GayPatriot

The Internet home for American gay conservatives.

TIME: Miers Backed ‘Full Civil Rights’ For Gays

by

Hat Tip: Hotline On Call

From TIME.com – A Sampling of the Writings of Harriet Miers

An indication of her stance on gay rights comes from this questionaire from the Lesbian/Gay Political Coalition of Dallas Miers filled out while running for the Dallas City Council in 1989. In it, she supported full civil rights for gays and lesbians and backed AIDS education programs for the city of Dallas. (Source: Quorumreport.com)

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Comments

  1. Raises my opinion of her, but I think the hard Right is going to shoot her down in the end.

    I don’t know what got into Bush, nominating someone the Democrats & liberal interest groups love! Tammy Bruce says she expect him to put on a cardigan next. (I.e., turning into Jimmy Carter)

  2. Yet she was against repealing the Texas gays-only sodomy statute.
    It’s a mixed record, but I would like to hear her reasoning for her position. I’ve yet to hear a coherent arguement for it that doesn’t trace it’s source to “we have the right to hate certain kinds of people and enact that hate into law”.(Which actually does have some validity to it).

  3. ?????? How is it ever valid?

    “We have a right to hate certain actions, and to isolate / punish the people who can be proven to do those actions” is valid – If and only if the said actions are harmful to others in fact. (Wouldn’t include sodomy laws.)

  4. Mier was running for political office in Dallas in 1989. In my home state of Texas in 1989 there was an ongoing conversation surrounding the repeal of 21.06. Needless to say there was not much support anywhere in the state (outside of maybe Austin) for the repeal of this law. Some had this stance because they thought it was catering to “gays”, some because they simply are against gays period, and some because, to them it was a non-issue because it had practically never been enforced. (sort of like the law on the books that said stealing a horse was a hanging offense).

    In 1989 it would not have been politically smart for any politician actually wishing to be elected to come out in favor of that repeal. It certainly didn’t help Ann Richards. The greater point to this piece is that she actually went and met with the LGPC. Most politicians (democrat, republican or otherwise) wouldn’t have done that during this time frame. Most didn’t even seek endorsement of any gay group. Miers meeting with the LGPC and the other questions she answered,to me, shed more light on her actual stance toward gay persons than the “no” on repeal of 21.06.

  5. From today’s NRO

    LOADED QUESTIONS: THIS READER HAS A POINT [Kathryn Jean Lopez]

    …was loaded. You say that you’d answer “Of course!” to the question “Do you believe that gay men and women should have the same civil rights as non gay men and women”, but you seem to be assuming that what YOU mean by “civil rights” is the same thing as what THEY mean.

    Part of the current argument over homosexual (and soon, group) marriage is the concept of “marriage is a CIVIL RIGHT”. It is also a civil right to have any job that one is qualified for, including Scoutmaster (yes, I know it’s not a formal job, so what?) and other sensitive positions.

    So that questionnaire was a trap, even in 1989, designed to put someone on the spot: either as a cold, heartless homophobe who wants to put gays in jail and deny them the vote, or as someone who has essentially signed a blank check that can be cashed over and over again as the homosexual lobby pushes its agenda. And saying some years later “Hey, that’s not what I meant by ‘civil rights'” merely will make one look like a nitwit who has revealed the inner homophobe…

    A no-win situation. The proper solution is to not fill out such trap-laden questionnaires.

    From today’s andrewsullivan.com

    QUOTE OF THE DAY II: “We believe in the biblical approach to marriage,” – Harriet Miers’ pastor, Ron Key, according to Marvin Olasky, religious right muckety-muck. I don’t think he’s referring to polygamy or, ahem, divorce. Miers, of course, has never married. Is that also the “Biblical approach”?

    – 12:06:00 PM

    QUOTE OF THE DAY: “Some of what I know I am not at liberty to talk about,” – James Dobson, Focus on the Family. Isn’t it strange that a man like Dobson now knows more about Harriet Miers than the Senate will ever likely be able to find out?

    Perhaps Miers is not “personally” homophobic.

  6. This all depends on what is meant by “civil rights,” doesn’t it? Surely, no one outside of Rev. Phelps would argue that gays shouldn’t vote or have a right to trial by jury. The question is so vague as to render the answer meaningless.

    Thirty years from now, people will be looking back on this pick and will ask “was this the best the Republicans could do?” The fact is that this question is being asked is pretty sad. Ms. Miers may have been a competent manager of her law firm and a skilled politician of her local and state bar (and since I am an officer of my state’s bar, I know it’s all politics). But being a Justice has very little to do with management and political skill. To my knowledge, Ms. Miers has never demonstrated nor has she ever been in a position where her legal reasoning skills were in any way challenged. Heck, she has never even been admitted to the U.S. Supreme Court Bar! And becoming a S.C. Bar member requires an intact law license and $100 fee. Even Bill Clinton – who was not particularly noted for his legal skills – was a member.

    Is Harriet the best? Hell, no. And at this point I would not be surprised if GWB puts his lawn care guy in charge of the National Parks system.

  7. It is all about corruption and cronyism.
    From Cheny to Boulton to Brownie to Miers.
    A chain of cronyism.
    And Harry Reid approves of her.
    It doesn’t get any better.
    H@@@

  8. We will be getting to the corruption part when the Turd Blossom blooms.
    The worm will turn and the Turd Blossom will bloom.
    I love a good metaphor.
    {{{grins}}}

  9. I am trusting that W knows how Miers thinks. He’s known her for a long time. But, it’s a gamble just like everything else. She could turn out to be another Souter but then she might be a real Trojan horse.

    Harry Reid likes her and Kennedy and the rest of the pro-abortionists in the Senate will probably go along – and then, hopefully – a pleasant surprise for conservatives.

    Miss Miers is an evangelical Christian and reported by her acquaintances to be anti-abortion. Abortion is all that the Dems care about when picking a Supreme.

    If she’s anti-abortion, I’ll trust her on the rest.

  11. Can you please define “civil rights”. Since she has publicly stated that she favors making it ILLEGAL for gay people to have sex, how does that mean she favors “civil rights” for gay people.

    You do realize that even Clarence Thomas thought the sodomy laws were “silly” and said he would not support them if he were an elected official.

    She is obviously to the right of Clarence Thomas on this matter.

    I still think she should be confirmed. Bush gets to make his choice. But don’t expect her to be a friend to the gay community.

  12. It seems to me we have 2 wildly divergent views of Miers represented here.

    In one view, she is a Democratic sympathizer who in 1988 loved Al Gore so much that she gave him her hard-earned pennies. Today in 2005, Harry Reid approves of her. HRC and the abortion lobby can’t seem to complain about her. She was famously one of the earlier people in America to view AIDS sufferers sympathetically and deal with AIDS as a total community problem.

    In the other view, she is an evangelical Christian convert (?) who secretly, but firmly opposes both abortion and gay rights. James Dobson has secret information about her he can’t share. Social conservatives are advised to “trust Bush” on this one.

    I don’t see how both views can be true. So, which is true?

    Right now, I am seeing more evidence for the first one.

    I sort of lose, either way. I think Lawrence (striking down sodomy laws on remarkably libertarian grounds) was a very good decision. I also think Kelo (curtailing property rights, for eminent domain) was a very bad decision. What I care about is liberty, including property rights. For Miers to be either a Democratic toady or a James Dobson toady tells me nothing about where she stands on those things, since both are perfectly willing to violate liberty and property rights in different ways.

  13. You’re right, monty, Miers position on abortion is not the only issue that’s important. The other issue that I care about is the Second Amendment. Will Miers uphold our right to bear arms?

    Miers wrote after a courthouse shooting spree in Fort Worth:

    How does a free society prevent a man from climbing to the top of a tower on a university campus and randomly killing whoever is in sight? How does a free society prevent a man from driving a truck into a cafeteria and executing patrons? How does a free society prevent a man from entering a courtroom and opening fire? We are loath to hear the answer to these questions as it comes from our lips, because the suggested solutions usually infringe on precious, constitutionally guaranteed freedoms.

    The same liberties that ensure a free society make the innocent vulnerable to those who prevent rights and privileges and commit senseless and cruel acts. Those precious liberties include free speech, freedom to assemble, freedom of liberties, access to public places, the right to bear arms and freedom from constant surveillance. We are not willing to sacrifice these rights because of the acts of maniacs.

    The rest is here.

    And no I don’t care what she thinks about “gay rights.” There’s no such thing.

  14. Via Instapundit, an interesting comment from George Will: http://instapundit.com/archives/025995.php

    I think the basic point there is, anything unconstitutional that has come from George Bush, has come from Harriet Miers.

    For example, Bush’s signing of McCain-Feingold (which I find grossly unconsitutional). We don’t know Miers’ exact view on it – but she sure didn’t resign over it. Also, what about the FMA? Who do we think advised Bush on that?

    Bush is saying “Trust me – My lawyer is exactly what we need on the Supreme Court” but that is not at all clear. The one really great thing Bush has done in his 5 years is pursue a vigorous War on Terror. Many other things Bush has done at home have been at least questionable. Domestically, Bush is no devotee of liberty rights.

    We should evaluate Miers by looking at the record of Bush Administrations positions on various issues. With Miers, Bush is (in effect) appointing his own domestic record to the Supreme Court. From information available right now, I think Republicans and the Senate should reject her.

  16. #13 – “There is no such thing [as gay rights]”.

    Pat – if by that you mean that nobody’s rights (should) derive from their status as members of some group, I agree.

    But when society at large chooses to persecute or deny basic rights to certain individuals that (in society’s eyes) constitute a group, it’s useful to speak of that group’s “rights” (really meaning the individual rights of the persecuted individuals) just because you don’t have all day.

    So begins the slippery slope. But I’m saying, “gay rights” exist in that narrow sense. Example: Sodomy laws are a violation of individual “rights retained by the people” (9th Amendment and others) and, insofar as sodomy laws are targeted to persecute gays, overturning sodomy laws becomes a gay rights cause.

  17. For example, Bush’s signing of McCain-Feingold (which I find grossly unconsitutional). We don’t know Miers’ exact view on it – but she sure didn’t resign over it. Also, what about the FMA? Who do we think advised Bush on that?

    I see two issues with that statement.

    First, while the President should to some degree exercise discretion over whether or not a legislative measure is constitutional, it should not be required of him or her that they veto every measure that they feel is such. The ultimate arbiter of existing constitutionality is the judicial, not the executive.

    Second, by definition, the FMA would be “constitutional” if it were passed, given that it is an amendment to the Constitution. The Marriage Protection Act and the Defense of Marriage Act are open for debate on their constitutionality; however, the general consensus, at least on DOMA, is that the Federal government, like state governments, does have at least some right to decide which relationships they will and won’t recognize legally. Ironically, Sandra Day O’Connor’s concurring opinion in Lawrence establishes that it is not a violation of equal protection for government to regulate “public acts”, i.e. adoption and marriage; the Court and the Federal circuit courts have further strengthened that by ruling against or refusing to hear cases arguing that Lawrence justifies overturning state bans on polygamy, child marriage, gay marriage, or adoptions by gays.

  18. Ann Coulter remarked that 99.9% of all lawyers are unqualified and unprepared to be on the U.S. Supreme Court. This is no slam on attorneys, but a reality most in the legal field understand. The fact is that Miers is not among the .01% who would make great justices.

    Souter did not start out as a flaming liberal. Most of his decisions were slightly to the right of center. It was only with time and a lot of prodding from the left side of the Court that he became what he is today. Rolled.

    The same is true of Miers. Sure, she may have made some unspoken commitments on how she would vote, but when Bush leaves office she will still be there. Is there any way to guarantee her continued loyalty? Nope. And given the fact that she was voting for Democrats as late as 1988, we have no assurances that she won’t go back to her old ways.

  19. By “unconstitutional” I was referring to McCain-Feingold.

    And I find your statement about it incorrect. You suggest that Bush can legitimately sign something while knowing or believing it to be it was unconstitutional. But – the President’s oath is to maintain and defend the Constitution. If a President ever signs anything that he himself believes is unconstitutional, he ought to be impeached. Giving Bush the benefit of the doubt, Bush must have then truly believed McCain-Feingold to be constitutional, when he signed it. And the SCOTUS agreed. But SCOTUS decisions can also be mistaken – which is why appointments to it are so important, and why we are having this discussion at all. Bottom line: Bush got legal advice from somebody that McCain-Feingold was somehow constitutional – almost certainly from Miers among others – and now wants to repeat the mistake by appointing that same Miers to SCOTUS. Ugh!!

    FMA – Obviously, if the FMA passes, it will be “constitutional” at that point. But any legal document may be given contradictory amendments over time. FMA goes against the whole theory of federalism that has been a crucial linchpin of the Constitution’s structure, up to this point in time.

  20. But – the President’s oath is to maintain and defend the Constitution.

    Actually, the oath is as follows:

    “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of president of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

    The point of the oath is that the President must do his or her best to keep the Constitution itself from being removed or subverted. While I see your point of logic, the fact that the President is not the ultimate arbiter of what is and isn’t constitutional removes the issue as such. Furthermore, since the President isn’t even the absolute arbiter of what should be legislatively created (since a Presidential veto can be overridden), I think we need to be certain that we not hold him or her responsible for a check that they aren’t capable of making or enforcing.

  21. joe said:

    Pat – if by that you mean that nobody’s rights (should) derive from their status as members of some group, I agree.

    But when society at large chooses to persecute or deny basic rights to certain individuals that (in society’s eyes) constitute a group, it’s useful to speak of that group’s “rights” (really meaning the individual rights of the persecuted individuals) just because you don’t have all day.

    So begins the slippery slope. But I’m saying, “gay rights” exist in that narrow sense. Example: Sodomy laws are a violation of individual “rights retained by the people” (9th Amendment and others) and, insofar as sodomy laws are targeted to persecute gays, overturning sodomy laws becomes a gay rights cause.

    Well, I never thought I would disagree with you, joe, but I do. Anti-sodomy laws were not enacted to “persecute” gay. They were enacted to protect society from what was percieved (and still is by the vast majority of people all over the world) as immoral and unhealthy behavior just as incest and prostitution were outlawed and just as marriage was limited to opposite-sex couples and not to same-sex couples or groups.

    Our inalienable rights are granted to us by God. Our civil rights are granted to us by society. They may not have the right to limit individual behavior but they do have the power to do so. As an individual I can be accepted and even appreciated by straight society by my character, ethics and usefulness.

    I don’t care if gays want make demands but I prefer to make myself accepted by being a useful, loving and decent person who is respected in spite of being a bit queer. Making demands does not inspire respect and I’m convinced that the demands for gay rights has done more harm than good. In fact I have been thinking of writing about this on my blog in more detail because I am only just beginning to think it through.

  22. I don’t care if gays want make demands but I prefer to make myself accepted by being a useful, loving and decent person who is respected in spite of being a bit queer. Making demands does not inspire respect and I’m convinced that the demands for gay rights has done more harm than good. In fact I have been thinking of writing about this on my blog in more detail because I am only just beginning to think it through.

    Please do. I’d love to read it.

  24. Making demands does not inspire respect and I’m convinced that the demands for gay rights has done more harm than good.
    =====================

    Get to the back of the bus, Miss Parks.