Mike Pence on Civil Rights Republian nominee for Vice President; Governor of Indiana; former Representative (IN-6)

Trump condemns neo-Nazis and has Jewish grandchildren

Criticized 1992 Civil Rights Act as being about "quotas"

"Pence said that adequate civil rights protections are already in place and that the new legislation would require racial hiring quotas. 'I would sustain the veto,' he said. 'It is not because I am a racist. I am sensitive to small business America, and I don't believe that businesses should be forced to proceed on the racist tendencies that (hiring) quotas are comprised." [Daily Journal 9/29/90]

Refused to say "Black lives matter"

No evidence of hate crimes over gender identity

"This bill designates in particular gender identity for federally protected status. Without, I might add, any evidence of any hate crimes occurring against individuals for gender identity." [Office of Rep. Pence, 4/29/09]"

Changing definition of marriage is abolishing marriage

[States News Service, 3/31/08]: "If we change the definition of marriage you're really abolishing marriage. I don't think we really want to see a society without that strong centerpiece of a heterosexual marriage," Pence said.

OpEd: RFRA seen as allowing discrimination against gays

A beleaguered looking Pence appeared on This Week with George Stephanopoulos, trying to reassure a national audience that the bill was not about discrimination. The interview was a disaster. When Stephanopoulos asked, "Do you think it should be legal in the state of Indiana to discriminate against gays or lesbians?" Pence paused, and winced. "George." he began, then sighed.

"It's a yes or no question!" Stephanopoulos pressed. No matter how many times he was asked, Pence would not simply say that the answer was no. (Which means he probably believed the answer was yes, but at least he knew not to admit it.) One national columnist later described it as "very possibly one of the worst appearances by a governor in television history." ˙

OpEd: supports conversion therapy & anti-LGBTQ extremism

No place in our administration for LGBTQ discrimination

PENCE: Throughout the campaign, President Trump made it clear that discrimination would have no place in our administration. He was the very first Republican nominee to mention the LGBTQ community at our Republican National Convention and was applauded for it. And I was there applauding with him.

RFRA Fix: ensure that religious freedom doesn't discriminate

The law sparked widespread outrage. Opponents contended that it would give license to religious conservatives to refuse service to lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender individuals. In response, several major events and corporations--including Salesforce.com and the NCAA--threatened to limit business ventures in the state or boycott it altogether.

Pence adamantly defended the RFRA legislation and refused to say whether it allowed for discrimination, which led to extensive questioning of his underlying motives. So much so that he quietly signed a subsequent piece of legislation--dubbed the "RFRA Fix"--that clarified that the law did not allow businesses to discriminate based on a customer's sexual orientation or gender identity.

Pro-business environment better for wages than equal pay

Opposes pay equity; close wage gap by growing economy

Pence thrice voted against equal pay for women:
• July 2007: Voted Against H.R. 2831, the "Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2007." [H.R. 2831, Vote 768, 7/31/07]
• Jan. 2009: Voted Against S. 181, the "Fair Pay Act of 2009." [S. 181, Vote 37, 1/27/09]
• Jan. 2009: Voted Against H.R. 12, the "Paycheck Fairness Act Of 2009." [H.R. 12, Vote 8, 1/9/09]

Civil rights must be balanced with religious freedom

Listen to the merits of debate on LGBT rights

This is a policy and political gauntlet for Gov. Pence. He will have to be adroit and communicate well, or he faces the prospect of being a one-term governor. It's time for statewide non-discrimination protections for LGBT Hoosiers!

Religious Freedom Act is not about LGBT discrimination

"This bill is not about discrimination, and if I thought it legalized discrimination in any way in Indiana, I would have vetoed it," Pence said at the time. "In fact, it does not even apply to disputes between private parties unless government action is involved. For more than 20 years, the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act has never undermined our nation's anti-discrimination laws, and it will not in Indiana."

Future of conservatism demands traditional marriage

Voted against expansion of hate-crime protection

Voted NO 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].

Voted YES on Constitutionally defining marriage as one-man-one-woman.

Proponents support voting YES because:

The overwhelming majority of the American people support traditional marriage, marriage between a man and a woman. The people have a right to know whether their elected Representatives agree with them about protecting traditional marriage.

Every child deserves both a father and a mother. Studies demonstrate the utmost importance of the presence of a child's biological parents in a child's happiness, health and future achievements. If we chip away at the institution which binds these parents and the family together, the institution of marriage, you begin to chip away at the future success of that child.

Opponents support voting NO because:

This amendment does not belong in our Constitution. It is unworthy of our great Nation. We have amended the Constitution only 27 times. Constitutional amendments have always been used to enhance and expand the rights of citizens, not to restrict them. Now we are being asked to amend the Constitution again, to single out a single group and to say to them for all time, you cannot even attempt to win the right to marry.

From what precisely would this amendment protect marriage? From divorce? From adultery? No. Evidently, the threat to marriage is the fact that there are millions of people in this country who very much believe in marriage, who very much want to marry but who are not permitted to marry. I believe firmly that in the not-too-distant future people will look back on these debates with the incredulity with which we now view the segregationist debates of years past.

Voted YES on making the PATRIOT Act permanent.

• Assigning three judges to hear individuals' petitions concerning improper requests by the FBI for library circulation records, library patron lists, book sales records, book customer lists, and other records
• Reporting every year the number of library records orders that are granted, modified, or denied
• Allows Internet service providers to disclose their subscribers information and the contents of their communications to a government entity, if they believe there is “immediate danger of death or serious physical injury”
• Requires that any court that allows a “roving wiretap” under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) must describe in great detail the intended target whose identity is not known
• Allows individuals and businesses to seek legal counsel if they have received a National Security Letter from the FBI requiring them to disclose financial information and records

Voted YES on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage.

Voted YES on protecting the Pledge of Allegiance.

Voted YES on constitutional amendment prohibiting flag desecration.

Supports anti-flag desecration amendment.

Supports granting Congress power to prohibit the physical desecration of the U.S. flag. Proposes an amendment to the Constitution of the United States authorizing the Congress to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.

Require "Privacy Impact Statement" on new federal rules.

SPONSOR'S INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT: It is clear that this bill's many cosponsors do not agree on every issue. The same can be said of the bill's noncongressional supporters, which include groups ranging from the National Rifle Association to the American Civil Liberties Union.

The sphere of privacy, which Justice Brandeis eloquently described as the ''right to be let alone,'' is not only rapidly diminishing, it is increasingly penetrable. The Federal Agency Protection of Privacy Act takes the first--necessary--step toward protecting the privacy of information collected by the federal government, by requiring that rules noticed for public comment by federal agencies be accompanied by an assessment of the rule's impact on personal privacy interests, including the extent to which the proposed rule provides notice of the collection of personally identifiable information, what information will be obtained, and how this informational will be collected, protected, maintained, used and disclosed.

I want to emphasize H.R. 4561 will not unduly burden regulators nor will it hinder law enforcement. This bill will apply the best antiseptic--sunshine--to the federal rulemaking process by securing the public's right to know about how rules will affect their personal privacy.

EXCERPTS FROM BILL:

• Requires Federal agencies, when promulgating a rule, to publish a privacy impact analysis.
• Requires an agency promulgating a rule that may have a significant privacy impact on individuals to use specified techniques to assure that individuals have been given an opportunity to participate in the rulemaking.
• Requires each agency to carry out a periodic review of promulgated rules that have privacy impact, every ten years after the rule was published.

LEGISLATIVE OUTCOME: Passed House on a voice vote; sent to Senate on Oct. 8, 2002; never called to vote in Senate.

Rated 7% by the ACLU, indicating an anti-civil rights voting record.

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.

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.

Rated 0% by the HRC, indicating an anti-gay-rights stance.

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)

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.

Rated 22% by the NAACP, indicating an anti-affirmative-action stance.

OnTheIssues.org interprets the 2005-2006 NAACP scores as follows:

• 0% - 33%: anti-affirmative-action stance (approx. 177 members)
• 34% - 84%: mixed record on affirmative-action (approx. 96 members)
• 85%-100%: pro-affirmative-action stance (approx. 190 members)

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.

Amend Constitution to define traditional marriage.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 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 three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission by the Congress:<

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.

Related bills: H.J.RES.22, H.J.RES.74, H.J.RES.89