TEACHING HISTORY OF RACE IN MILITARY SCHOOLS
Voting 227 for and 201 against, the House on July 13, 2023, adopted an amendment to the fiscal 2024 defense budget (HR 2670) that would prohibit schools operated for U.S. military children from teaching U.S. racial history. Such instruction, which typically covers the Constitution’s denigration of Blacks, America’s embrace of slavery and the Jim Crow era, is labeled “critical race theory” by its critics.
Floor Debate, Pro & Con:
Sponsor Chip Roy, R-Texas, said “our education system is using `critical race theory’ outside of the Department of Defense, but in this case inside the [department], to turn schools into a propaganda machine dedicated to raising students up [to] judge one another by race and [to] hate our country’s founding principles…is wrong. It’s anti-American and it is societal suicide.”
Opponent Jim McGovern, D-Mass., said: “The Constitution said that Black people weren’t full people when it was written. Does [Roy] want to pretend it didn’t happen?…It wasn’t until the 14th Amendment that passed in 1868 that the three-fifths compromise was specifically repealed….I find it incredibly disgusting this [amendment] was made in order. This is wrong, racist and really offensive.”
A yes vote was to adopt the amendment.
MILITARY DIVERSITY, EQUITY, INCLUSION
Voting 214 for and 213 against, the House on July 13, 2023 adopted an amendment to the fiscal 2024 defense budget (HR 2670) that would eliminate funding for Department of Defense personnel, offices and programs charged with advancing “diversity, equity and inclusion” in the armed forces.
Floor Debate, Pro & Con:
Sponsor Ralph Norman, R-S.C., said: “We should be focusing on diversity of ideas and opinion, not race and genders… To sum up, a `woke’ military is a weak military.”
Opponent Jill Tokuda, D-Hawaii, said: “From the backwards, racially insensitive comments spoken on this floor, it seems “DEI” training would be good right here in the halls of Congress.”
A yes vote was to adopt the amendment.
GENDER CARE FOR MILITARY PERSONNEL
Voting 222 for and 211 against, the House on July 13, 2023, adopted an amendment to the fiscal 2024 defense budget (HR 2670) that would prohibit the Department of Defense’s Tricare health plan from funding medical care including surgeries and therapies for transgender servicemembers and their families.
Floor Debate, Pro & Con:
Supporter Ralph Norman, R-S.C., said “the surgery alone cannot solve the root issue for these individuals,” and funding their health care is “nothing but a distraction and waste of valuable taxpayer dollars” in the military budget.
Opponent Sara Jacobs, D-Calif., said the amendment would impair recruitment “by pushing transgender service members out of the military…because gender-affirming care that gives you the ability to be your true authentic self is primary care and shouldn’t be something easily dismissed.”
A yes vote was to adopt the amendment.
TRANSGENDER WOMEN IN SCHOOL SPORTS
Voting 219 for and 203 against, the House on April 20, 2023, passed a Republican-sponsored bill (HR 734) that would amend federal education and civil rights law to prohibit persons whose biological sex at birth was male, and who then changed their gender to female, from taking part in school sports designated for women and girls whose sex at birth was female. When Title IX was added in 1972 to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it opened sports participation in high school and in college to females on an equal basis with males, with schools facing a loss of federal funding if they failed to comply. The current bill would redefine discrimination under Title IX in a way that protects biologically female student athletes against having to compete in school sports with those who have changed their sex to female because that is the gender they identify with.
Floor Debate, Pro & Con:
Supporter Greg Steube, R-Fla., said: “For thousands of years in human history, we have recognized as a species that there are women and there are men, who are obviously biologically different, dare I say even scientifically different….Yet, over the last several years, there has been a perversion in our culture by the enemy, and the left has completely embraced the lie to erase the lines of gender and to convince you there isn’t really gender and that gender is fluid and can be whatever you want, whenever you want-again, more lies.”
Opponent Suzanne Bonamici, D-Ore., said: “Trans rights are human rights. Denying trans students the opportunity to play on sports teams that are consistent with their gender identity sends a clear message to those students that they don’t matter. If my Republican colleagues are interested in protecting women and girls, I have a long list of priorities that I am eager to work on. Let’s pass commonsense gun violence prevention legislation. Let’s pass legislation protecting reproductive freedom. Let’s pass paid family leave and medical leave and close the gender pay gap.”
A yes vote was to send the bill to the Senate, where it was destined to fail.
FEMALE ATHLETES’ RIGHT TO PRIVACY
Voting 204 for and 218 against, the House on April 20, 2023, defeated a Democratic motion that sought to prevent school officials from invading the privacy of female athletes while enforcing provisions of HR 734 (above). The motion sought to ensure the privacy of personal reproductive or sexual health information during inquiries to determine whether a female athlete is transgender. The motion also would expand the legal liability of officials who engage in sex-based harassment of school athletes identifying as female.
Floor Debate, Pro & Con:
Sponsor Becca Balint, D-Vt., said the House “is one of the most powerful bodies in our nation. We should be using our influence and our power for good. We should be alleviating the suffering of our constituents and not fanning the flames of fear and enabling discrimination. What upsets me the most about [the underlying] bill is that it is devoid of compassion for the kids who just want to live their lives.”
Opponent Harriet Hageman, R-Wyo., did not speak specifically on the Democratic motion, but asked earlier in debate: “What has gone so horribly wrong in our society where those of us who are not okay with our daughters and granddaughters sharing a locker room or a bathroom with boys are the ones that are considered to be crazy by the liberal elites, sports leagues and woke corporations?”
A yes vote was to adopt the motion.
WRITING SAME-SEX MARRIAGE RIGHTS INTO FEDERAL LAW
Voting 267 for and 157 against, the House on July 19, 2022, passed a bill (HR 8404) that would establish as federal law the right to same-sex marriage that the Supreme Court affirmed in Obergefell v. Hodges in 2015. The bill also would require states to honor valid out-of-state marriage licenses regardless of the couple’s sex, race, ethnicity or national origin. In addition, the bill would repeal the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) defining marriage as a union of one man and one woman and prohibiting federal recognition of same-sex marriages. Although invalidated by the Supreme Court, DOMA remains on the books.
Floor Debate, Pro & Con:
Supporter David Cicilline, D-R.I., said the bill would “send a clear message to worried couples that the federal government will continue to recognize same-sex and interracial marriages, no matter what the future holds.” Supreme Court justices “have taken away the freedom to reproductive care. They have hinted at taking away contraception. Justice Thomas urged them to look at marriage equality. This is real for families.”
Opponent Mike Johnson, R-La., called the bill “simple fear-mongering” given that Justice Samuel Alito, in his majority opinion in the case that struck down Roe v. Wade, said the decision would not endanger any other rights.
A yes vote was to send the bill to the Senate, where no vote has occurred.
MARRIAGE EQUALITY IN FEDERAL LAW
Voting 258 for and 169 against, the House on Dec. 8, 2022, gave final congressional approval to bill (HR 8404) that would establish as federal law the right to same-sex marriage that the Supreme Court affirmed in the case of Obergefell v. Hodges in 2015. The bill also would enshrine in federal law the court’s 1967 Loving v. Virginia ruling that interracial marriage is protected by the equal protection and due protection clauses of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. In addition, the bill would exempt individuals and groups from providing services for a wedding ceremony or celebration if doing so would violate their religious beliefs, and it states that the federal government is not authorized to recognize polygamous marriages.
The bill would require states to honor valid out-of-state marriage licenses regardless of the couple’s sex, race, ethnicity or national origin. In addition, it would repeal the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) that defines marriage as a union of one man and one woman and prohibits federal recognition of same-sex marriages. Although invalidated by the Supreme Court, DOMA remained on the books.
Floor Debate, Pro & Con:
Supporter Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., said: “As the mother of an incredible trans daughter, I am here to fight for her rights and those of all LGBTQ+ people, who for too long have been denied the dignity and the respect that they deserve. And as someone who is myself in an interracial marriage, it is far past time that we codify those rights.”
Opponent Vicky Hartzler, R-Mo., said the bill “only serves to further demonize biblical values by establishing a private right of action against organizations who believe in natural marriage, opening the floodgates for predatory lawsuits against people of faith. The bill’s only purpose is to hand the federal government a legal bludgeoning tool to drive people of faith out of the public square and to silence anyone who dissents.”
A yes vote was to send the bill to President Biden.
SENATE APPROVAL OF MARRIAGE EQUALITY
Voting 61 for and 36 against, the Senate on Nov. 29, 2022, passed a bill (HR 8404) that would establish as federal law the right to same-sex marriage that the Supreme Court affirmed in the case of Obergefell v. Hodges in 2015. The bill also would enshrine in federal law the court’s 1967 Loving v. Virginia ruling that interracial marriage is protected by the equal protection and due protection clauses of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. In addition, the bill would exempt individuals and groups from providing services for a wedding ceremony or celebration if doing so would violate their religious beliefs.
The bill would require states to honor valid out-of-state marriage licenses regardless of the couple’s sex, race, ethnicity or national origin. In addition, it would repeal the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) that defines marriage as a union of one man and one woman and prohibits federal recognition of same-sex marriages. Although invalidated by the Supreme Court, DOMA remains on the books.
Floor Debate, Pro & Con:
Supporter Tammy Baldwin, D-Wisc., said: “The Supreme Court should not be in a position to undermine the stability of families with the stroke of a pen. So now Congress must act….By passing this bill, we are guaranteeing same-sex and interracial couples, regardless of where they live, that their marriage is legal and that they will continue to enjoy the rights and responsibilities that all other marriages are afforded.”
Opponent Mike Lee, R-Utah, said: “The proponents of this bill falsely claim that same-sex marriage is under attack because Justice Thomas suggested in a concurring opinion in Dobbs that the Supreme Court should take a closer look at all of its substantive due process jurisprudence; not necessarily to strike down those rulings, but often to consider whether they should be premised on a different constitutional hook.”
A yes vote was to send the bill to the House.
OUTLAWING DISCRIMINATION BASED ON SEXUAL ORIENTATION
Voting 224 for and 206 against, the House on Feb. 25, 2021, passed a bill (HR 5) that would expand the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Fair Housing Act of 1968 to protect LGBTQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer) individuals against discrimination based on their sexual orientation or gender identity. The proposed Equality Act also would expand the Civil Rights Act’s listing of public accommodations to include retail stores, banks and transportation and healthcare services, and it would designate sexual characteristics as a protected class in public accommodations. In addition, the bill would prohibit the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1994 from being invoked to sanction discrimination against the LGBTQ community.
Floor Debate, Pro & Con:
Supporter Chris Pappas, D-N.H., said the bill “will bring our nation closer to the promise of its founding and change the lives of generations of LGBTQ Americans for the better. This should be one of the easiest and most affirming votes we ever take. Equality is, after all, a self-evident truth. It is part of the bedrock of this nation.”
Opponent Greg Steube, R-Fla., said: “God intentionally made each individual male or female. When men or women claim their own sexual identity, they’re making a statement that God did not know what he was doing when he created them….When the nation’s laws no longer reflect the standards of God, that nation is rebelling against him and will bear the consequences.”
A yes vote was to send the bill to the Senate, where no vote has occurred.