PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Jun 22, 2017
Lavender Offense Victim Exoneration Act of 2017 or the LOVE Act of 2017
This bill requires the Department of State to review employee terminations at the State Department in the 1950s and 1960s to determine who was wrongfully terminated due to their actual or perceived sexual orientation (known as the Lavender Scare).
The bill contains an apology from Congress for its role in encouraging the termination of State Department employees based on sexual orientation.
The State Department is required to:
create a reconciliation board to change the employment records of those affected, to receive oral testimony of those affected, and to allow former employees to bring a grievance if they believe their termination was due to their sexual orientation;
create an advancement board to address employment issues of current LGBTQI Foreign Officers;
establish a permanent exhibit about the terminations in the State Department's U.S. Diplomacy Center;
report to Congress about countries refusing to issue visas to spouses of Foreign Service personnel because of their sexual orientation.
People & committees
Sen. Cardin, Benjamin L. [D-MD] · D–MD
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 11, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze S.1420 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine S.1420 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine S.1420 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine S.1420 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.