(AP) Miers Backed Gay Civil Rights [When actually she didn't]

Miers Backed Gay Civil Rights

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2005/10/03/national/a172304D12.DTL

By CALVIN WOODWARD, Associated Press Writer

Monday, October 3, 2005


(10-03) 17:23 PDT WASHINGTON (AP) --

<snip>
Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers went on record favoring equal civil rights for gays when she ran for Dallas city council, and she said the city had a responsibility to pay for AIDS education and patient services.


But Miers opposed repeal of the Texas sodomy statute — a law later overturned by the court on which she will sit if confirmed — in a survey she filled out for a gay-rights group during her successful 1989 campaign.


The survey by the Lesbian/Gay Coalition of Dallas provides a hint of Miers' thinking on homosexual rights issues that could come before the court. Although she came to a coalition meeting to answer questions during the campaign, she said at the time that she was not seeking its endorsement.


The Supreme Court struck down the prohibition on consensual homosexual sex in 2003 on a 6-3 vote. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, whom Miers is nominated to replace, voted with the majority.

<snip>

If you read the article she DID NOT support gay rights. Seems she did just the opposite.

"Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers went on record favoring equal civil rights for gays when she ran for Dallas city council, and she said the city had a responsibility to pay for AIDS education and patient services."

But Miers opposed repeal of the Texas sodomy statute — a law later overturned by the court on which she will sit if confirmed — in a survey she filled out for a gay-rights group during her successful 1989 campaign.


Seems she is in favor of gay rights so long as they don't want to have sex.

I'm just saying that it's not a totally false headline, but I will grant that it's pretty misleading.

And you're right, what good are gay rights without the right to sex?

Someone can be for AIDS education and patient care, and be against actual gay civil rights. It's just that journalists's as a class are dumber than dumb.

...before she was against them?

She went on record with these positions in 1989 when she was running for a city council seat (why oppose a law that a city council has no authority over?) It's a generation later, and only 13 states still had sodomy laws in 2003. If some fundie community wanted to prosecute a couple for what they did behind closed doors, It's hard for me to imagine anyone ruling such a law as constitutional. As it's likely to be another ten years or more before the case is revisited, I'm not even sure if Roberts would go that far.

Sorry, but I don't trust anyone who attends a church that promotes fundamentalist insanity.

and yet I have no problem trusting many Mormons/Catholics who I agree with politically. Harry Reid, Kerry, Ted Kennedy, etc. There are legitimate reasons to oppose Miers, like her lack of experience or scant legal record. Condemning the church she attends seems like a very weak reason.

How is Miers' church any worse than the RCC or the Mormons?

fundamentalist Christians believe in the bible literally.

They don't see it as a fairy tale or a parable.... they believe every contradictory phrase.

That's news to me. They seem to take their regressive views on abortion and homosexuals pretty seriously to me. And yet you single out "evangelical christians" for these beliefs? Why is that?

of course they think it's "disordered" or whatever idiotic phrase they use, but at least they GET the existence of gay people. They acknowledge that gay people have a fixed orientation. They don't want them acting on it, as they believe all sex outside of marriage is a sin. But many American Catholics (until this Pope, anyway) have a long history of liberal social views on everything from gay people to abortion.

Not so with fundamentalist Christians. They are the seed for most of the anti-gay rights movement in this country. They don't even acknowledge that gay people exist. They deliberately LIE (and they know it's a lie) and say that it's only a behaviour and that it can be "changed."

They are liars and why should gays and lesbians be subjected to their bigotry in the guise of a SC appointment? We don't go around trying to stop fundamentalists from getting married, falling in love or joining the army. We don't campaign to have constitutional amendments against fundamentalists. They do all those things to US. Not the other way around.

and the masses of other Dems who support gay marriage/civil unions while attending evangelical churches.

News to me. I thought he was just a garden variety born again Christian who belonged to a fairly liberal church.

You don't acknowledge that the movement of James Dobson, Falwell, Roberston and all the "Family" groups (read fundamentalist) is based in a religious belief system that lies about gays?

Mier may have opposed the overturning of the texas sodomy law because she knew how that particular case was going to be argued before the SCOTUS--anyone who was following the matter beforehand knew this. That case is a landmark for equal treatment for homosexuals under the law; it goes far beyond just the sodomy law. It is basically what has energized the same-sex marriage movement, because not one of the state laws enacted against gay marriage can stand up to that decision. So, I'm just saying, maybe she opposed overtuning the Texas sodomy law because she has deeper opposition to same-sex marriage. If she's all religious and shit, that wouldn't be surprising.

I'm not giving her a break here, I'm jst saying it may all be a lot more complicated than this article suggests.

wasn't even on the radar screen back then.