Miers backed gay rights but not repeal of sodomy law

[dogday]

WASHINGTON (AP) — 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.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-10-04-miers-gay_x.htm

[FourStarDemocrat]

1. Yeah, Civil Rights are fine as long as they don't have sex. n/t

[whatever4]

2. I'm never going to be okay with this woman

She fought to keep sodomy laws in 1989. Not so distant past. Also, it was a REAL case with real people involved. Real people being charged with 'sex crimes' of a consensual nature. She bought into that? Just 16 years ago? No way this women should sit on the Supreme Court.

To me, it's the same as someone that would have voted against letting women vote. The same thing as those that wanted to keep slavery. An issue that is pathetically easy to understand as religious, bigoted and flat-out hateful. SHE didn't see through it. Why the hell not?

She'll swing any way they want. She always has. She always will. THAT is what they said, isn't it? Her opinions will never change. Now.

[Laughing Mirror]

3. You are entitled to equal rights and benefits, just no sex

This is what her kind of Two Faces of Harriet schizophrenic position seems to be. Who knows why she hated equal rights in the bedroom too? Maybe she's just a prude, or completely sexless.

Tnteresting that she showed up at the LGBT meeting when she was running for city council in 1989. Maybe she was just poltiically astute answering their questions, and ambitious, dreaming of her career and political future. Maybe she was just curious about people her religious beliefs could not allow herself to imagine taking pleasure in having sex. Maybe she is redeemable.

[dogday]

4. Isn't she basically contradicting herself on these rulings? nt