY. "It's a privilege to join my colleagues in reintroducing the Equal Rights Amendment to the Constitution. The ERA is essential to guarantee that the freedoms protected by our Constitution apply equally to men and women. From the beginning of our history as a Nation, women have had to wage a constant, long and difficult battle to win the same basic rights granted to men. That battle goes on
today, since discrimination still continues in many ways.
"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."
Source: Equal Rights Amendment (S.J.RES.10/H.J.RES.40) 2007-SJR10 on Mar 29, 2007
Investigate deportation of Japanese during WWII.
Lieberman signed Relocation of Latin Americans of Japanese Descent Act
A bill to establish a fact-finding Commission to extend the study of a prior Commission to investigate and determine circumstances surrounding the relocation, internment, and deportation to Axis countries of Latin Americans of Japanese descent during WWII.
Establishes the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Latin Americans of Japanese descent.
Directs the Commission to extend the study of the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians to investigate U.S. relocation, internment, and (in some cases) deportation to Axis countries of Latin Americans of Japanese descent held in U.S. custody from December 1941 through February 1948; and recommend appropriate remedies.
Based on a preliminary study published in December 1982 by the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians, Congress finds the following:
During World War II, the United States expanded its internment program and national security investigations
to conduct the program and investigations in Latin America
Approximately 2,300 men, women, and children of Japanese descent from 13 Latin American countries were held in the custody of the Department of State in internment camps operated by the Immigration and Naturalization Service from 1941 through 1948.
Those men, women, and children either were arrested without a warrant, hearing, or indictment by local police, and sent to the United States for internment; or in some cases involving women and children, voluntarily entered internment camps to remain with their arrested husbands, fathers, and other male relatives.
Passports held by individuals who were Latin Americans of Japanese descent were routinely confiscated before the individuals arrived in the United States.
Despite their involuntary arrival, Latin American internees of Japanese descent were considered to be and treated as illegal entrants by the Immigration and Naturalization Service.