Skip to comments.DRUDGE MISINFORMS: MEIRS OPPOSED GAY "RIGHTS"
Posted on 10/04/2005 1:31:56 PM PDT by dangus
Many people reading "The Drudge Report" would think that Harriet Miers holds very liberal positions, based on Drudge's headline, "HARRIET MIERS SUPPORTED FULL CIVIL RIGHTS FOR GAYS AND LESBIANS." They would be wrong.
Harriet Miers' position apparently was basically what most conservatives believe: That there are no such civil rights as the right to marry someone of the same gender, the right to receive special legal protection in employment or houseing, or the right to commit sodomy. Thus, when asked whether she supports full civil rights for gays, she said she did -- not because she believes in the "special rights" claimed by homosexuals, but precisely because she opposed the notion that such special demands being constitute civil rights.
When asked if "gay men and lesbians should have the same rights as non-gay men and women," she said, "Yes." "Non-Gay" men and women in the state of Texas did not have the right to engage in sodomy, marry members of the same sex, or adopt children into households with corrupting influences.
Miers went on to explictly state that she would not support the repeal of Texas laws which were later struck down by Sandra Day O'Connor and the majority of the U.S. Supreme Court and which prohibited sodomy and other sexual practices of gays and others.
Miers also declined to support city ordinances which would prevent discrimination against HIV-positive persons in housing or employment. The question did not ask about discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, but rather on the basis of a medical condition, and thus Miers' position was well to the right of the Republican Congress which enthusiastically embraced the Americans with Disability Act.
When asked whether gays and lesbians should be denied employment by the city of Dallas, she stated that decision should be left up to employers. Again, not only does she implictly reject the notion that PRIVATE employers have the right to refuse to hire someone on the basis of sexual orientation, but she said she would grant PUBLIC employers that ability. Since she was running for City Council, that meant she would not only TOLERATE but even APPROVE of such denials, since the City Council would have the authority to establish hiring conditions.
The ONLY position Harriet Miers stated that would not inflame and enrage homosexuals was that she stated that she would raise funding for AIDS education and patient services. This was at a time when the AIDS population was exploding; to refuse to expand funding would have the effect of drastically curtailing per-person expenditures. Gay activists claimed Presidents Reagan and Bush (Sr.) didn't raise funding levels enough, a charge which Reagan vehemently and angrily rebutted.
In conclusion, contrary to the implication that the positions expressed by Harriet Miers on this survey were liberal, they were in fact EXTREMELY CONSERVATIVE!
What's next, some folks will say she's a lesbo because she never married?
Oh, nevermind, they already did that...
The more I read about Miers today, the more I think "true conservatives" are doing their own cause a serious and significant disservice. Funny thing is...I think Harry Reid is too! : D
Some edits which come along too late.
houseing = housing. And I don't know how the word "beings" got inserted into the phrase "special demands constitute civil rights." And I mean to say "homosexual activists" when I refer to "homosexuals" being enraged and inflamed; many homosexuals don't agree with the political demands of the explicitly homosexual activists.
Well, I don't see anything wrong with supporting "full civil rights" for gays. I certainly support full civil rights for gays. I can't think of a single civil right that I have which I would deny to a gay person. Also, I don't see why any special rights should be conferred on someone on account of their being a homosexual.
Actually Brent Hume on Fox covered this already. The report was based on the wrong name and the source retracted their comments a few hours later and drudge removed his.
Sometimes drudge behaves like michael moore, quoting out of context to create distortion and hysteria.
I expect better from conservatives...maybe I am delusional in this expectation.
I've been seeing the same thing with regards to her stance on "Gay and Lesbian" issues. What the "I'll never vote republican again" conservatives are doing is implying because she did not come out and want to stone the gays she is somehow in league with them.
Also, the implication that she must be gay because she is 60 and unmarried, without a shred of evidence, is utterly reprehensible and very evil.
>> Oh, nevermind, they already did that... <<
I never SAID that Harriet Miers was a Lesbian. I just snidely suggested maybe Ginsburg was pleased with the nomination of a 60-year-old bachelorette. ;^). (I know you hadn't been referring to me. My sarcasm was stemming from the fact that I was not pleased with Bush picking another "pig in a poke" who would make the American Great Unwashed suspect cronyism. I'll admit Miers isn't my first choice. I just wanted other conservatives to withold judgment until they heard more. )
Sorry, a cut and paste moron I am
Mod delete these posts..please
I was most happy by the "preferred legislative response" to the questions.
And I also support full civil rights for gays --- just not special ones --- which is where she seemed to be going.
Let me try this again
From the NRO corner
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.
>> Sorry, a cut and paste moron I am <<
Learn how to cut and paste if you are going to go on Free Republic, Yoda!
So Bush has to discriminate against someone on the basis of geneder by not picking a woman, in order to prove that he would not discriminate against someone on the basis of gender?
Sorry, but Bush picked a man last time.
Which allegation did Drudge remove? Do you mean that Harriet Miers never donated to Gore and Bentsen?
Not surprising, since Drudge himself is a rumored homosexual.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.