gay legal pad

Sun - January 23, 2005

H.R. 284 introduced to prevent bullying and harassment in schools

H.R. 284 (To amend the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act to include bullying and harassment prevention programs) was introduced in the House on 6 Jan. 2005 by Rep. John Shimkus [R-IL] and was referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

The text of the bill is as follows:

A BILL

To amend the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act to include bullying and harassment prevention programs.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. BULLYING AND HARASSMENT PREVENTION POLICIES, PROGRAMS, AND STATISTICS.

(a) State Reporting Requirements- Section 4112(c)(3)(B)(iv) of the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act (20 U.S.C. 7112(c)(3)(B)(iv)) is amended by inserting `, including bullying and harassment,' after `violence'.

(b) State Application- Section 4113(a) of such Act (20 U.S.C. 7113(a)) is amended--

(1) in paragraph (9)--

(A) in subparagraph (C), by striking `and' at the end; and

(B) by adding at the end the following:

`(E) the incidence and prevalence of reported incidents of bullying and harassment; and

`(F) the perception of students regarding their school environment, including with respect to the prevalence and seriousness of incidents of bullying and harassment and the responsiveness of the school to those incidents;';

(2) in paragraph (18), by striking `and' at the end;

(3) in paragraph (19), by striking the period at the end and inserting `; and'; and

(4) by adding at the end the following:

`(20) provides an assurance that the State educational agency will provide assistance to districts and schools in their efforts to prevent and appropriately respond to incidents of bullying and harassment and describes how the agency will meet this requirement.'.

(c) Local Educational Agency Program Application- Section 4114(d) of such Act (20 U.S.C. 7114(d)) is amended--

(1) in paragraph (2)(B)(i)--

(A) in the matter preceding subclause (I), by striking the semicolon and inserting a comma;

(B) in subclause (I), by striking `and' at the end; and

(C) by adding at the end the following:

`(III) performance indicators for bullying and harassment prevention programs and activities; and'; and

(2) in paragraph (7)--

(A) in subparagraph (A), by inserting `, including bullying and harassment' after `disorderly conduct';

(B) in subparagraph (D), by striking `and' at the end; and

(C) by adding at the end the following:

`(F) annual notice to parents and students describing the full range of prohibited conduct contained in the discipline policies described in subparagraph (A); and

`(G) complaint procedures for students or parents that seek to register complaints regarding the prohibited conduct contained in the discipline policies described in subparagraph (A), including--

`(i) the name of the school or district officials who are designated as responsible for receiving such complaints; and

`(ii) timelines that the school or district will follow in the resolution of such complaints;'.

(d) Authorized Activities- Section 4115(b)(2) of such Act (20 U.S.C. 7115(b)(2)) is amended--

(1) in subparagraph (A)--

(A) in clause (vi), by striking `and' at the end;

(B) in clause (vii), by striking the period at the end and inserting `; and'; and

(C) by adding at the end the following:

`(viii) teach students about the consequences of bullying and harassment.'; and

(2) in subparagraph (E), by adding at the end the following:

`(xxiii) Programs that address the causes of bullying and harassment and that train teachers, administrators, and counselors regarding strategies to prevent bullying and harassment and to effectively intervene when such incidents occur.'.

(e) Reporting- Section 4116(a)(2)(B) of such Act (20 U.S.C. 7116(a)(2)(B)) is amended by inserting `, including bullying and harassment,' after `drug use and violence'.

(f) Impact Evaluation- Section 4122 of such Act (20 U.S.C. 7132) is amended--

(1) in subsection (a)(2), by striking `and school violence' and inserting `school violence, including bullying and harassment,'; and

(2) in the first sentence of subsection (b), by inserting `, including bullying and harassment,' after `drug use and violence'.

(g) Definitions-

(1) DRUG AND VIOLENCE PREVENTION- Paragraph (3)(B) of section 4151 of such Act (20 U.S.C. 7151) is amended by inserting `, bullying, and other harassment' after `sexual harassment and abuse'.

(2) PROTECTIVE FACTOR, BUFFER, OR ASSET- Paragraph (6) of such section is amended by inserting `, including bullying and harassment' after `violent behavior'.

(3) RISK FACTOR- Paragraph (7) of such section is amended by inserting `, including bullying and harassment' after `violent behavior'.

(4) BULLYING, HARASSMENT, AND VIOLENCE- Such section is further amended by adding at the end the following:

`(12) BULLYING- The term `bullying' means conduct, including conduct that is based on a student's actual or perceived identity with regard to race, color, national origin, gender, disability, sexual orientation, religion, or any other distinguishing characteristics that may be defined by a State or local educational agency, that--

`(A) is directed at one or more students;

`(B) substantially interferes with educational opportunities or educational programs of such students; and

`(C) adversely affects the ability of a student to participate in or benefit from the school's educational programs or activities by placing a student in reasonable fear of physical harm.

`(13) HARASSMENT- The term `harassment' means conduct, including conduct that is based on a student's actual or perceived identity with regard to race, color, national origin, gender, disability, sexual orientation, religion, or any other distinguishing characteristics that may be defined by a State or local educational agency, that--

`(A) is directed at one or more students;

`(B) substantially interferes with educational opportunities or educational programs of such students; and

`(C) adversely affects the ability of a student to participate in or benefit from the school's educational programs or activities because the conduct as reasonably perceived by the student is so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive.

`(14) VIOLENCE- The term `violence' includes bullying and harassment.'.

(h) Effect on Other Laws-

(1) AMENDMENT- The Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act (20 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:

`SEC. 4156. EFFECT ON OTHER LAWS.

`(a) Federal and State Nondiscrimination Laws- Nothing in this part shall be construed to alter legal standards regarding, or limit rights available to victims of, bullying or harassment under other Federal or State laws, including title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq.), title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (20 U.S.C. 1681 et seq.), section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 794), or the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.).

`(b) Free Speech and Expression Laws- Nothing in this part shall be construed to alter legal standards regarding, or affect the rights available to individuals under, other Federal laws that establish protections for freedom of speech and expression.'.

(2) CLERICAL AMENDMENT- The table of contents of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq.) is amended by adding after the item relating to section 4155 the following:

`Sec. 4156. Effect on other laws.'.

Posted at 12:43 PM

H.R. 259 introduced to enhance Federal enforcement of hate crimes

H.R. 259 (To enhance Federal enforcement of hate crimes, and for other purposes.) was introduced in the House on 6 Jan. 2005 by Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee [D-TX] and was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

SUMMARY AS OF:
1/6/2005--Introduced.

Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2005 - Amends the Federal criminal code to set penalties for willfully causing bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, or an explosive device, attempting to cause such injury, whether or not acting under color of law, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, or disability of any person, where the offense is in or affects interstate or foreign commerce.

Directs the United States Sentencing Commission to study the issue of adult recruitment of juveniles to commit hate crimes and, if appropriate, to amend the Federal sentencing guidelines to provide sentencing enhancements for such an offense.

Requires the Administrator of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention of the Department of Justice (DOJ) to make grants to State and local programs designed to combat hate crimes committed by juveniles.

Authorizes appropriations to the Department of the Treasury and to DOJ to increase the number of personnel to prevent and respond to alleged violations of provisions regarding interference with specified federally protected activities, such as voting.

The text of the bill is as follows:

A BILL

To enhance Federal enforcement of hate crimes, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2005'.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress finds that--

(1) the incidence of violence motivated by the actual or perceived race, color, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, gender, or disability of the victim poses a serious national problem;

(2) such violence disrupts the tranquility and safety of communities and is deeply divisive;

(3) existing Federal law is inadequate to address this problem;

(4) such violence affects interstate commerce in many ways, including--

(A) by impeding the movement of members of targeted groups and forcing such members to move across State lines to escape the incidence or risk of such violence; and

(B) by preventing members of targeted groups from purchasing goods and services, obtaining or sustaining employment or participating in other commercial activity;

(5) perpetrators cross State lines to commit such violence;

(6) instrumentalities of interstate commerce are used to facilitate the commission of such violence;

(7) such violence is committed using articles that have traveled in interstate commerce;

(8) violence motivated by bias that is a relic of slavery can constitute badges and incidents of slavery;

(9) although many local jurisdictions have attempted to respond to the challenges posed by such violence, the problem is sufficiently serious, widespread, and interstate in scope to warrant Federal intervention to assist such jurisdictions; and

(10) many States have no laws addressing violence based on the actual or perceived race, color, national origin, religion, sexual orientation , gender, or disability, of the victim, while other States have laws that provide only limited protection.

SEC. 3. DEFINITION OF HATE CRIME.

In this Act, the term `hate crime' has the same meaning as in section 280003(a) of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (28 U.S.C. 994 note).

SEC. 4. PROHIBITION OF CERTAIN ACTS OF VIOLENCE.

Section 245 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--

(1) by redesignating subsections (c) and (d) as subsections (d) and (e), respectively; and

(2) by inserting after subsection (b) the following:

`(c)(1) Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, or an explosive device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin of any person--

`(A) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, or fined in accordance with this title, or both; and

`(B) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or fined in accordance with this title, or both if--

`(i) death results from the acts committed in violation of this paragraph; or

`(ii) the acts committed in violation of this paragraph include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.

`(2)(A) Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, in any circumstance described in subparagraph (B), willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, or an explosive device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived religion, gender, sexual orientation , or disability of any person--

`(i) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, or fined in accordance with this title, or both; and

`(ii) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or fined in accordance with this title, or both, if--

`(I) death results from the acts committed in violation of this paragraph; or

`(II) the acts committed in violation of this paragraph include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.

`(B) For purposes of subparagraph (A), the circumstances described in this subparagraph are that--

`(i) in connection with the offense, the defendant or the victim travels in interstate or foreign commerce, uses a facility or instrumentality of interstate or foreign commerce, or engages in any activity affecting interstate or foreign commerce; or

`(ii) the offense is in or affects interstate or foreign commerce.'.

SEC. 5. DUTIES OF FEDERAL SENTENCING COMMISSION.

(a) Amendment of Federal Sentencing Guidelines- Pursuant to its authority under section 994 of title 28, United States Code, the United States Sentencing Commission shall study the issue of adult recruitment of juveniles to commit hate crimes and shall, if appropriate, amend the Federal sentencing guidelines to provide sentencing enhancements (in addition to the sentencing enhancement provided for the use of a minor during the commission of an offense) for adult defendants who recruit juveniles to assist in the commission of hate crimes.

(b) Consistency With Other Guidelines- In carrying out this section, the United States Sentencing Commission shall--

(1) ensure that there is reasonable consistency with other Federal sentencing guidelines; and

(2) avoid duplicative punishments for substantially the same offense.

SEC. 6. GRANT PROGRAM.

(a) Authority to Make Grants- The Administrator of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention of the Department of Justice shall make grants, in accordance with such regulations as the Attorney General may prescribe, to State and local programs designed to combat hate crimes committed by juveniles.

(b) Authorization of Appropriations- There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out this section.

SEC. 7. AUTHORIZATION FOR ADDITIONAL PERSONNEL TO ASSIST STATE AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT.

There are authorized to be appropriated to the Department of the Treasury and the Department of Justice, including the Community Relations Service, for fiscal years 1998, 1999, and 2000 such sums as are necessary to increase the number of personnel to prevent and respond to alleged violations of section 245 of title 18, United States Code (as amended by this Act).

Posted at 12:30 PM

H.R. 288 introduced to prohibit sexual orientation discrimination

H.R. 288 (Civil Rights Amendments Act of 2005) was introduced in the House on 6 Jan. 2005 by Rep. Edolphus Towns [D-NY] and was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary and to the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

The text of the bill is as follows:

A BILL

To amend the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Fair Housing Act to prohibit discrimination on the basis of affectional or sexual orientation, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Civil Rights Amendments Act of 2005'.

SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS TO CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964.

(a) Public Accommodations- (1) Section 201(a) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000a(a)) is amended by striking `religion,' and inserting `religion, affectional or sexual orientation ,'.

(2) Section 202 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 2000a-1) is amended by striking `religion,' and inserting `religion, affectional or sexual orientation .'.

(b) Public Facilities- Section 301(a) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 2000b(a)) is amended by striking `religion,' and inserting `religion, affectional or sexual orientation ,'.

(c) Federally Assisted Programs- Section 601 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 2000d) is amended by striking `color,' and inserting `color, affectional or sexual orientation ,'.

(d) Equal Employment Opportunities- (1) Sections 703(a), 703(b), 703(c), 703(d), 703(e), 703(h), 703(j), 704(b), 706(g), and 717(a) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 2000e-2(a), 2000e-2(b), 2000e-2(c), 2000e-2(d), 2000e-(e), 2000e-2(h), 2000e-2(j), 2000e-3(b), 2000e-5(g), and 2000e-16(a)) are amended by striking `sex,' each place it appears and inserting `sex, affectional or sexual orientation ,'.

(2) Section 717(c) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 2000e-16(c)) is amended by striking `sex' and inserting `sex, affectional or sexual orientation ,'.

(3) Section 703(h) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 2000e-2(h)) is amended by striking `sex' the first place it appears and inserting `sex, affectional or sexual orientation ,'.

(4) The heading of section 703 of such Act is amended by striking `sex,' and inserting `sex, affectional or sexual orientation ,'.

(e) Intervention by Attorney General in Civil Rights Cases- Section 902 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 2000h-2) is amended by striking `sex' and inserting `sex, affectional or sexual orientation ,'.

(f) Definition; Rules of Interpretation- Title XI of such Act (42 U.S.C. 2000h et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following new section:

`AFFECTIONAL OR SEXUAL ORIENTATION

`SEC. 1107. (a) Definition- For purposes of titles II, III, VI, VII, and IX of this Act, the term `affectional or sexual orientation' means male or female homosexuality, heterosexuality, and bisexuality by orientation or practice, by and between consenting adults.

`(c) Rules of Interpretation- (1) Nothing in this Act shall be construed to permit or require--

`(A) that a finding of discrimination on the basis of affectional or sexual orientation be based on any statistical differences in the incidence of persons of a particular affectional or sexual orientation in the general population as opposed to the incidence of such persons in the activity concerned; or

`(B) the use of any quota as a remedy for discrimination on the basis of affectional or sexual orientation.

`(2) Nothing in this Act shall be construed to require any person to disclose a personal affectional or sexual orientation .'.

SEC. 3. AMENDMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING ACT.

(a) Housing Sale and Rental, Residential Real-Estate-Related Transactions, and Brokerage Services- (1) Section 804 of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3604) is amended by striking `religion,' each place it appears and inserting `religion, affectional and sexual orientation (as such term is defined in section 802(p)),'.

(2) Section 805 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 3605) is amended by striking `religion,' each place it appears and inserting `religion, affectional or sexual orientation (as such term is defined in section 802(p)),'.

(3) Section 806 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 3606) is amended by striking `religion,' and inserting `religion, affectional or sexual orientation (as such term is defined in section 802(p)),'.

(b) Prevention of Intimidation- Section 901 of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3631) is amended by striking `religion,' each place it appears and inserting `religion, affectional or sexual orientation (as such term is defined in section 802(p)),'.

(c) Definition- Section 802 of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3602) is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:

`(p) `Affectional or sexual orientation' means male or female homosexuality, heterosexuality, and bisexuality by orientation or practice, by and between consenting adults.'.

(d) Rules of Interpretation- (1) Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3601 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following new section:

`RULES OF INTERPRETATION REGARDING AFFECTIONAL OR SEXUAL ORIENTATION

`SEC. 821. (a) Findings of Discrimination; Quotas- Nothing in this Act shall be construed to permit or require--

`(1) that a finding of discrimination on the basis of affectional or sexual orientation be based on any statistical differences in the incidence of persons of a particular affectional or sexual orientation in the general population as opposed to the incidence of such persons in the activity concerned; or

`(2) the use of any quota as a remedy for discrimination on the basis of affectional or sexual orientation .

`(b) Protection of Privacy Rights- Nothing in this Act shall be construed to require any person to disclose a personal affectional or sexual orientation .'.

(2) Title IX of such Act (42 U.S.C. 3631 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following new section:

`APPLICATION OF RULES OF INTERPRETATION REGARDING AFFECTIONAL OR SEXUAL ORIENTATION

`SEC. 902. The provisions of this title are subject to the rules of interpretation described in section 821 of this Act.'.

Posted at 12:11 PM

H.R. 72 introduced to define marriage in DC as the union of one man and one woman

H.R. 72 (To define marriage for all legal purposes in the District of Columbia to consist of the union of one man and one woman.) was introduced in the House on 4 Jan. 2005 by Rep. Jo Ann Davis [R-VA] and was referred to the House Committee on Government Reform.

The text of the bill is as follows:

A BILL

To define marriage for all legal purposes in the District of Columbia to consist of the union of one man and one woman.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. MARRIAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.

In the District of Columbia, for all legal purposes, `marriage' means the union of one man and one woman.

Posted at 11:47 AM

Tue - July 20, 2004

Marriage Protection Act (H.R. 3313) as Amended in the Judiciary Committee

The Marriage Protection Act (H.R. 3313) was passed in the Committee on the Judiciary (21-13) and sent back to the House in an amended form on July 19. The amended version reads as follows:

A BILL

To amend title 28, United States Code, to limit Federal court jurisdiction over questions under the Defense of Marriage Act.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Marriage Protection Act of 2004'.

SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON JURISDICTION.

(a) In General- Chapter 99 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

`Sec. 1632. Limitation on jurisdiction

`No court created by Act of Congress shall have any jurisdiction, and the Supreme Court shall have no appellate jurisdiction, to hear or decide any question pertaining to the interpretation of, or the validity under the Constitution of, section 1738C or this section.'.

(b) Amendments to the Table of Sections- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 99 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new item:

`1632. Limitation on jurisdiction.'.

Posted at 10:42 AM

Sat - July 17, 2004

Marriage Protection Act (H.R. 3313)

Rep. John Hostettler [R-IN] introduced H.R. 3313 on October 16, 2003, "To amend title 28, United States Code, to limit Federal court jurisdiction over questions under the Defense of Marriage Act."

The bill was referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary and on July 14 was ordered to be reported back to the House on a near party-line vote of 21-13. The aim of this bill is to prevent the federal courts, including the Supreme Court, from having any jurisdiction over the Defense of Marriage Act, presumably with the aim of preventing its being ruled unconstitutional. The ACLU claims that H.R. 3313 is itself unconstitutional:

"The Marriage Protection Act (H.R. 3313) would deny the Supreme Court and all other federal courts the ability to consider any challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act. It would deny gay and lesbian couples the right to even have their day in federal court, thereby violating both the Equal Protection Clause and the separation of powers principle."

The text of the legislation is as follows:

A BILL

To amend title 28, United States Code, to limit Federal court jurisdiction over questions under the Defense of Marriage Act.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Marriage Protection Act of 2003'.

SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON JURISDICTION.

(a) IN GENERAL- Chapter 99 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

`Sec. 1632. Limitation on jurisdiction

`No court created by Act of Congress shall have any jurisdiction, and the Supreme Court shall have no appellate jurisdiction, to hear or determine any question pertaining to the interpretation of section 1738c of this title or of this section. Neither the Supreme Court nor any court created by Act of Congress shall have any appellate jurisdiction to hear or determine any question pertaining to the interpretation of section 7 of title 1.'.

(b) AMENDMENT TO TABLE OF SECTIONS- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 99 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new item:

`1632. Limitation on jurisdiction.'.

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Section 1738c of Title 28 USC reads:

No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Section 7 of Title 1 USC reads:

In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word ''marriage'' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word ''spouse'' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
The bill currently has 48 cosponsors, as follows:

Rep Akin, W. Todd [MO-2] - 10/16/2003
Rep Barrett, J. Gresham [SC-3] - 10/20/2003
Rep Bartlett, Roscoe G. [MD-6] - 10/16/2003
Rep Bishop, Rob [UT-1] - 2/26/2004
Rep Collins, Mac [GA-8] - 5/19/2004
Rep Cunningham, Randy (Duke) [CA-50] - 5/19/2004
Rep Davis, Jo Ann [VA-1] - 3/11/2004
Rep Davis, Tom [VA-11] - 7/13/2004
Rep DeMint, Jim [SC-4] - 5/11/2004
Rep Duncan, John J., Jr. [TN-2] - 3/30/2004
Rep Forbes, J. Randy [VA-4] - 10/16/2003
Rep Garrett, Scott [NJ-5] - 10/16/2003
Rep Goode, Virgil H., Jr. [VA-5] - 10/16/2003
Rep Gutknecht, Gil [MN-1] - 10/16/2003
Rep Hall, Ralph M. [TX-4] - 5/11/2004
Rep Hastings, Doc [WA-4] - 7/14/2004
Rep Hensarling, Jeb [TX-5] - 1/21/2004
Rep Herger, Wally [CA-2] - 5/11/2004
Rep Hunter, Duncan [CA-52] - 5/11/2004
Rep Jenkins, William L. [TN-1] - 6/23/2004
Rep Johnson, Sam [TX-3] - 10/20/2003
Rep Jones, Walter B., Jr. [NC-3] - 10/16/2003
Rep King, Steve [IA-5] - 7/14/2004
Rep Kingston, Jack [GA-1] - 5/11/2004
Rep Lewis, Ron [KY-2] - 7/9/2004
Rep Manzullo, Donald A. [IL-16] - 7/13/2004
Rep McCotter, Thaddeus G. [MI-11] - 6/23/2004
Rep Miller, Jeff [FL-1] - 11/18/2003
Rep Neugebauer, Randy [TX-19] - 10/20/2003
Rep Northup, Anne [KY-3] - 1/28/2004
Rep Norwood, Charlie [GA-9] - 10/20/2003
Rep Otter, C. L. (Butch) [ID-1] - 6/24/2004
Rep Paul, Ron [TX-14] - 10/16/2003
Rep Pence, Mike [IN-6] - 10/16/2003
Rep Petri, Thomas E. [WI-6] - 6/15/2004
Rep Pombo, Richard W. [CA-11] - 5/11/2004
Rep Rahall, Nick J., II [WV-3] - 6/15/2004
Rep Rogers, Mike D. [AL-3] - 7/13/2004
Rep Ryun, Jim [KS-2] - 5/19/2004
Rep Sessions, Pete [TX-32] - 7/9/2004
Rep Simpson, Michael K. [ID-2] - 6/24/2004
Rep Smith, Nick [MI-7] - 10/16/2003
Rep Stearns, Cliff [FL-6] - 3/30/2004
Rep Terry, Lee [NE-2] - 10/30/2003
Rep Tiahrt, Todd [KS-4] - 10/21/2003
Rep Wamp, Zach [TN-3] - 11/17/2003
Rep Weldon, Dave [FL-15] - 10/16/2003
Rep Wilson, Joe [SC-2] - 10/21/2003

Posted at 11:57 AM

Sat - July 10, 2004

Federal Marriage Amendment (now S. J. Res. 40)

S. J. Res. 40 was introduced by Sen. Allard [CO] on July 7, 2004, proposing an amendment to the Constitution defining marriage as "the union of a man and a woman." Debate on the amendment began on Friday, July 9.

The amendment reads:

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.

According to the Associated Press, the "Proponents of the amendment said they included the second sentence to clarify that state legislatures -- but not courts -- could still establish laws recognizing civil unions and domestic partnerships between two people of the same sex." But suppose the people of a state wanted to change the constitution of their state to allow same-sex marriage? The FMA seems to explicitly exclude that. It also seems, by means of the clause "or the legal incidents thereof," to exclude the possibility of any state writing civil unions into their constitution with all the benefits of marriage, such as Vermont did.

The FMA now has 19 cosponsors:

Sen Brownback, Sam [KS] - 7/7/2004
Sen Cochran, Thad [MS] - 7/7/2004
Sen Craig, Larry E. [ID] - 7/8/2004
Sen Crapo, Michael D. [ID] - 7/8/2004
Sen Dole, Elizabeth H. [NC] - 7/13/2004
Sen Enzi, Michael B. [WY] - 7/7/2004
Sen Fitzgerald, Peter [IL] - 7/7/2004
Sen Frist, Bill [TN] - 7/7/2004
Sen Hatch, Orrin G. [UT] - 7/7/2004
Sen Hutchison, Kay Bailey [TX] - 7/7/2004
Sen Inhofe, Jim [OK] - 7/7/2004
Sen Kyl, Jon [AZ] - 7/7/2004
Sen Lott, Trent [MS] - 7/7/2004
Sen McConnell, Mitch [KY] - 7/7/2004
Sen Miller, Zell [GA] - 7/7/2004
Sen Santorum, Rick [PA] - 7/7/2004
Sen Sessions, Jeff [AL] - 7/7/2004
Sen Shelby, Richard C. [AL] - 7/7/2004
Sen Talent, Jim [MO] - 7/7/2004

Posted at 10:17 AM

Tue - June 15, 2004

Federal Hate Crimes Amendment Passed in Senate 65-33

A federal hate crimes amendment (S.AMDT.3183) covering sexual orientation was attached to a major appropriations bill (S.2400) for the DOD and passed in the Senate by a vote of 65-33. The hate crimes amendment would provide federal assistance to states and local governments to prosecute hate crimes.

The hate crimes amendment provides for some non-financial assistance to states and local governments in the investigation and prosecution of hate crimes, as follows:

"At the request of a law enforcement official of a State or Indian tribe, the Attorney General may provide technical, forensic, prosecutorial, or any other form of assistance in the criminal investigation or prosecution of any crime that--

    (A) constitutes a crime of violence (as defined in section 16 of title 18, United States Code);

    (B) constitutes a felony under the laws of the State or Indian tribe; and

    (C) is motivated by prejudice based on the race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, or disability of the victim, or is a violation of the hate crime laws of the State or Indian tribe."

The hate crimes amendment provides for some financial assistance to states and local government:

"The Attorney General may award grants to assist State, local, and Indian law enforcement officials with the extraordinary expenses associated with the investigation and prosecution of hate crimes."

The hate crimes amendment also includes a Federal prohibition of hate crimes and provides federal penalties:

"Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, in any circumstance described in subparagraph (B), willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, or disability of any person--

    ``(i) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in accordance with this title, or both; and

    ``(ii) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined in accordance with this title, or both, if--

    ``(I) death results from the offense; or

    ``(II) the offense includes kidnaping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill."

Posted at 08:36 AM

Wed - March 24, 2004

Federal Marriage Amendment (modified wording)

S. J. Res. 30 was introduced by Sen. Allard on March 22, 2004, proposing an amendment to the Constitution defining marriage as "the union of a man and a woman." This bill is a modification of the previously introduced S. J. Res. 26 from November of last year. It seems to be just as damaging as the earlier version.

Posted at 11:01 AM

Sat - March 6, 2004

Senator Smith Reminds the Senate of Hate Crimes

Since the introduction of S.699 on 1 May 2003, Senator Gordon Smith [OR] has repeatedly stood before the Senate to remind them of the existence of hate crimes. Many of the examples he cites involve crimes based on perceived sexual orientation. Here are some of the cases he has cited:

In February, 2003 , in Antioch, CA, a 15-year-old teen was charged with assault and battery and for committing a hate crime. He viciously assaulted and taunted another teenager because he believed he was gay.

In January 1999, Frank Breton, age 47, was convicted of hate crime assault for assaulting his neighbor in March because he believed the man was gay.

A terrible crime occurred in Upland, CA, in December 1999. There, a man died after being hit in the head with a pool cue by an attacker who accused him of being gay.

A horrendous crime occurred 4 years ago today in Richmond, VA. There, a homeless man was killed and his severed head left atop a footbridge in James River Park near a popular meeting place for gay men.

One such crime occurred in Honolulu, HI, in August 1998. A heterosexual man was found dead in a public shower. He had been brutally killed by a group of teenagers because they thought he was gay.

Last fall in Portland, ME, Joshua Nisbet pulled up in a car near a bar that caters to the gay community. Nisbet and a friend yelled an antigay slur at two men walking nearby and assaulted them.

One such crime occurred in Tillamook, a small town on the Oregon coast. On February 11, 1999, James Ash, 48, and Kevin Hawthorn, 25, were charged with intimidation and assault for allegedly beating a man because of his sexual orientation.

One such crime occurred in Santa Rosa, CA, on September 20, 1999. Four youths allegedly fired shots from a pellet gun toward a woman whose car had gay pride, diversity, and rainbow stickers on it. The youths also allegedly yelled derogatory comments regarding the woman's sexual orientation.

On July 3, 1999, in Philadelphia, PA, a 59-year-old gay man was found beaten to death in his apartment. The bodies of two other gay men from the Philadelphia area were found in the Schuylkill River the previous month.

In Council Bluffs, IA, a 15-year-old girl allegedly approached two other girls who were holding hands and assaulted them saying she was ``tired of seeing them hold hands and kissing.'' The girl has been accused of assaulting the girls because of their sexual orientation.

I would like to describe a terrible crime that occurred on August 30, 2003 , in New Orleans, LA. There, a 53-year old gay man from Pennsylvania was stabbed in the back. Upon arrest, his attacker confessed that he ``wanted to kill a gay man.''

In May 2002, two young male assailants targeted a Washington, D.C. resident after he left a local gay bar. The victim suffered severe face wounds, including a broken nose. Later that night, and in the week that followed, several more gay men were attacked by an unidentified group of young men.

In early May 2003 , Jessica Mercado, a Latina transgender woman was found dead in her apartment. According to police reports, Mercado was stabbed twice in the neck in her New Haven, CT apartment which was then set on fire in a possible attempt to cover up the crime.

Posted at 03:38 PM

Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act of 2003

Senate Bill S.966 was introduced by Senator Kennedy [MA] on 1 May 2003. It would provide Federal assistance to State and local jurisdictions to prosecute hate crimes. This bill is apparently languishing in the Senate Judiciary Committee, which is busy trying to figure out how to ban same-sex marriage.

SUMMARY AS OF:
5/1/2003--Introduced.

Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act of 2003 - Authorizes the Attorney General to provide technical, forensic, prosecutorial, or other assistance in the criminal investigation or prosecution of any crime that: (1) constitutes a crime of violence under Federal law or a felony under State or Indian tribal law; and (2) is motivated by prejudice based on the race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, or disability of the victim or is a violation of the hate crime laws of the State or tribe. Directs the Attorney General to give priority for assistance to crimes committed by offenders who have committed crimes in more than one State and to rural jurisdictions that have difficulty covering the extraordinary investigation or prosecution expenses.

Authorizes the Attorney General to award grants to assist State, local, and Indian law enforcement officials with such extraordinary expenses. Directs the Office of Justice Programs to: (1) work closely with funded jurisdictions to ensure that the concerns and needs of all affected parties are addressed; and (2) award grants to State and local programs designed to combat hate crimes committed by juveniles.

Prohibits specified offenses involving actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, or disability.

Directs the U.S. Sentencing Commission to study and provide sentencing enhancements for adult recruitment of juveniles to commit hate crimes.

Amends the Hate Crimes Statistics Act to require the crime data to be collected and published by the Attorney General to include data about crimes that manifest evidence of prejudice based on gender.

COSPONSORS(49), ALPHABETICAL

Sen Akaka, Daniel K. - 5/1/2003 [HI]
Sen Bayh, Evan - 5/1/2003 [IN]
Sen Biden Jr., Joseph R. - 5/1/2003 [DE]
Sen Bingaman, Jeff - 5/1/2003 [NM]
Sen Boxer, Barbara - 5/1/2003 [CA]
Sen Breaux, John B. - 5/1/2003 [LA]
Sen Cantwell, Maria - 5/1/2003 [WA]
Sen Carper, Thomas R. - 5/1/2003 [DE]
Sen Chafee, Lincoln D. - 5/1/2003 [RI]
Sen Clinton, Hillary Rodham - 5/1/2003 [NY]
Sen Coleman, Norm - 7/9/2003 [MN]
Sen Collins, Susan M. - 5/1/2003 [ME]
Sen Corzine, Jon - 5/1/2003 [NJ]
Sen Daschle, Thomas A. - 5/1/2003 [SD]
Sen Dayton, Mark - 5/1/2003 [MN]
Sen Dodd, Christopher J. - 5/1/2003 [CT]
Sen Dorgan, Byron L. - 5/1/2003 [ND]
Sen Durbin, Richard J. - 5/1/2003 [IL]
Sen Edwards, John - 5/1/2003 [NC]
Sen Ensign, John E. - 5/1/2003 [NV]
Sen Feinstein, Dianne - 5/1/2003 [CA]
Sen Graham, Bob - 5/1/2003 [FL]
Sen Harkin, Tom - 5/1/2003 [IA]
Sen Inouye, Daniel K. - 5/1/2003 [HI]
Sen Jeffords, James M. - 5/1/2003 [VT]
Sen Johnson, Tim - 5/1/2003 [SD]
Sen Kerry, John F. - 5/1/2003 [MA]
Sen Landrieu, Mary - 5/1/2003 [LA]
Sen Lautenberg, Frank R. - 5/1/2003 [NJ]
Sen Leahy, Patrick J. - 5/1/2003 [VT]
Sen Levin, Carl - 5/1/2003 [MI]
Sen Lieberman, Joseph I. - 5/1/2003 [CT]
Sen Lincoln, Blanche - 5/1/2003 [AR]
Sen Mikulski, Barbara A. - 5/1/2003 [MD]
Sen Miller, Zell - 5/1/2003 [GA]
Sen Murray, Patty - 5/1/2003 [WA]
Sen Nelson, Bill - 5/1/2003 [FL]
Sen Nelson, E. Benjamin - 5/1/2003 [NE]
Sen Pryor, Mark Lunsford - 5/1/2003 [AR]
Sen Reed, John F. - 5/1/2003 [RI]
Sen Reid, Harry M. - 5/1/2003 [NV]
Sen Rockefeller, Jay - 5/1/2003 [WV]
Sen Sarbanes, Paul S. - 5/1/2003 [MD]
Sen Schumer, Charles E. - 5/1/2003 [NY]
Sen Smith, Gordon - 5/1/2003 [OR]
Sen Snowe, Olympia J. - 5/1/2003 [ME]
Sen Specter, Arlen - 5/1/2003 [PA]
Sen Stabenow, Debbie - 5/1/2003 [MI]
Sen Wyden, Ron - 5/1/2003 [OR]

Posted at 03:18 PM

Codifying "Biblical Principles'' of Marriage

Congressman Jim McDermott from Washington asked and was given permission to address the House of Representatives for 1 minute on February 25, during which he talked about Biblical principles concerning marriage. Here is what he said:

"Mr. Speaker, the President's presidential prayer team is urging us to "pray for the President as he seeks wisdom on how to legally codify the definition of marriage. Pray that it will be according to Biblical principles.''

"With that in mind, I thought I would remind the body of the biblical principles they are talking about.

"Marriage shall consist of a union between one man and one or more women. That is from Genesis 29:17-28.

"Secondly, marriage shall not impede a man's right to take concubines in addition to his wife or wives. That is II Samuel 5:13 and II Chronicles 11:21.

"A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed. That is Deuteronomy 22:13.

"Marriage of a believer and a nonbeliever shall be forbidden. That is Genesis 24:3.

"Finally, it says that since there is no law that can change things, divorce is not possible, and finally, if a married man dies, his brother has to marry his sister-in-law. "

Posted at 02:25 AM

Mon - March 1, 2004

Federal Marriage Amendment House Cosponsors

There are now 115 cosponsors of the Federal Marriage Amendment in the House.

Additional cosponsors since the beginning of this year include:

Rep Blunt, Roy - 1/23/2004 [MO-7]
Rep Cole, Tom - 2/10/2004 [OK-4]
Rep Ferguson, Mike - 2/10/2004 [NJ-7]
Rep Wolf, Frank R. - 2/10/2004 [VA-10]
Rep Duncan, John J., Jr. - 2/10/2004 [TN-2]
Rep Blackburn, Marsha - 2/24/2004 [TN-7]
Rep Nussle, Jim - 2/24/2004 [IA-1]
Rep Hefley, Joel - 2/24/2004 [CO-5]

Posted at 02:17 AM

Federal Marriage Amendment Senate Cosponsors

There are now 9 cosponsors of the Federal Marriage Amendment in the Senate.

Additional cosponsors in the Senate since the beginning of this year include:

Sen Shelby, Richard C. - 12/9/2003 [AL]
Sen Miller, Zell - 2/9/2004 [GA]
Sen Santorum, Rick - 2/12/2004 [PA]
Sen Fitzgerald, Peter - 2/23/2004 [IL]
Sen Lott, Trent - 2/26/2004 [MS]

Posted at 02:12 AM

Fri - December 5, 2003

Bush Signed Public Law 108-145 (Adoption Promotion Act of 2003)

Public Law 108-145 reauthorizes incentive payments to states for increasing the number of children who are adopted, especially older children. Because this law does not discriminate against lesbians and gays and because state and private agencies are increasingly likely to consider applications from lesbians and gays, and to actually place children with them, this law is likely to be beneficial to prospective lesbian and gay parents.

Congressional Summary:

Adoption Promotion Act of 2003 - Amends part E (Foster Care and Adoption Assistance) of title IV of the Social Security Act to revise requirements with respect to States eligible to receive adoption incentives payments. Reauthorizes the adoption incentive payments program. Provides additional incentives for adoptions of older children (nine years of age and up). Modifies requirements with respect to determination of numbers of special needs adoptions that are not older children as well as adoptions of older children.

Revises the formula for adoption incentive payments to States to provide a payment for: (1) special needs adoptions that are not older child adoptions; and (2) older child adoptions.

Repeals the requirement that the Secretary of Health and Human Services provide supplemental grants to incentive-eligible States.

Authorizes the Secretary to impose specified penalties against a State for failure to provide necessary data to the Secretary for the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System.

Posted at 09:56 AM

Sat - November 29, 2003

Disapproval of Justices Considering Foreign Laws and Public Opinion

Rep. Sam Graves of MO introduced H.Res. 468 on Nov 21, "Expressing disapproval of the consideration by Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States of foreign laws and public opinion in their decisions, urging the end of this practice immediately to avoid setting a dangerous precedent, and urging all Justices to base their opinions solely on the merits under the Constitution of the United States."

One of the Justices singled out for special disapproval was Justice Anthony M. Kennedy:

"Whereas Associate Justice Anthony M. Kennedy's opinion for the Supreme Court of the United States in Lawrence v. Texas, 123 S.Ct. 2472, 2483 (2003), refers to decisions of the European Court of Human Rights and other courts and states the following: `Other nations, too, have taken action consistent with an affirmation of the protected right of homosexual adults to engage in intimate, consensual conduct. The right the petitioners seek in this case has been accepted as an integral part of human freedom in many other countries.'"

It seems to me that Rep. Graves would do well to express disapproval of his own colleagues who, though as much bound by oath to uphold the Constitution and the laws of the United States as the Justices are, frequently appeal to notions of Christian morality and take into consideration the supposed opinions of God in attempting to justify their legislative actions.

If you would like to express your own disapproval of H.Res. 468 to Rep. Graves, you can write to him at sam.graves@mail.house.gov. The full text of his resolution follows.

RESOLUTION

Expressing disapproval of the consideration by Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States of foreign laws and public opinion in their decisions, urging the end of this practice immediately to avoid setting a dangerous precedent, and urging all Justices to base their opinions solely on the merits under the Constitution of the United States.

Whereas each Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States takes a judicial oath, which states the following: 'I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent on me as [Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States] under the Constitution and laws of the United States.';

Whereas section 1 of article III of the Constitution states the following: 'The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.';

Whereas paragraph 1 of section 2 of article III of the Constitution states the following: 'The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.';

Whereas paragraph 2 of section 2 of article III of the Constitution states the following: 'In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.';

Whereas paragraph 3 of section 2 of article III of the Constitution states the following: 'The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.';

Whereas section 1 of article I of the Constitution states the following: 'All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.';

Whereas section 1 of article II of the Constitution states the following: 'The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.';

Whereas Associate Justice Anthony M. Kennedy's opinion for the Supreme Court of the United States in Lawrence v. Texas, 123 S.Ct. 2472, 2483 (2003), refers to decisions of the European Court of Human Rights and other courts and states the following: 'Other nations, too, have taken action consistent with an affirmation of the protected right of homosexual adults to engage in intimate, consensual conduct. The right the petitioners seek in this case has been accepted as an integral part of human freedom in many other countries.';

Whereas Associate Justice John Paul Stevens's opinion for the Court in Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 314, 316 (2002), refers to opinions of the national and world communities and states the following: 'The practice, therefore, has become truly unusual, and it is fair to say that a national consensus has developed against it.';

Whereas Associate Justice Steven G. Breyer's dissenting opinion in the denial by the Court of the petition for a writ of certiorari in Knight v. Florida, 528 U.S. 990 (1999), cites foreign sources of law, including the courts of Canada, India, Jamaica, and Zimbabwe, as well as the United Nations; and

Whereas Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg stated in a speech to the American Constitution Society that judges 'are becoming more open to comparative and international law perspectives.': Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the House of Representatives--

(1) reminds the Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States of the judicial oath they took as a precondition to assuming their responsibilities;

(2) reminds the Justices that the United States was founded for the purposes of self-government;

(3) reminds the Justices that the executive and legislative branches of the Federal Government are the only branches whose officers are elected by the people of the United States;

(4) expresses its disapproval of the consideration of foreign laws and opinions in the decisions of the Court;

(5) advises the Justices not to incorporate foreign laws or opinions in future decisions of the Court;

(6) advises the Justices not to incorporate public opinion when performing their duty to uphold the Constitution; and

(7) urging all Justices to base their opinions solely on the merits under the Constitution of the United States.

Posted at 05:15 PM

Federal Marriage Amendment (Senate version)

S.J.Res. 26 was introduced by Sen. Allard on November 25, 2003, proposing an amendment to the Constitution defining marriage as "the union of a man and a woman". This is the counterpart of H.J.Res. 56.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), 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:

Article--

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, nor State or Federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.

Cosponsors:

Sen Brownback, Sam - 11/25/2003 [KS]
Sen Bunning, Jim - 11/25/2003 [KY]
Sen Inhofe, Jim - 11/25/2003 [OK]
Sen Sessions, Jeff - 11/25/2003 [AL]

Posted at 11:03 AM

Thu - November 27, 2003

Affirmation of the Defense of Marriage Act

S. Res. 275 was introduced by Sen. Nickles on Nov 25 to give Senators Brownback, Sessions, Bunning, Cornyn, Santorum and Allard another opportunity to voice their ignorant, homophobic opinions.

   S. Res. 275

   Whereas, marriage is a fundamental social institution that has been tested and reaffirmed over thousands of years;

   Whereas, historically marriage has been reflected in our law and the law of all jurisdictions in the United States as the union of a man and a woman, and the everyday meaning of marriage and the legal meaning of marriage has always been defined as the legal union of a man and a woman as husband and wife;

   Whereas, families consisting of the legal union of one man and one woman for the purpose of bearing and raising children remains the basic unit of our civil society;

   Whereas, in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts ruled 4 to 3 that the Constitution of the State of Massachusetts prohibits the denial of the issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples;

   Whereas, the power to regulate marriage lies with the legislature and not with the judiciary and the Constitution of the State Massachusetts specifically states that the judiciary ``shall never exercise the legislative and executive powers, or either of them: to the end it may be a government of laws and not of men''; and

   Whereas, in 1996, Congress overwhelmingly passed, and President Bill Clinton signed, the Defense of Marriage Act under which Congress exercised its rights under the effects clause of section 1 of Article IV of the United States Constitution: Now, therefore, be it

    Resolved, That it is the Sense of the Senate--

    (1) Congress should take whatever steps necessary to affirm the fact that marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman;

    (2)(A) same-sex marriage is not a right, fundamental or otherwise, recognized in this country; and

    (B) neither the United States Constitution nor any Federal law shall be construed to require that marital status or legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups; and

    (3) the Defense of Marriage Act is a proper and constitutional exercise of Congress's powers under the effects clause of section 1 of Article IV and that no State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.

Cosponsors (6)

Sen Allard, A. Wayne - 11/25/2003 [CO]
Sen Brownback, Sam - 11/25/2003 [KS]
Sen Bunning, Jim - 11/25/2003 [KY]
Sen Cornyn, John - 11/25/2003 [TX]
Sen Santorum, Rick - 11/25/2003 [PA]
Sen Sessions, Jeff - 11/25/2003 [AL]

Posted at 10:04 AM

Wed - November 26, 2003

Remarks of Michael Heflin on H.Con.Res. 330

Rep. Lantos entered into the Congressional Record the remarks of the Director of the Amnesty International USA Outfront Program.

STATEMENT BY MICHAEL HEFLIN, DIRECTOR, AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL USA OUTFRONT PROGRAM

On behalf of Amnesty International I would like to commend Congressmen Tom Lantos and Christopher Shays for their strong leadership on this issue as well as the more than forty other members of Congress who have agreed to be original co-sponsors of this historic resolution. Amnesty International and other human rights organizations have documented the widespread abuse of the fundamental human rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people throughout the world. These abuses include the imprisonment, torture and in some cases killing of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people by their own governments. Some 70 countries still criminalize homosexuality. Sentences for conviction under these statutes vary, but often include lengthy jail sentences and in some cases include torture or even imposition of the death penalty as a legally sanctioned punishment.

As we sit here this morning, there are many who sit in jail cells and face the prospect of torture simply because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. In Egypt, for example, over the past two years, Amnesty International and other human rights groups have documented the arrest of over 100 men simply on the basis of their alleged sexual orientation. Ironically, Egypt is one the few countries in the Middle East that does not explicitly outlaw homosexuality but has charged the men under a vaguely worded law prohibiting "habitual debauchery." Many of these men report having been brutally tortured while imprisoned. We also believe this number is only the tip of the iceberg and there are probably many cases that we have not yet documented. Of those arrested, some have now been freed but the arrests continue. At this moment, Amnesty considers at least 15 men in Egyptian prisons to be "prisoners of conscience" in jail solely on the basis of their alleged sexual orientation.

Egypt is not alone and similar arrests have also been made in many other countries in recent years including Malaysia, Uganda, Uzbekistan, and Saudi Arabia, just to name a few. Even when not criminalized, discrimination and violence against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people by both governmental authorities and civilians remains widespread throughout much of the world.

Too often states fail to hold the perpetrators of such violence accountable, creating a climate of impunity--in violation of international human rights standards that require states to protect the human rights of all of their citizens. In recent years, Amnesty International has documented patterns of violence including murder and physical assault, particularly targeted against transgender people and gay men in a number of countries, including for example, Honduras, Guatemala, and Ecuador. In many of these cases the police were complicit or did nothing to investigate these crimes or hold those responsible accountable.

Lesbians often face a double layer of discrimination and abuse resulting from both their gender and their sexual orientation. These violations are often particularly difficult to document because they most often occur in the community and the family, but include forced marriage and sometimes even rape employed as a method to cure lesbians of their deviant sexuality.

The United States has not been a leader either at home or abroad in advancing lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender human rights. While this resolution recognizes the need to continue to make progress in this country toward the full recognition of the basic human rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people, it also spells out the U.S. government's obligation to combat human rights violations against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people around the world.

Despite the U.S. government's overall lack of leadership on these issues, some progress is being made. Over the last few years the State Department has begun to document some of these abuses in its annual reports. We hope that this resolution will encourage the State Department to continue to make improvements in its documentation of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender rights abuses around the world. We also believe much more can and must be done by the U.S. government if it is to play a leadership role in protecting global lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender human rights.

Through this resolution, we are calling for the U.S. government to develop a comprehensive strategy for combating these abuses. This strategy must include the U.S. government's taking a positive and proactive position in favor of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender human rights when these issues are discussed and debated in international forums. It is only through adoption of the recommendations of this resolution, including development of such a comprehensive strategy, that the U.S. government can begin to fulfill its obligations under international human rights standards to advance the human rights of all people.

Posted at 11:28 PM

Remarks of Martin Ornelas-Quintero on H.Con.Res. 330

Rep. Lantos entered into the Congressional Record the remarks of the executive director of the National Latina/o Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Organization.

STATEMENT BY MARTN ORNELAS-QUINTERO, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, THE NATIONAL LATINA/O LESBIAN, GAY, BISEXUAL & TRANSGENDER ORGANIZATION (LLEGÓ)

Good morning. I want to thank Congressman Lantos and resolution co-sponsor Congressman Shays for their work, and also all the human rights organizations here today that stand together in support of this important resolution. My name is Martín Ornelas-Quíntero, executive director of LLEGÓ, the National Latina/o Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender organization. I would like to read an excerpt from a letter sent by LLEGÓ to the honorable Richard Maduro, president of Honduras in September of this year

In the city of San Pedro Sula, the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and transsexual community is confronting persecution, harassment, mistreatment and humiliation because of this attempt to defend the human rights of other LGBTT community members. Specifically, we wanted to bring attention to the case of La China.

La China, born as Elkyn Suarez--along with the LGBTT community members, demands that the police of San Pedro Sula begin to conduct more exhaustive investigations into the deaths of members of the LGBTT community so that these murders do not go unpunished, as they have in the past.

Ms. Suarez was a witness to the murder of David Yanez and has served as a witness for the state during the prosecution case. Under international scrutiny, Elkyn has maintained her composure and courage to confront representatives of the police force who, instead of protecting the citizens of San Pedro Sula, have violated their promise to protect the law and have become criminals themselves. -We are aware that the Honduran government has measures at their disposal to protect witnesses in criminal cases. We in the international community want to make sure these measures are available for all inhabitants of Honduras with regard to their sexual orientation or gender identity.

We make a call to the community to support and bring attention to this case and the need for the Honduran government to protect all of its citizens. We are aware that in the case of La China Suarez, the police offered its protection for a limited time and have withdrawn it. Given the threatening conditions the LGBTT community of San Pedro Sula lives in every day, we want to emphasize the necessity for this protection to continue until all the individuals related to the case are found and judged. Our greatest concern at the moment is the life of Ms. Suarez, and we would appreciate support and assistance in facilitating her protection'' (Letter to Honorable Licenciado Ricardo Maduro, Presidente de la República, y la Honorable Aguas Ocan 6a Navarro, Primera Dama de Honduras, dated September 15, 2003).

Ms. Suarez, a Honduran transgender woman, witnessed the murder of another transgender woman by two police officers. After testifying against the men, Ms. Suarez was reluctantly given witness protection. Unfortunately, Ms. Suarez, who was unemployed at the time, had to find money not only for her own food and shelter needs, but had to feed and provide lodging for her ``protectors.'' The two police officer, although accused and charged, ``miraculously'' slipped out of police custody. Also, ``miraculously,'' witness protection services for Ms. Suarez were curtailed. Finding her life in danger, she fled--with the help of Amnesty International and LLEGÓ--to Guatemala. There, the paramilitary tried to kill her. Again, with assistance from Amnesty and LLEGÓ, she fled to the Netherlands, where she today waits to be granted asylum. This is just one example of the dangers LGBTT people face everyday all over the world. We cannot sit idly while our brothers and sisters are being harassed, tortured and murdered often for simply being who they are. This is why we applaud and wholeheartedly endorse the resolution introduced today by Congressman Tom Lantos and Congressman Christopher Shays.''

Posted at 11:20 PM

Remarks of Rep. Tom Lantos on H.Con.Res. 330

Rep. Lantos talks about his legislation to as a means to shine "a bright light on one of the most underreported and unrecognized areas of egregious human rights violations, the international persecution of individuals based on their real or perceived sexual or gender identity."

HON. TOM LANTOS
OF CALIFORNIA
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 25, 2003

• Mr. Speaker, yesterday my good friend from Connecticut, Rep. CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, and I introduced H. Con. Res. 330, The International Human Rights Equality Act. I would like to specially thank my good friend from Massachusetts, Rep. BARNEY FRANK, and my good friend from Ohio, Rep. DENNIS KUCINICH, for their support at our press conference yesterday on the occasion of the introduction.

• Our landmark legislation shines a bright light on one of the most underreported and unrecognized areas of egregious human rights violations, the international persecution of individuals based on their real or perceived sexual or gender identity.

• Supported by 44 of our colleagues, we believe very strongly that we must send a clear message that gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered people must be treated with the same dignity and respect as every human being, and not with hatred and violence that they face in all too many places in the world.

• Ongoing persecutions against the LGBT community include arbitrary arrests, rape, torture, imprisonment, extortion, and even extra judicial executions.

• The scope of these human rights violations is staggering, and for the victims, there are few avenues for relief. Some countries create an atmosphere of impunity for rapists and murderers of gays and lesbians by failing to prosecute or even to investigate violence targeted at these individuals because of their sexual orientation. Not only do some countries refuse to sanction these abuses, but often, agents of the State perpetrate them. And believe it or not, at the outset of the 21st Century there are still countries that advocate the death penalty for people who are gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgendered.

• We simply cannot ignore the number and frequency of such grievous crimes any longer. As our legislation makes clear, the international community has long established a legal framework for the protection of international human rights, based on the individual human being. The world community voluntarily agreed upon these legal instruments, and we have to demand vigorously that the parties to those treaties fulfill their obligations. We must demand that all countries obey international norms, particularly those countries that have become a party to international human rights treaties. None of these instruments, which are the foundation for a peaceful and civilized world community, exempt anybody from the protection of their human rights because of gender, race, origin or age, and most certainly there are no exceptions from full protection on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.

• Our legislation urges the Administration to develop a new strategy in our foreign policy to directly combat these outrageous violations, and tear away the veil of silence or ignorance on those tragic developments all over the world, which have a devastating impact on the lives of each individual affected.

• Our Resolution details just a few examples of violence against gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered individuals in countries as wide ranging as Mexico, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Uganda, Uzbekistan, Nepal, among others.

• My colleagues and I are committed to protecting human rights wherever they come under attack. I will work hard to create a broad bipartisan coalition to support this legislation in this Congress and beyond.

• Our legislation has the wide support of the human rights community, and I would particularly like to thank Amnesty International, the Human Rights Campaign, Human Rights Watch and the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission, as well as National Latina/o Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual & Transgender Organization (LLEGÓ), for their input and support.

Posted at 10:59 AM

Tue - November 25, 2003

Federal Marriage Amendment (House version)

H.J.Res. 56 was introduced by Rep. Marilyn N. Musgrave of CO on May 21, 2003, to propose an amendment to the Constitution defining marriage as "the union of a man and a woman" and to prohibit laws from being construed to require that marital status or its legal incidents be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.

PlanetOut.com reports that a similar resolution was introduced in the Senate today, but the text of the Senate resolution has not yet appeared in the Congressional Record. The resolution is being sponsored by Sen. Wayne Allard of CO.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), 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 for ratification:

SECTION 1. Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.

Cosponsors (107):

Rep Aderholt, Robert B. - 10/8/2003 [AL-4]
Rep Akin, W. Todd - 6/10/2003 [MO-2]
Rep Alexander, Rodney - 9/24/2003 [LA-5]
Rep Bachus, Spencer - 9/30/2003 [AL-6]
Rep Baker, Richard H. - 11/20/2003 [LA-6]
Rep Ballenger, Cass - 7/25/2003 [NC-10]
Rep Barrett, J. Gresham - 7/8/2003 [SC-3]
Rep Bartlett, Roscoe G. - 6/2/2003 [MD-6]
Rep Barton, Joe - 7/23/2003 [TX-6]
Rep Beauprez, Bob - 7/24/2003 [CO-7]
Rep Boehner, John A. - 7/23/2003 [OH-8]
Rep Boozman, John - 9/10/2003 [AR-3]
Rep Brady, Kevin - 7/10/2003 [TX-8]
Rep Brown, Henry E., Jr. - 7/10/2003 [SC-1]
Rep Brown-Waite, Ginny - 11/21/2003 [FL-5]
Rep Burgess, Michael C. - 6/10/2003 [TX-26]
Rep Burns, Max - 7/8/2003 [GA-12]
Rep Burton, Dan - 11/20/2003 [IN-5]
Rep Calvert, Ken - 9/9/2003 [CA-44]
Rep Cannon, Chris - 11/21/2003 [UT-3]
Rep Cantor, Eric - 7/10/2003 [VA-7]
Rep Carter, John R. - 7/24/2003 [TX-31]
Rep Chocola, Chris - 7/24/2003 [IN-2]
Rep Coble, Howard - 9/9/2003 [NC-6]
Rep Collins, Mac - 7/8/2003 [GA-8]
Rep Crane, Philip M. - 7/24/2003 [IL-8]
Rep Cubin, Barbara - 7/22/2003 [WY]
Rep Culberson, John Abney - 9/3/2003 [TX-7]
Rep Cunningham, Randy (Duke) - 7/23/2003 [CA-50]
Rep Davis, Jo Ann - 5/21/2003 [VA-1]
Rep Davis, Lincoln - 7/15/2003 [TN-4]
Rep Deal, Nathan - 11/20/2003 [GA-10]
Rep DeMint, Jim - 6/10/2003 [SC-4]
Rep Doolittle, John T. - 7/10/2003 [CA-4]
Rep Emerson, Jo Ann - 7/24/2003 [MO-8]
Rep Everett, Terry - 11/20/2003 [AL-2]
Rep Feeney, Tom - 9/3/2003 [FL-24]
Rep Flake, Jeff - 10/7/2003 [AZ-6]
Rep Forbes, J. Randy - 7/23/2003 [VA-4]
Rep Franks, Trent - 7/23/2003 [AZ-2]
Rep Garrett, Scott - 7/22/2003 [NJ-5]
Rep Gingrey, Phil - 7/15/2003 [GA-11]
Rep Goode, Virgil H., Jr. - 6/2/2003 [VA-5]
Rep Goodlatte, Bob - 9/24/2003 [VA-6]
Rep Gutknecht, Gil - 7/23/2003 [MN-1]
Rep Hall, Ralph M. - 5/21/2003 [TX-4]
Rep Hart, Melissa A. - 9/3/2003 [PA-4]
Rep Hayes, Robin - 7/8/2003 [NC-8]
Rep Hayworth, J. D. - 7/23/2003 [AZ-5]
Rep Herger, Wally - 7/17/2003 [CA-2]
Rep Hoekstra, Peter - 7/10/2003 [MI-2]
Rep Hulshof, Kenny C. - 11/21/2003 [MO-9]
Rep Hunter, Duncan - 7/10/2003 [CA-52]
Rep Hyde, Henry J. - 7/23/2003 [IL-6]
Rep Isakson, Johnny - 6/24/2003 [GA-6]
Rep Istook, Ernest J., Jr. - 6/10/2003 [OK-5]
Rep Janklow, William J. - 11/20/2003 [SD]
Rep Johnson, Sam - 6/10/2003 [TX-3]
Rep Jones, Walter B., Jr. - 6/10/2003 [NC-3]
Rep Keller, Ric - 10/15/2003 [FL-8]
Rep Kennedy, Mark R. - 6/24/2003 [MN-6]
Rep King, Steve - 6/24/2003 [IA-5]
Rep Kingston, Jack - 9/10/2003 [GA-1]
Rep Lewis, Ron - 6/25/2003 [KY-2]
Rep Lucas, Ken - 9/3/2003 [KY-4]
Rep Manzullo, Donald A. - 9/3/2003 [IL-16]
Rep McCotter, Thaddeus G. - 9/30/2003 [MI-11]
Rep McIntyre, Mike - 5/21/2003 [NC-7]
Rep Miller, Gary G. - 10/8/2003 [CA-42]
Rep Miller, Jeff - 6/25/2003 [FL-1]
Rep Myrick, Sue - 7/25/2003 [NC-9]
Rep Neugebauer, Randy - 11/20/2003 [TX-19]
Rep Norwood, Charlie - 6/10/2003 [GA-9]
Rep Osborne, Tom - 9/3/2003 [NE-3]
Rep Pearce, Stevan - 7/23/2003 [NM-2]
Rep Pence, Mike - 6/10/2003 [IN-6]
Rep Peterson, Collin C. - 5/21/2003 [MN-7]
Rep Peterson, John E. - 7/23/2003 [PA-5]
Rep Pickering, Charles W. (Chip) - 7/15/2003 [MS-3]
Rep Pitts, Joseph R. - 6/2/2003 [PA-16]
Rep Pombo, Richard W. - 7/23/2003 [CA-11]
Rep Rogers, Harold - 10/7/2003 [KY-5]
Rep Rogers, Mike D. - 7/8/2003 [AL-3]
Rep Rohrabacher, Dana - 7/24/2003 [CA-46]
Rep Ryun, Jim - 6/10/2003 [KS-2]
Rep Schrock, Edward L. - 7/23/2003 [VA-2]
Rep Sessions, Pete - 7/24/2003 [TX-32]
Rep Shadegg, John B. - 11/20/2003 [AZ-3]
Rep Shuster, Bill - 7/24/2003 [PA-9]
Rep Smith, Christopher H. - 7/23/2003 [NJ-4]
Rep Smith, Lamar - 11/21/2003 [TX-21]
Rep Souder, Mark E. - 6/24/2003 [IN-3]
Rep Stearns, Cliff - 7/23/2003 [FL-6]
Rep Stenholm, Charles W. - 7/8/2003 [TX-17]
Rep Sullivan, John - 7/22/2003 [OK-1]
Rep Tancredo, Thomas G. - 9/24/2003 [CO-6]
Rep Tauzin, W. J. (Billy) - 7/22/2003 [LA-3]
Rep Taylor, Gene - 7/17/2003 [MS-4]
Rep Tiahrt, Todd - 7/23/2003 [KS-4]
Rep Toomey, Patrick J. - 7/25/2003 [PA-15]
Rep Turner, Michael R. - 9/9/2003 [OH-3]
Rep Vitter, David - 5/21/2003 [LA-1]
Rep Wamp, Zach - 7/8/2003 [TN-3]
Rep Weldon, Dave - 6/2/2003 [FL-15]
Rep Whitfield, Ed - 7/10/2003 [KY-1]
Rep Wicker, Roger F. - 7/15/2003 [MS-1]
Rep Wilson, Joe - 6/2/2003 [SC-2]

Posted at 11:22 PM

Mon - November 24, 2003

International Human Rights Equality Resolution

H.Con.Res. 330 was introduced by Rep. Tom Lantos of CA on Nov. 19, "Expressing the concern of Congress regarding human rights violations committed against lesbians, gay men, bisexuals, and transgendered (LGBT) individuals around the world based on their real or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity." It currently has 45 cosponsors.

Congress finds the following:

(1) International treaties, conventions, and declarations to which the United States is a party establish binding government obligations to combat international human rights violations, and the overall goals and compliance with the standards of these treaties, conventions, and declarations are an integral part of United States domestic and foreign policy.

(2) Articles 3 and 5 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Articles 6, 7, and 9 of the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights guarantee all individuals the right to life, liberty, and security of person, and guarantee that no one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment, and the 1984 Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment reinforces the commitment of countries to prevent torture within their jurisdictions.

(3) Articles 2 and 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Articles 2, 14, and 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights guarantee all individuals freedom from arbitrary discrimination and equal protection before the law.

(4) Articles 19 and 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Articles 19 and 22 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights guarantee all individuals freedom of expression and association.

(5) On April 24, 2003, the United States voted for United Nations Human Rights Commission Resolution 2003/53, which in section 5 `[r]eaffirms the obligation of States to ensure the protection of the inherent right to life of all persons under their jurisdiction and calls upon States concerned to investigate promptly and thoroughly all cases of killings committed in the name of passion or in the name of honour, all killings committed for any discriminatory reason, including sexual orientation'.

(6) The Amici Curiae brief filed with the United States Supreme Court in the case of Lawrence v. Texas (2003) by Mary Robinson, the former United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Amnesty International USA, Human Rights Watch, Interights, Lawyers Committee for Human Rights, and Minnesota Advocates for Human Rights, authoritatively lays out the globally accepted protections of privacy and equal protection under international and foreign national laws. Specifically, the brief establishes that international courts and treaty bodies have construed the equal treatment provisions of almost every major international human rights treaty to ban discrimination based on sexual orientation.

(7) While full equal protection and an end to all discrimination of lesbians, gay men, bisexuals, and transgendered individuals have not been achieved in the United States, Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority in Lawrence v. Texas, cited the Robinson brief and upheld those international principals.

(8) The fundamental human right not to be arbitrarily deprived of life is violated when lesbians, gay men, bisexuals, and transgendered individuals (hereafter referred to as `LGBT individuals') are victims of extra judicial, summary, and arbitrary executions for consensual adult same sex relations by state and non-state actors with impunity in countries such as Guatemala, Chile, Honduras and El Salvador.

(9) The fundamental human right not to be arbitrarily deprived of life is further threatened when countries such as Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Mauritania, and Iran call for the possible execution of those convicted of consensual adult same sex relations.

(10) The fundamental right not to be subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment is violated when the criminal laws in a number of countries such as Malaysia, Saudi Arabia, and Iran sanction corporal punishment including whipping and flogging and other forms of torture for individuals convicted of consensual adult same sex relations.

(11) The fundamental right not to be subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment is violated when LGBT individuals are subjected to severe beatings while in police custody in countries such as Argentina, Mexico, Nepal and Uganda, and individuals in these groups are also routinely the victims of human rights abuses, such as extortion, entrapment, physical assaults, and rape, committed by the security officials in Egypt, Zimbabwe, and Ecuador, among other countries.

(12) The fundamental right not to be subjected to arbitrary discrimination and arrest is violated in countries such as Uzbekistan, Malaysia, Uganda, and Kuwait, when their penal laws criminalize same-sex behavior between consenting adults.

(13) The fundamental rights not to be subjected to arbitrary discrimination and arrest are further violated when countries such as Egypt maintain deliberately vague laws which penalize offences such as `habitual debauchery' and the vagueness of these laws makes their enforcement difficult to monitor.

(14) The fundamental rights of freedom of expression and association are violated when countries deny the right of LGBT individuals to form organizations or advocate for their rights or to threaten individuals who have expressed intentions to do so. The Government of Zambia has threatened individuals of the Zambian Lesbian, Gay and Transgender Association (LEGATRA) with arrest, members of the Gays and Lesbians of Zimbabwe (GALZ) have also been threatened and also brutally assaulted, and nongovernmental LGBT advocacy organizations in Namibia were harassed and threatened by the government.

(15) In some countries, agents of the government are directing or are complicitous in abuses committed on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, and investigation and prosecution of those agents for these violations of international law often do not occur. Due to the failure by governments to investigate and prosecute human rights violations based on sexual orientation and gender identity, private individuals feel encouraged to attack violently LGBT individuals with impunity, contributing to an atmosphere of fear and intimidation for LGBT individuals.

(16) The human rights violations that lesbian and bisexual women suffer because of their real or perceived sexual identity are particularly vitriolic because of their gender, and, moreover, the aggravated abuse of these women often goes unreported because of their gender.

Congress--

(1) condemns all violations of internationally recognized human rights norms based on the real or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity of an individual;

(2) recognizes that the protection of sexual orientation and gender identity is not a special category of human rights, but is fully embedded in the overall human rights norms set forth in international law, including the international conventions to which the United States is a party;

(3) affirms that human rights abuses abroad based on sexual orientation and gender identity should be punished without discrimination and classified as crimes and that such violations should be given the same consideration and concern as human rights abuses based on other grounds;

(4) commends the United Nations and nongovernmental human rights organizations, including Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission, for documenting the ongoing abuses of human rights on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity; and

(5) calls on the Department of State to continue to improve its documentation of human rights abuses on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, to give such violations the same consideration and concern as all other human rights abuses, and to develop a comprehensive strategy to combat such abuses abroad.

Cosponsors (45):

Rep Abercrombie, Neil - 11/19/2003 [HI-1]
Rep Allen, Thomas H. - 11/19/2003 [ME-1]
Rep Baldwin, Tammy - 11/19/2003 [WI-2]
Rep Berman, Howard L. - 11/19/2003 [CA-28]
Rep Brady, Robert - 11/19/2003 [PA-1]
Rep Capuano, Michael E. - 11/19/2003 [MA-8]
Rep Conyers, John, Jr. - 11/19/2003 [MI-14]
Rep Crowley, Joseph - 11/19/2003 [NY-7]
Rep Delahunt, William D. - 11/19/2003 [MA-10]
Rep Engel, Eliot L. - 11/19/2003 [NY-17]
Rep Evans, Lane - 11/19/2003 [IL-17]
Rep Filner, Bob - 11/19/2003 [CA-51]
Rep Frank, Barney - 11/19/2003 [MA-4]
Rep Frost, Martin - 11/19/2003 [TX-24]
Rep Gephardt, Richard A. - 11/19/2003 [MO-3]
Rep Gonzalez, Charles A. - 11/19/2003 [TX-20]
Rep Grijalva, Raul M. - 11/19/2003 [AZ-7]
Rep Hinchey, Maurice D. - 11/19/2003 [NY-22]
Rep Jackson, Jesse L., Jr. - 11/19/2003 [IL-2]
Rep Kucinich, Dennis J. - 11/19/2003 [OH-10]
Rep Lee, Barbara - 11/19/2003 [CA-9]
Rep Levin, Sander M. - 11/19/2003 [MI-12]
Rep Lewis, John - 11/19/2003 [GA-5]
Rep Majette, Denise L. - 11/19/2003 [GA-4]
Rep Maloney, Carolyn B. - 11/19/2003 [NY-14]
Rep Matsui, Robert T. - 11/19/2003 [CA-5]
Rep McCollum, Betty - 11/19/2003 [MN-4]
Rep McDermott, Jim - 11/19/2003 [WA-7]
Rep McGovern, James P. - 11/19/2003 [MA-3]
Rep McNulty, Michael R. - 11/19/2003 [NY-21]
Rep Millender-McDonald, Juanita - 11/19/2003 [CA-37]
Rep Miller, George - 11/19/2003 [CA-7]
Rep Moran, James P. - 11/19/2003 [VA-8]
Rep Norton, Eleanor Holmes - 11/19/2003 [DC]
Rep Olver, John W. - 11/19/2003 [MA-1]
Rep Owens, Major R. - 11/19/2003 [NY-11]
Rep Pallone, Frank, Jr. - 11/19/2003 [NJ-6]
Rep Sanders, Bernard - 11/19/2003 [VT]
Rep Schakowsky, Janice D. - 11/19/2003 [IL-9]
Rep Shays, Christopher - 11/19/2003 [CT-4]
Rep Slaughter, Louise McIntosh - 11/19/2003 [NY-28]
Rep Stark, Fortney Pete - 11/19/2003 [CA-13]
Rep Weiner, Anthony D. - 11/19/2003 [NY-9]
Rep Wexler, Robert - 11/19/2003 [FL-19]
Rep Woolsey, Lynn C. - 11/19/2003 [CA-6]

Posted at 02:00 AM

getBlogName();