Posted on 10/04/2005 11:58:38 PM PDT by AFA-Michigan
In handwritten notes on the last page of Harriet Miers' 1989 "gay rights" candidate questionnaire, one of the homosexual activists who interviewed the candidate ascribes to Miers' opening statement the following comment:
"My personal conviction is not consistent with (the) homosexual lifestyle...(or)...to decriminalize (homosexual) behavior."
It's not clear to me what it means.
Ok... She seems to use a turn of phrase, anyway this statement is quite old.
Okay, so we know her "personal convictions". Is that going to prevent her from making a sound legal decision?
I interpret the alleged comment, if true, to mean that Miers' personal convictions are that homosexual behavior is wrong and should not be decriminalized. In a separate question, she flatly said she would not support repealing Texas' anti-sodomy law. People on both the left and right seem to be misinterpreting her responses to the homosexual activist group's candidate survey. As president of a pro-family group that's routinely labeled "anti-gay," I could have answered those survey questions the same way she did. She certainly wasn't committing her support for their agenda...just the opposite in those cases in which she answered definitively.
And I assure you I'm no Bush sycophant straining to find reasons to support her nomination. I wish he'd nominated the conservative equivalent of Ginsberg, someone with a clear record whose words we don't have to parse to try to figure out if she's one of us, so to speak.
Well, that is some comfort, anyway. Elderly and unmarried, one had to wonder if she might not have a "special" girl friend, and was (as my mother used to put it) an "old maid".
Jesus said: "And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore, they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." -from THE BIBLE: Matthew 19:4-6
Oh come on. The majority of elderly, unwed women aren't lesbians. I had two unmarried great aunts and an unmarried great uncle. My son's piano teacher is an unmarried elderly man. All these folks had time consuming careers, and they never married, that didn't make them homosexuals.
I did not want to imply that she was a homosexual. I just think not marrying limits her life experience.
Really? You called her the equivalent of Al Sharpton just nine months ago.
"You know, I would have been better with JRB"
- Better is not "the best" -
You are a geek. What's your problem with me?
And remembering our conversation in January I just thought it would be interesting to have you clarify your reasoning.
...(or)...to decriminalize (homosexual) behavior."
I didn't realize BEING a Homosexual was against the law i mean i do in some states but not Constitutional Law anyway .
Illustrative-yet again-of why this woman should be rejected.
She can not even craft a coherent sentence explaining her beliefs, why should we believe that she has a coherent judicial philosophy?
Sorry i won't ascribe to that..... "One sentence does not form up her philosophy " especially one sentence quoted by someone else with an agenda !
GWB Picked this woman for a reason i don't think he would purposely pick a loony
It's his choice not the democrats or republicans choice nor is it the liberals or the conservatives choice it's The Presidents Choice !
So be it .
And the fact that it's his choice does not obligate the Senate to ratify it.
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.