Miers and the Gays

Log Cabin can stop its equivocating and hesitating.  The views of Harriet Miers on gay issues are starting to come out, and they should give the GLBT community no reason for pause whatsoever.  Especially the views of someone running for office in Texas 16 years ago.  (Robbie touched on this last night.)

In 1989, while running for Dallas City Council, Miers filled out a questionnaire from the Lesbian/Gay Political Coalition of Dallas, which I have reprinted:

1. Do you believe that gay men and lesbians should have the same civil rights as non-gay men and women?

Yes.

2a. Do you, as an individual citizen, support repeal of Section 21.06 of the Texas Penal Code which criminalizes the private sexual behavior of consenting adult lesbians and gay men?

No.

2b. Do you support the inclusion of the repeal of Section 21.06 of the Texas Penal Code as a part of the City of Dallas's legislative agenda?

No.

3a. Do you believe that the City of Dallas has a responsibility to fund AIDS education and patient support services?

Yes.

3b. Would you support increasing the level of city funding for the above services (currently $550,000 per year)?

Yes, assuming need and resources.  I do consider the AIDS illness as a serious and total community problem.  [emphasis hers]

4a. Do you support a city ordinance that prohibits discrimination in housing and public accommodations based on AIDS/HIV status?

I prefer a legislative solution to the issues raised by these questions a and b.  I do not have all the facts on the significance of these ordinances; however, I am willing to discuss the need and make an appropriate decision when fully advised.

4b. Would you support passage of a city ordinance prohibiting discrimination in employment based on race, religion, age, sex, national origin, AIDS/HIV status, or handicapped condition?  (Currently, Dallas has no city ordinance dealing with employment discrimination.)

(see a)

5. Do you believe that qualified gays or lesbians should be denied employment (including employment by the police or fire departments) by the City of Dallas solely because of sexual orientation?

I believe that employers should be able to pick the best qualified person for any position to be filled considering all relevant factors.

The pinkist ideologues will have a hey-day with answer 2, but the fact is that in 1989, the ink was barely dry on Bowers v Hardwick.  It would have been nice for a local Texas official to strike out against the unequivocal (and mean-spirited) Supreme Court ruling of just three years prior, but it also would not have been very realistic.

Over to you, HRC, NGLTF, et al.  That is, if you are still gay-rights organizations and not fronts for abortion rights.

Comments

[Ryan]

True, she was acceptable on gay issues in 1989, but she also used to contribute to Democrats then and had been pro-choice. I'm not suggesting all of these issues overlap, but she has made some significant changes in her political ideology since the late 80's and has admitted it was a result of her conversion to evangelical Christianity. Without a reaffirmation of her position on gay issues it seems more likely that she is ideologically cut from the President's mold.

[The Malcontent]

I will concede the point that people can change, but based on what I know of her, I don't think there is evidence to support it.

Keep in mind that a key part of the "president's mold" also includes historic funding for AIDS eradication and putative support for civil unions.

[Downtown Lad]

Why should we be relieved? She not only thought Browers was an acceptable Supreme Court decision, but she SUPPORTED laws that allowed the government to imprison gay people.

Who actually favors these laws? I don't care if it was 1989 - it's still extreme.

[The Malcontent]

As of a few days ago, wasn't it all but a fait accompli that the President would pick a fire-breather to satiate his base? By those standards, I am overjoyed, and my not-uneducated guess is that Harriet Miers did not become more strident in those 16 years.

[David]

But your "not-uneducated guess" completely fails to take into account the likeliest effect of her conversion to an evangelical church (one that its own pastor says would be called by others "fundamentalist").

She became quite active in that church in the '90s, in fact. It seems most unlikely that its social teachings would have had zero influence upon her own views.

[The Malcontent]

Wait, I thought the conservatives were the ones who were supposed to be going batshit over her.

She's a good egg, mark my word.

[Aaron]

Please remember - this questionaire was completed before she "found jesus" and decided that her democratic values were no longer in line with her new found faith. This lady is dangerous, and essentially the same as putting GWB himself on the court.

[AGR]

The NY Times says she "found Jesus" in 1979.

[Aaron]

Yes, but her political alignment with her religious views did not come until the 90's.

[Joshua]

I think it's sad that we have a nominee so unqualified we're poring over questionnaire's printed on shitty Xerox machines in 1989 for clues as to her beliefs.

I also find it obnoxious that this is considered relevant. What she feels is good policy has no bearing at all (or should not, were she a good nominee, which she is not) on what is Constitutional. She may very well like gays, think that, as a municipal legislator that pro-gay policies are the right thing to enact, but that doesn't mean that will find anti-gay policies unconstitutional. [As, indeed, many of them are not.]

And, Bowers has nothing to do with her stance here. When they ask if the law should be repealed she says "no." She could say "yes" without challenging Bowers -- Texas could have repealed its law at any time -- as for what Miers could have done in Dallas about the issue is less clear. And, in any event, Constitutional history shows that Bowers and Lawrence could be viewed differently -- as by O'Connor for instance, who voted to invalidate Texas's law but not Georgia's, based on her reading of the equal protection clause and not substantive due process.

[The Malcontent]

Joshua, do you think this President could have gotten any nominee with any sort of paper trail past the current Senate minority?

[Joshua]

Perhaps not, though Roberts did have clear views, he just managed to sneak around them. No one doubts he's a conservative jurist. But he's clearly qualified. And, listen, I'm a liberal but that won't stop me from being angry at my own leadership for being so foolish on this whole matter. We aren't entirely to blame -- it's the Christian Right that pushed the judiciary into the limelight in the late 90s, but the liberal response has been no less thick-headed.

I'd rather an honest fight over Mike McConnell than a charade of a fight over a woman with no qualifications for the office. I doubt even President Bush knows what this woman's philosophy is.

[The Malcontent]

I don't think Roberts had much of an established record. His time on the bench was too short to accurately assess him. And he was no more forthcoming than Ruth Ginsburg was in establishing "clear views."

I also don't think lack of a papertrail or lack of answers to inappropriate questions by Senators -- regardless of which party's nominee it is -- should be a disqualification.

[Joshua]

Are you honestly trying to tell me that every single US Senator wasn't aware that Ginsburg was had a liberal philosophy? Or that Roberts has a conservative one? Individual issues (like Roe) aside, Roberts legal career is filled with deeply intellectual conservative writing.

So, if having no judicial or major government experience doesn't disqualify someone, and we aren't allowed to ask them about their philosophy, and they've produced no documents attesting to this philosophy, then exactly who could be disqualified? Why have the Senate vote at all? For all we know, Miers has no in-depth legal knowledge, no interest in Constitutional law and no knowledge of it. I'd be happy enough if the Senators at least gave her an impromptu quiz asking her to discuss and analyze, without notes, several major court cases and basic Constitutional theories. Because, for all we know, she hasn't so much as read the Constitution since SMU.