|
|
Matt Rosendale on Civil Rights |
A: No. The media likes to portray racial relations in this country to be worse than they really are. I believe our country and its people are far better than the media portrays.
Analysis by The Atlantic: Under Montana's state legislation, gay sex, [before this bill, was] a felony punishable with up to 10 years in jail and a $50,000 fine. SB 107 would change the definition of "deviate sexual relations" in the state--a full 16 years after the state Supreme Court ruled that the language criminalizing gay sex as unconstitutional--and no longer lump in gay sex as the same kind of crime as having sex with an animal.
The bloc of 36 Republicans want to keep the law in place: "Sex that doesn't produce people is deviant," says Rep. Dave Hagstrom. Rep. Jerry O'Neil, who also voted against the bill, said. "If some 2nd-grade teacher wants to introduce her lover to the kids, there isn't anything that the school board can do to stop that."
Legislative Outcome: Passed Senate 38-11-1 on Feb/20/13; State Sen. Matt Rosendale voted NO; Passed House 64-35-1 on Apr/10/13; Signed by Governor Steve Bullock on
A: Yes.
Q: Should same-sex couples be allowed to form civil unions?
A: No.
Q: Do you support the inclusion of sexual orientation in Montana's anti-discrimination laws?
A: Yes.
Q: Do you support the inclusion of gender identity in Montana's anti-discrimination laws?
A: Yes.
Rosendale adds, "All discrimination is wrong, however, so is preferential treatment."
The AFA inferred whether candidates agree or disagree with the statement, 'I support adding sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression as protected classes in non-discrimination laws'? Self-description: (American Family Association helps produce iVoterGuides): "Grounded in God; rooted in research"; they "thoroughly investigate candidates"; when they cannot "evaluate with confidence, they receive an 'Insufficient' rating" (& we exclude)
H.J.Res.17: Removing the deadline for the ratification of the equal rights amendment: This joint resolution eliminates the deadline for the ratification of the ERA, which prohibits discrimination based on sex. The amendment was proposed to the states in House Joint Resolution 208 of the 92nd Congress, as agreed to in the Senate on March 22, 1972. The amendment shall be part of the Constitution whenever ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states.
Opinion to vote YES (Rep. Terri Sewell (D-AL-7): The ERA was first proposed in 1923, shortly after women gained the right to vote. [The original] 1979 deadline was later extended before it expired. By the end of 1982, 35 of the 38 required state legislatures had voted to ratify the ERA. Nevada ratified the ERA in 2017, Illinois in 2018 and, in January 2020, Virginia became the 38th and final state required to ratify it. If passed in the Senate, H.J. Res. 79 would remove the arbitrary 1982 deadline.
Opinion to vote NO (Rep. Doug LaMalfa (R-CA-1): H. J. Res 17 would retroactively remove the deadline for the ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment. Regardless of your thoughts on the ERA, the deadline for the states to ratify the amendment expired four decades ago. By passing this resolution, House Democrats are virtue signaling and trying to take a shortcut around what is required in our constitutional amendment process. Those who want to pass an ERA will need to start this process from the beginning. Today's vote mocks the intentionally high bar set by our Founders to make changes to our precious Constitution.
Legislative Outcome: Passed House 222-204-4 on 03/17/2021; received in the Senate and read on 3/23. [OnTheIssues notes on the duration for ratification that the 27th Amendment to the United States Constitution was passed by Congress in 1789 and was ratified by 3/4 of the States and became law in 1992, a ratification period of 202 years].