pageok
pageok
pageok
Miers on Same-Sex Issues:
The New York Blade has a very interesting article describing a 1989 meeting between Harriett Miers and a gay rights group when Miers was running for Dallas City Council. An excerpt:
  Former Lesbian/Gay Political Coalition member Marc Lerro, a D.C. resident, said he recalls that Miers stated in the questionnaire [sent to her by the group] that she would not support a bill to repeal the Texas sodomy law, saying the matter would not come before the Dallas City Council.
  Lerro and Young said that although the group did not endorse Miers, members believed she made a positive gesture by completing the questionnaire and agreeing to meet with them.
  "She was not hostile nor did she come across as some kind of right-wing ideologue," said Young, a Dallas software engineer and a member of the Business Council of the Human Rights Campaign, a national gay political group.
  In Miers' meeting with members of the gay group, Lerro said Miers stated that she opposed abortion, a response that prompted the group to eliminate her from contention for obtaining the group's endorsement.
  Lerro said he endorsed Miers for the Council post, saying he recalls that she expressed general support for equal rights for gays and indicated she opposed discrimination based on sexual orientation.
  Link via FrontBurner, a local Dallas blog.
Anon2 (mail):
Miers' widely reported comments on gay rights are from 1989. She is also reported to have gradually moved away from supporting democracts (she contributed money to Al Gore in 1988) sometime in the late 80s or early 90s, and to have embraced an evangelical form for religion at around the same time (although the precise dates are unknown, at least by me).

This evolution raises the question of whether the Miers who offered (ambiguous) views on gay rights in 1989 is the "same" Miers as the one being nominated to the SCT. Indeed, Miers may be the "anti-Roberts" in more ways than one: there was evidence to suggest that Roberts has become more mellow and flexible (although still very conservative) since his days as a youthful Reaganite, but the sparse record currently available suggests that Miers may have moved in the opposite direction as she aged and entered the Bush inner-circle.
10.4.2005 7:13pm
Matt Bruce (mail) (www):
Why would her position on abortion be relevant to a gay-rights group?

(The best case for gay-rights activists to be pro-choice seems to be cynical bilateral partisanship. At least the best case for gay-rights activists to be pro-life involves some not terribly far-fetched hypothetical eugenics.)
10.4.2005 7:21pm
Big Daddy Matty (mail):
Matt, you took the words right out of my mouth. This is yet another example of the coercive groupthink of the left. If you're a woman, you have to think a certain way about "women's issues." If you're black, you can't possibly be fiscally conservative, because that's not the "black" way to think. And if you're gay, that orientation/lifestyle choice must also dictate your conscience regarding such seemingly disassociated issues as abortion, taxes, gun control, and the like. Perhaps these folks should take the time to get to know the writings of Tammy Bruce and Mason Weaver. It really is OK to leave the (pink) plantation.
10.4.2005 7:54pm
Rick:
A gay-rights group would be interested in a stance on abortion because it's a privacy right.
10.4.2005 7:57pm
Anderson (mail) (www):
I guess in 1989, gays were just happy that someone thought she could complete their questionnaire without getting AIDS.

Hoping that standards are a little higher now.
10.4.2005 7:58pm
The Drill SGT:
Color me astonished if a politician running for office didn't at least make an effort to appeal or at least be neutral to as many groups as possible.


I am not convinced of anything by any check box she marked on a questionnaire in 1989.

meaningless
10.4.2005 8:12pm
Shelby (mail):
Drill SGT:

Now if she had partially punched a chad, maybe we could glean something. ;-)
10.4.2005 8:19pm
Lab:
A long time ago, in a galaxy far away.
10.4.2005 8:41pm
Nathan Bauer (www):
Big Daddy Matty (mail) writes:

Matt, you took the words right out of my mouth. This is yet another example of the coercive groupthink of the left.


Is it just me, or do those two sentences sound pretty funny together? On a serious note, is it really that strange that two oppressed groups might be sympathetic to each other's plights? Or that they might have a common concern for privacy issues, as Rick points out?
10.4.2005 10:37pm
BigBob:
From the head of the Family Research Council:

"While I am relieved to have some of her reported responses, I have a concern that Miss Miers was helping to legitimize the drive of homosexual organizations for power and influence over our public policies. You can be sure Harriet Miers will be closely questioned on these and other matters when she appears before the Senate Judiciary Committee"
10.4.2005 10:55pm
BigBob:
"This is yet another example of the coercive groupthink of the left."

What's so coercive about a particular gay organization taking a stance on a non-gay issue? Is that so terrible? I feel like many conservatives would criticize gay groups for being too focused on one issue. Then when a particular gay organization branches out, they get accused of being coercive or engaging in groupthink? Can't win, huh.
10.4.2005 10:59pm
BigBob:
"This is yet another example of the coercive groupthink of the left."

What's so coercive about a particular gay organization taking a stance on a non-gay issue? Is that so terrible? I feel like many conservatives would criticize gay groups for being too focused on one issue. Then when a particular gay organization branches out, they get accused of being coercive or engaging in groupthink? Can't win, huh.
10.4.2005 10:59pm
BigBob:
Sorry for multiple posts.

Regarding Drill SGT's comment: "Color me astonished if a politician running for office didn't at least make an effort to appeal or at least be neutral to as many groups as possible." Conservatives routinely refuse to meet with LGBT groups, like the Log Cabin republicans. She volunteered met with a gay group in 1989. I don't think it means anything really, but I disagree with your suggestion that any politican will meet with any group.
10.4.2005 11:01pm
Cornellian (mail):
Umm, like George Wallace and blacks? There's a certain category of politician that depends on demonizing unpopular minority groups in order to get elected.

Color me astonished if a politician running for office didn't at least make an effort to appeal or at least be neutral to as many groups as possible.
10.4.2005 11:28pm